1: "There never has been any dispute that Russia has been the main supplier of weapons to Syria"

It therefore follows according to your argument that they then are most certainly complicit in the atrocities that have occurred there - only thing is Jom, being impartial as you are, that you have never actually ever said that or specifically taken them to task over it.

2: "At the same time, there is no argument that Britain has been supplying chemicals that can, and probably were used for the production of sarin gas for over six years (at least)"

No argument that Britain has licenced the export of chemicals that could possibly have been used for the production of Sarin gas. But "could possibly have been" does not = were, or even probably were. Particularly when you match quantities to what the stated use was and the production of the companies involved - In short Jom there was no sodium fluoride left over to manufacture Sarin gas with.

There is also no argument, due to the existence of documented records that show, that no such chemicals have been exported from Britain to Syria since March 2010.

3: "Selling war criminals anything that is capable of killing and maiming human beings is - or should be - collusion in war crimes."

Agreed now let us hear you castigate the Russians and the Chinese for doing precisely that - but I will not hold my breath.

4: "When the withdrawal of all trade is a possible means to stop the massacres of civilians, and when this is suggested by an official who has taken part in those massacres, to ignore it is an act of gross inhumanity."

Of course withdrawal of trade is a possible means of halting the massacres of civilians - so tell us who is preventing such sanctions being implemented by the Security Council of the United Nations? Rhetorical question, we already know the answer to that Russia and China. The EU has put embargoes in place, Britain was instrumental in suggesting them, unfortunately the EU are the only nations observing them so they are reduced to being pointless and ineffective gestures.

5: "Britain continues to regard Assad's Syria as a trading partner whatever the outcome of the present conflict - ministers have made it clear that it "cannot be allowed to disrupt trading relationships."

Care to name me one single country in the world that does not take that stance? I know for a fact that you cannot. Doesn't alter the fact that at present the Russians are still trading with Assad's Syria, supplying him with weapons and with munitions, but Britain and the EU are not.

6: "You and your mate seem to feed on cut-n-pasted "facts" rather than the grim realities of trading with these monsters."

Only thing is Jom - WE are NOT trading with these monsters - Russia and China on the other hand ARE and they always have been.

7: I have never referred to any sale of sniper rifles by Britain to Syria - quite simply because there never has been any sale of sniper rifles to Syria by Britain. You on the other hand stated that Britain had supplied rifles to the Assad regime that were being used to kill people in Homs, and you persisted in that claim until it was pointed out to you that it was rifle ammunition, which you then said was being used to kill people in Homs. Only trouble with that giant leap was that while a licence to export a tiny amount of standard NATO 7.62mm ammunition was granted in 2009 (IIRC), there never was any record of the sale actually having gone through or of any delivery of that ammunition to Syria. The licence was issued to a private business and not any British Government Department.

I could not see why the Syrians who are equipped by the Russians would want standard Nato 7.62mm ammunition as that would be useless in the weapons that they used. So unlike doing as you do and merely run on conjecture I did a bit of research and found that the Iraqi Police had acquired Austrian Steyr SSG 69 rifles which use standard Nato 7.62mm ammunition - of the weapons available to the Syrian forces the Steyr would be the least effective to use in a combat situation (I mean let's face it you are going to elect to go into combat armed with a five round bolt action rifle rather than an equally accurate semi-automatic rifle with a thirty round magazine? - Yeah of course you would) - that is why police forces use them not army personnel.

The value of the export licence granted in 2009 would have purchased ~100,000 rounds, all of which, provided that they were ever sent and there is no evidence that they were, you seem to think were saved up for two years to use against civilian targets in Homs in 2011 - highly unlikely don't you think? Again it goes to choice of weapon are you going to go into combat armed with a gun that only has a very limited supply of ammunition or are you going to go with the Russian stuff whose ammunition supplies are limitless? Another no-brainer.

Oh and people in both police forces and in various branches of the armed forces who are qualified as snipers, or are training to become snipers do go through an inordinate amount of ammunition (830 rounds per month for a period of two years would mean that only 166 men out of Syria's 220,000 could fire 5 bullets per month - then all their ammo would have been gone - so were civilians killed in Homs by standard Nato 7.62mm bullets? I strongly doubt it - you of course could supply the proof but again I won't hold my breath)

8: "Britain trades arms with war criminals making us complicit in war crimes - a recorded fact."

What arms? What war crimes? What recorded fact (HINT - Finian Cunningham saying so does not make it a fact)

9: "We sold gas, armoured cars and other forms of riot control equipment that were used on the streets of Homs and Aleppo - also a recorded fact"

Sold Gas? Calor or Propane? How much?
Armoured Cars? Make? Type? Numbers? When?
I mean to say Jom if as you say this is all recorded fact you must have all the relevant details at your finger tips along with all the pertinent sources. But my guess is that you haven't.

By the way I loved your

As you where corporal ROFLMAO

But honoured to see that you have promoted me.

Funny thing about mistakes, in the heat of the moment when people tend to froth at the mouth as you do Jom, those mistakes get carried over when they write as other people - makes them easy to spot.

As to lack of responses referred to? I very rarely even bother to read a single thing that you write and Keith A has done a more than adequate job in ripping you to shreds in this and on other threads.