Sassy Colin
Death or the gladioli!
Brian fecking Cox, come on BBC this guy has no place on a serious programme.
Of course he isn't.Grayling not answering the question here...
A Russia Today presenter. So not surprised to see him on the defensive...Who's that twat on the right?
AhA Russia Today presenter. So not surprised to see him on the defensive...
Me for one. Would have done a better job, that's for sure.Ok, so who else thought it was going to be the "science" Brian Cox...?
He's such a provocateur.This guy's a living Russian bot.
That's what I expected.Ok, so who else thought it was going to be the "science" Brian Cox...?
Why has Question Time because a show in which to constantly bash Corbyn? 2 minutes into the Windrush debate and Dimbleby is already bringing up Corbyn.
I get her fundamental point regarding needing definite proof and approval from the international community, but the problem (as was pointed out) is that Russia are going to do everything they can to obscure the truth presuming that truth implicates Assad in anything where he's going to be at risk of punishment. Which fundamentally changes the nature of the argument.Bad day for Thornberry so far.
Conspiracy man ain't having thatCable making a point that people keep failing to grasp.
“Why would Assad use these weapons when he’s winning?”
The answer is “Assad will use these weapons because he winning”.
Especially when he's shown time and time again he's able to get away with it without a particularly strong punishment. At most our airstrikes have inhibited his power to use them again but they haven't actually threatened his position, and when/if they're working that means at most this has served as a slight annoyance but a worthy sacrifice for his war.Cable making a point that people keep failing to grasp.
“Why would Assad use these weapons when he’s winning?”
The answer is “Assad will use these weapons because he winning”.
TruthOpenAwakeEyesRealNewsDontTrustTheGovernment.David.Avocado.Woolf.Org.Gov.BBC.UK told him how the world really works on his Twitter Blog.Conspiracy man ain't having that
There was literally a report last year from the OPCW saying Assad was responsible for last year's chemical attack (and many others), so the whole "we need evidence to convict him" shtick is bs.I get her fundamental point regarding needing definite proof and approval from the international community, but the problem (as was pointed out) is that Russia are going to do everything they can to obscure the truth presuming that truth implicates Assad in anything where he's going to be at risk of punishment. Which fundamentally changes the nature of the argument.