fahrenheit451:248

For the record it should be stated that:-
Robert Fisk is an English writer and journalist. He has been Middle East correspondent intermittently since 1976 for various media; since 1989 he has been correspondent for The Independent.
He is  widely respected ,hence his report a couple of days ago of his visit to Douma-where a chemical weapons attack against civilians was allegedly perpetrated-has caused such widespread alarm and despondency across  the Corporate MSM and social media platforms.
This is not what,for instance, the 630 itinerant Westminster benchwarmers were expecting to be so graphically revealed to them in the wake of their pathetic,mewling faux-debate - post fact of the UK's involvement in the incident of international lawbreaking ( i.e. criminality ) where the US ,UK and France launched a massive air and missile attack against various  government establishments inside Syria.These establishments having been " identified " as critical infrastructure in the Syrian government's alleged chemical and biological  weapons program.
In the absolute realm of historic Realpolitik it is for the strongest to govern.And powerful nation states as a matter of praxis in the end do actually do whatever the hell they want to whenever and wherever. That in itself isn't problematic;what is problematic is the faux-insistence that everyone maintain a polite fiction that nation states are somehow accountable to another polite fiction which they refer to as " International Law".
Once a generalised consensus and modus vivendi arises around such a priori notions as International Law,then by and large it behoves the sponsors and beneficiaries of this to acknowledge and adhere to the bloody thing.Which of course the US and its EUNATO lackeys singularly fail to do whenever somebody cries " wolf ! " as they did In Yugoslavia,Afganistan,Iraq and Libya to name a few.
it is always the other side,those who contest the US global hegemony,who are the ones needing to adhere to International Law or are the ones circumventing International Law or in breach of it. This is in fact deeply Freudian.
Law and Order presumes generally matters such as :- due process, evidence,verifiable witness statements and the archaic concept habeas corpus . The alternative is vigilantism.Which of course is what the US and its band of outlaws are all about.
Otiose pseudo-moralistic cant,vacuous platitudes,egregious rhetoric and non sequiturs dreamed up by p.r . and marketing gurus that pass themselves off as philosophical/ideological expressions of some gravitas.One needs only ,if one has the intestinal fortitude,to listen again to the blather issuing itself from May's facial orifice as she  " justified " ordering the bombardment of the territory of another sovereign nation state with which the UK is not at war nor has ever been existentially threatened by.
And then along came Robert Fisk and his frontline report from Douma.Which the itinerant Westminster benchwarmers then chose not to refer to at all.
And meanwhile in Idlib,the Mad Dog Erdogan Turkish invaders' backed Free Syrian army is engaged in a brutal no holds barred turf war with the Al Qaeda rebranded Al Nusra Front rebranded HTS.Which is causing unnecessary widespread humanitarian suffering which could be alleviated and or prevented by timely intervetion;say by a series of airstrikes for example?

Only no-one in the West has cried "Wolf! ".