""I stated that non-lethal is preferable to lethal."
Imbecile sums it up
Whether or not other nations supply Assad with anything Britain should not supply any equipment to a murderous regime, especially not that which can be used to quash opposition and enable the Syrian authorities to round up the troublemakers and ship them off to their torture chambers as has obviously happened.
Assad's record on human rights has been known for at least a decade before the present troubles broke out - despite this the British Government continued supplying weapons and riot control equipment
Trading military equipment with murderous dictators not only gives them the wherewithal to murder and control the opposition - but it also gives them the kudos that comes with trading with the west.
Defectors from Assad's regime have pointed out how much he values his links with Britain - by trading, Britain has not only supported him in his terrorism, but it has retained those links, rather an breaking it as an act of opposition (which was being called for by his opponents.
Nioot forgetting, of course, that the chemicals that were sold by Britain helped him to create a stockpile of chemical weapons.
"would do no harm and might do some good."
Have go gone completely out of your ******* mind???
Yes you have been defending that list
You claimed from the beginning it was true and challenged us to disprove those claims
You produced half a dozen that you claimed proved your case (every single one flawed) and went on defending them after these flaws had been pointed out
Want me to cut-'n-paste all this or would you rather crawl up this thread and see for yourself?
Jim Carroll