I still dont know on what grounds why the UK government sanctioned the RAF strikes on Syria. the UK government hasnt provided a single piece of verifiable source/evidence to justify those military RAF air strikes in Syria.

Now in Wikipedia the threshold for what constitues a verifiable/reliable source is of a higher standard than the UK government's;

Quote

             *All content must be verifiable. **The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.[2]Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation**. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). See Citing sources for details of how to do this.Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.[3] When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable.[4] If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it.*

End of Quote

So it has come to this where an online encyclopedia has a higher burden of proof and verifiability than an actual government going to war.