In essence, is state killing not terrorism? Would the bloody outcomes of Nato strikes ever appear so graphically on front pages the way they have for the Woolwich killing?

Is the US orchestrating a lot of arms shipments, sending intelligence information to various militias, and generally meddling in a very complicated and uncertain conflict?

After the fiasco over Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, people around the world are rightly sceptical about claims of gas attacks in Syria.

It is hard to resist the conclusion that this war has no purpose other than its own eternal perpetuation. This war is not a means to any end but rather is the end in itself.

Every major criticism of Iran, used to justify America's harsh economic sanctions and overall belligerence toward the country, can also be lodged against the United States.

US involvement in Syria is risking regional war that could include Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq, Israel, Iran, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, with the potential to drag in the bigger powers.

With its record of criminality and crimes against humanity, Britain has no right to pontificate and brow beat Syria, Iran or any other nation about "international obligations".

There is something fundamentally wrong with a system where not being charged with a war crime keeps you locked away indefinitely and a war crime conviction is your ticket home

When we look back in a few years, Hawking's decision to respect BDS may be seen as a turning point – the moment when boycotting Israel as a stance for justice went mainstream.

Today the US military is involved in scores of countries across all five continents, and its global military facilities make it the world's largest landlord.