dandad wrote: Id like like some facts. Not.. Because we think so ..
Sadly, facts are the one thing we don't have. Nothing solid anyway.
There are things that don't quite add up... The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
flatly refuses to send anyone to inspect the location of the attack or the airfield where the gas was allegedly stored, instead relying on samples provided from the area (under control by the terrorists), not necessarily the most reliable source.
Said samples could only confirm the gas, nothing else relevant like, you know, how the gas was deployed. The UN investigation of the 2013 chemical attack considered the rebels to be the most likely culprit... so if the 2017 gas matches the 2013 gas, it would very strongly point to the rebels.
Meanwhile Turkish whistleblowers, notably MP
Eren Erdem (who previously exposed corruption of the Turkish President's family which had him branded an "American puppet"), have claimed there is solid evidence that the ingredients for Sarin gas was smuggled into Turkey and sent to Syrian terrorists.
There are other fishy things, like the timing and motive. Shortly after the Trump administration claims it doesn't need to intervene in Syria, Assad then decides to use a chemical weapon and risk US involvement - all while Assad is winning the war? It's like a football player is running with the ball, gets to within 15 yards of the end zone, then randomly decides to turn around and throw the ball midfield to a team-mate surrounded by the other team. Why risk an almost guaranteed interception when victory is so close? It doesn't make any sense. It's also inconsistent. The government has never been proven to target civilians or use chemical weapons, but the terrorists have.
I personally am extremely skeptical that this attack was committed by the Syrian government. But again, that's based on very little, cursory, extremely incomplete and tenuous details. We simply don't know enough to make any reasoned guesses. It's like trying to figure out what a 1000 piece puzzle depicts when we only have a couple dozen pieces.
However, when it comes to France... please read and consider
this truth-out article on declassified Hillary Clinton emails about Libya. Note that French President Sarkozy's actual motivations to get involved in Libya include 1. Oil and gold, 2. increase french influence, 3. increase his popularity in the polls, 4. reassert french military power (George Carlin's prick waving hypothesis at work). Also note that our reasons for getting involved (humanitarian concerns, claims of "rape policy", etc.) were all made up by Clinton's people.
The entire war in Libya was a ruse to get gold, oil, and influence. The war was unnecessary and completely devastated the people there, the consequences of this greed is monstrous on an unfathomable scale. Libya remains a failed state and today black people are being sold as slaves for just $200 each. Clinton knew at the time we were supplying Al Qaeda, that there was ethnic cleansing going on, and worse, and she didn't care - neither did the french or UK people involved. There were videos being shared during the Bush years about Neocons having a plan to take down 7 secular middle eastern governments in 5 years. The time table was extended a bit, but it seems plausible that the plan still remains the same.
I have very little faith in governments that want to further destabilize the region for political gain.
This is already long, but one last thing... Isn't it strange that one of the awful things Trump has done is getting almost no mainstream media attention? He's
resuming the sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia to use in their blasting of Yemen. Not only are the Saudis targeting civilians, but they are apparently using white phosphorous that
we gave them! White phosphorous is one of the most horrifying chemical weapons around, it slowly burns through you to the bone. This is only going to further radicalize people against the US, perpetuating even more terrorism - because evidently we don't have enough of that already.
Strange the double standards being applied... it's almost like there are much deeper, more political motivations for choosing what wars we rattle our sabers about. Food for thought.
Tl;dr -
1. We know nothing Jon Snow, but I'm skeptical Assad was involved in the attack.
2. The French are assholes, nothing new there, but they like middle eastern wars to get oil and assert the size of their pricks. I'm not keen to trust them.
3. Trump gives weapons to the Saudis who are probably using white phosphorous on civilian populations and nobody bats an eye, Syria maybe-possibly uses sarin gas and everyone loses their minds. Probably more to these stories.