Most law abiding adult civilians will instantly recognize the British House of Commons ‘legal briefing’ over declaring war on Syria to be what is known as “excusive”.

The House of Commons ‘briefing’, is typical of what corporations who know they are acting illegally ask their corporate lawyers to flick off, to publicly try and buy time outside any court of law, when they know they 'do not have any recognized defence in law', in any court of law.


....the lie that the entire british parliament intends to try and hide behind

A typically ‘excusive’ exercise always tries to build a mountain of irrelevance to try and obscure and bury the insurmountable obstacle of the established rule of law and due process.

In a tortuous trail of complete and utter circuitous deceit the UK dishonestly claim that in the absence of a) UN Chapter 7 authorization (which obviously has to be explicit) or b) permission from the Syrian government, (which the British government does not have) the UK can rely on c) Iraq asserting UN Article 51 to...invade Syria, which Iraq has not done.

Iraq has not, does not and cannot assert, it can militarily invade...Syria under the auspices of UN Article 51.


the smoking gun: iraq has not asserted it has any military rights in...syria, over and above the syrian government, under the auspices of article 51 of the UN

Such an assertion would not only take us all back to the legal reality that it is a statement of truth, UN resolution 1441 did not give the entire British Parliament any right to ‘vote’ on Iraq, let alone to invade Iraq ‘on behalf’ of the UN.


It is a bald faced LIE that Iraq asserts Article 51 in...Syria.


The purpose of the double barreled lie is extraordinary, in that it uses a lie [that Iraq has asserted 'collective defence' in Syria] to try and divest the UK of legal responsibility for attacking Syria.



It is a statement of truth that the British government cannot go around avoiding the need to have permission from the Syrian government in Syria, just because the British government illegally refuse to recognize that all the lethally armed so called Syrian Opposition who are trying to overthrow the Syrian government, are terrorists.

It is a straightforward matter of fact that all the lethally armed Syrian ‘Opposition’ have always failed to publicly articulate what administrative function the Syrian government was not performing that gave them any right to take up the use of lethal weapons, and worse from foreign governments.

It is more than embarrassing for any of the lethally armed Syrian ‘Opposition’ to have to a court of law, who they took their lethal weapons from, because that immediately explains why the British Parliament [of all 'political' shades) have always deliberately sought to avoid seeking the permission of the Syrian government.

There is no greater need for law than in times of war to distinguish what 'politics' and 'diplomacy' are really doing.


Please note: Our long-standing civilian resistance that began on June 2nd 2001 is not a 'news' media outlet. We only publish information to help save civilian lives.