Whether it was rifles or ammunition (the article says "small arms") it was sold to a Middle Eastern despot who is now in the process of slaughtering his people (a sniper rifle is little more than an ornament without ammunition).
It was also the case that sniper rifles and tear gas were sold to Gadaffi and delivered while the protests were taking place - are we to hear any condemnation of this from you pair?
These are both cases of weapons being sold to despotic killers and licenced by the British government - and this is what you continue to support by denial. I ask again - in the experience of a gun-nut, how many people can £300,000's worth of ammunition kill - or more to the point (from your own analysis) HOW MANY CIVILIANS ARE LIKELY TO BE KILLED BY SNIPERS WHO HAVE BEEN TRAINED USING SUCH AMMUNITION.
It is not me who is defending terrorist regimes - it is you pair of turds.
"where was this Government crystal ball with it's two year look-ahead in 2006?"
These people are undemocratic despots who should not at any time be provided with weapons to back up thier despotism - haven't we learned this from Britain having supplied parts "to ensure that Mugabe's Hawk jets were kept in the air."
Are you putting up the same argument for the present sale of arms to Bahrain or are we to wait for the slaughter to begin there?
"China and Russia supply them with barely a word against from you?"
The more this is repeated, the bigger this lie becomes - I condemned all arms sales to oppressive and unstable, undemocratic regimes at the beginning, the difference is I include British arms sales in that statement - you pair do not.
I assume we have now abandoned the accusation that I have supported "Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Russia, and China. YOU have repeatedly supported those entities in the past". I also assume that Keith's proposed support for Assad by supplying him with riot control equipment still stands?
What - no insult for my mother Terminus; she will be disappointed!
Jim Carroll