|
1. Chief UN investigator states that he doesn't have information that would stand in court, on record. 2. Many US Congressmen that were given access to US secret proof have stated that it is dubious, on record. Are these sources wrong or hand-picked? Which ones did I hand-pick, US Congressmen, or UN investigators, or, perhaps, both? It was not enough evidence to stand in court, but apparently, there was enough evidence for the West to bomb Syria and cause immanent civilian deaths. Wittingly or not, you are trying to change subject, twist the narrative and so on. It occurs to me that you Sir are not trying to be objective at all. Looks like here I'm the fool who's banging his head against the wall. |
1. You use bloggers as references while shrugging at serious references.
2. A single minute's check on wikipedia showed that your claims about the May vote is garbage.
Why should anyone takes you seriously after that?!
(I am a bit disappointed that you ignored this subject and didn't explain the conspiracies and lies about your Glorious Leader?)
-----
About Syrian chemical weapons:
Of course there weren't much physical proofs remaining, the Assad government shelled the target area a lot, to remove them...
The rebel side didn't have the type of artillery used, no one overheard any communications from them about this -- and the rebels didn't use that artillery on their enemy afterwards.
But if the rebels seems so unlikely, maybe it wasn't the Assads either but a third party. Elves? :-)
[I am repeating myself and my references here.]
(And bombing the Assads: Because of internal politics, Obama has left hundreds of thousands of Syrians to be killed by Russian weapons. It is an outrage.)