"British companies sold chemicals to Syria that were then used"
Selling potentially of use to a mass-murderer is implicating Britain in a war crime.
Are you saying it's ok because he may or may not have used them yet?
"Personally I see quite a major difference in the statements - can't you?"
Not really - I haven't claimed they have been used, but they might have been and it is possible that, should the negotiations fail, he still has them for future use
What on earth is your point - or didn't your intensive training take you that far my little termite?
"Assad didn't start slaughtering his fellow citizens with his stockpile of Russian weaponry until March 2011."
You know more than I do then - where did he get the equipment he has been using to torture and suppress his people over the last couple of decaades then - we know of his human rights and abuses record - his torture chambers, his 'dissapearing' of his opponents - it ewas all covered in the Amnesty report on Syrian human rights abuses.
You raised the same point then - "did we have a crystal ball" was your exact wording.
Britain has known of Assad's behavior for as long as it has been going on, it was reported to them by amnesty, yet they continued to sell armoured cars, tear gas, and no, as it transpires, materials for chemical weapons (not forgetting your "sniper rifles of course)- and it has announced that it will continue to trade with whoever wins now - "British Trade must not be affected by the trouble" - remember my little terrapin?
Why is it necessary to point out the same thing over and over again to you morons - or have I just answered my own question?