![](https://fournews-assets-prod-s3-ew1-nmprod.s3.amazonaws.com/media/2017/05/gary-gibbon.jpg)
Cameron ducks Syria vote
The prime minister falls in behind Labour’s suggestion that a final vote on military action against Syria should wait until the UN chemical weapons inspectors report is published.
1,842 items found
The UK will have to make a “judgment call” over military intervention in Syria, David Cameron says as he goes head-to-head with Ed Miliband in the House of Commons.
An ex-US Army psychiatrist could become the first service member executed in over 50 years after he was sentenced to death for the Fort Hood shooting, in which 13 people were killed and 32 injured.
The prime minister falls in behind Labour’s suggestion that a final vote on military action against Syria should wait until the UN chemical weapons inspectors report is published.
Ed Miliband appears to have hardened up his stance on Syria. Shadow Foreign Secretary Douglas Alexander told BBC Radio 4’s World at One that Labour wanted the UN to have considered a report from UN weapons inspectors before a vote. So what’s going on?
Ed Miliband’s call late last night for “some kind of UN moment” before any attack on Syria may be pushing at a door the PM has already realised he has to open.
There will be no blitz – the west wants to bomb the Syrian government into never using these weapons on its people again. And any strikes will be all about high-explosive punishment.
Political cogs are set in motion to prepare governments for possible military action in Syria, ahead of what is set to be a confrontational UN Security Council meeting.
Pro-Assad hackers take the New York Times offline and disrupt Twitter. Experts say they could have carried out one of the biggest cyberattacks ever seen.
David Cameron recalls parliament to debate the UK’s response to the situation in Syria and the army draws up contingency plans, in the wake of last week’s alleged chemical weapons attack in Damascus.
Parliament is due to meet on Thursday to debate military action against Syria. But how can the government make intervention legally sound?
Pressure is mounting on the US to act if the UN finds that the “red line” of chemical weapons has been crossed – and President Obama does not want Syria to become his Rwanda.
Britain and the US have been moved to strong words against last week’s suspected use of chemical weapons in Syria, but what should be their objectives if pushed into military action?
William Hague says the British government believes that Bashar al-Assad’s government is responsible for the “terrible atrocity” of a chemical weapons attack in Damascus.
Hours of shocking footage purporting to show the after-effects of a Syrian government chemical strike on rebel-held areas near Damascus have been posted online.
With commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan and cuts in the defence budget that will take army numbers down to a 150-year low, could Britain intervene in Syria even if we wanted to?