Vlad or Kim?

[Workingman]

And why haven't any of the many MPs who voted against our involvement bothered to ask either?

[Suff]

What was he doing there?

Whilst we took a decision not to be directly involved in the war, it was decided that we would take a stance against Assad and provide both advice and training for the rebels.

If you dig you will probably find he was on the training roster.

[cromwell]

it was decided that we would take a stance against Assad and provide both advice and training for the rebels.

Who decided that?

He might have been a trainer, he might have been an SAS sniper, we do't know because nobody is saying.

[Suff]

it was decided that we would take a stance against Assad and provide both advice and training for the rebels.

Who decided that?

It was quite public at the time. Whilst most people focused on the main feature of the government voting down Cameron's motion to attack Assad's government, I read all the other stuff about the UK providing "aid and support". Both to the rebels and to the Kurds. As I have a family tie to the Kurds I am quite interested in that.

[cromwell]

So now we have Trump one minute deciding that America's work is almost done in Syria, and the next minute Assad "launches a chemical attack". Result?America is staying in Syria.

Now call me cynical, but that seems very, very odd to me. All Assad had to do is keep is head down, let the US go and he's in a much better position. But no.

I'm not usually in favour of conspiracy theories but something very dark and dirty is going on here.

[Suff]

After the UN took Assad's chemical weapons, the only source left was in rebel hands.

Now, of course, as Assad has won back a lot of rebel held territory, you could claim that he now has stocks again. Then again Russia would want nothing to do with CW right now and Assad has absolutely Nothing to gain from using them. He can only lose.

Occam's razor again..