Chemical attacks details too vague to justify May’s decision to send in air strikes

Trying to have some reasoned debate on the subject of the alleged Syrian chemical attacks seems akin to trying to ask for calm in a room full of people shouting “Fire” at the top of their voices. In the rush for the door no one is asking for detail, and those that do are being shouted down anyway.

I am a former instructor in nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) defence, trained only a few miles from Porton Down. Every serviceman and woman is trained in NBC defence as part of their basic training. As such, they are taught to recognise the symptoms of nerve agent poisoning, which include difficulty in breathing, pinpointing of the pupil and muscle spasms. Footage shown of an alleged Sarin attack on Douma appears to show the victims choking, coughing, with redness around the eyes; this is more in common with the use of a riot control agent such as tear gas or with a choking agent such as chlorine.

It is highly likely chlorine may have been the cause of the symptoms, and this creates a dilemma in that there are many reasons why chlorine may be present. It has a number of legitimate uses, water purification being the main one. Stockpiles can be damaged by shell or missile fire and accidentally released, and its presence is not proof of its use as a chemical agent.

Since Tony Blair took us into the Iraq War it has been an accepted convention that Prime Ministers make their case to engage in military action to parliament before taking any action. Theresa May has blown that convention out of the water. This was mainly due to Tony Blair’s case for war being made on the back of flimsy or indeed utterly wrong “intelligence”.

In this case there was no immediate threat to the UK. Had there been, Theresa May could have been said to have acted correctly when using the “royal prerogative” to order an attack. But that was not the case, and this attack, coordinated with the French and the Americans, could and should have waited until the case for air strikes had been made and won in parliament.

It may well be that these were genuine chemical attacks and it may well be that the Assad government is responsible, but the British response has been premature. On occasions when the United Nations has deemed that Syria has been responsible for chemical attacks, Britain has done nothing. Now, with no such investigations, Theresa May has acted, and cut the UK parliament out of the loop in the process.

I feel that in part her actions are to send a message to the Russians, who she also holds responsible for the Salisbury incident. Indeed, Ruth Dav idson tweeted that “chemical weapons cannot be used with impunity”. So why no action against Russia? Why are we bombing a country which does not have the ability to strike back directly?

It seems to me Theresa May has demonstrated that some countries can act with impunity. By cutting out parliament our weak and wobbly Prime Minister has demonstrated, if it wasn’t apparent already, that she is not fit to hold the office and must now resign.

JAMES CASSIDY Boswall Drive, Edinburgh