[0xy]

>When intelligence agencies share clear evidence a dictator gassed his own civilian population

Funnily enough, there's no clear evidence of this. According to OPCW leaked documents there's a higher probability the gas was manually placed at the site. [1] Which of course, calls into question the Syrian government's involvement, especially given earlier intelligence showing ISIS had possession of such chemical weapons.

[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/douma-syria-opcw-chemic...

[alwayseasy]

You're asking for clear evidence but then using an op-ed from a known controversial journalist on Syria, sharing a Wikileaks leak after the GRU was caught hacking the OPCW ?

Clear evidence you can't fake: a rush of hundreds of people (including children) to the different hospitals near the Khan Sheikhoun site while all showing the same respiratory and neurological symptoms. How can one fool so many doctors?

Here's a breakdown of the exact, and single email/document used to "discredit" all chemical attacks perpetrated by Al-Assad on his population https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2019/11/25/emails-and-readin...

[0xy]

This seems to be some form of strawman, given I never even implied there was no attack. Merely that it was misattributed according to leaked documents written by chemical experts.

Also, Assad was by all accounts winning the war and pushing back on all fronts at the time. Do you think he's such a lunatic and so strategically bankrupt that he'd launch a chemical attack on his own people while he's winning? Or is it more likely that ISIS launched a false flag attack using chemical weapons that we know they have in order to get the West to do their bidding against Assad?

The Syrian war is a mess, and there are no good guys. The US-backed rebels commit war crimes and behead children, for example.

The source of leaked documents really doesn't concern me as long as they are authentic. For argument's sake, if Snowden was a Kremlin double agent I wouldn't care because he revealed genuine government wrongdoing.

Attacking the source generally isn't a valid argument, especially given the authenticity of the information.