Topic: The barbarity that is Syria

[JohnnoWhite]

Even the Russians and Syrians are saying they were bombing the place at the time. I'd say that's pretty conclusive without having to need the Pentagon, the Israelis or the Turks provide radar tracks of the bombing runs. You've been banging on about common sense. Use some.

Thank you so much for your words of wisdom. Now prove it or shut it.

[Zeb]

Thank you so much for your words of wisdom. Now prove it or shut it.

Do yourself a favour Johnno and wind your neck in.

When has it been established beyond ANY possible doubt that AIR POWER was involved or are you totally locked into your words of condemnation? Substantiate that please because I have seen NOT A THING that proves air power was involved. Over to you.

Here you go:

The Syrian Air Force has destroyed a warehouse in Idlib province where chemical weapons were being produced and stockpiled before being shipped to Iraq, Russia’s Defense Ministry spokesman said.

The strike, which was launched midday Tuesday, targeted a major rebel ammunition depot east of the town of Khan Sheikhoun, Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Major-General Igor Konashenkov said in a statement.

The warehouse was used to both produce and store shells containing toxic gas, Konashenkov said. The shells were delivered to Iraq and repeatedly used there, he added, pointing out that both Iraq and international organizations have confirmed the use of such weapons by militants.

https://www.rt.com/news/383522-syria-idlib-warehouse-strike-chemical/

Russia's story is that the Syrians were bombing and hit a rebel factory making sarin. And as even RT has to acknowledge:

Hasan Haj Ali, commander of the Free Idlib Army rebel group, rejected Russia’s version of the incident, saying the rebels had no military positions in the area.

“Everyone saw the plane while it was bombing with gas,” he told Reuters.

“Likewise, all the civilians in the area know that there are no military positions there, or places for the manufacture [of weapons]. The various factions of the opposition are not capable of producing these substances,” he added.

[TepidT2O]

This place has gone a bit crazy....

[GreatEx]

My dad is into his politics and history and his mantra of 'there are no good guys here' always rings true.

Lots of bad hombres, though.

[JohnnoWhite]

Do yourself a favour Johnno and wind your neck in.

Here you go:


https://www.rt.com/news/383522-syria-idlib-warehouse-strike-chemical/

Russia's story is that the Syrians were bombing and hit a rebel factory making sarin. And as even RT has to acknowledge:

So to be absolutely clear, the "proof" referenced here (that Syrian state forces gassed their own people) is based upon the Russians having confirmed that a Syrian air force strike was indeed carried out against a suspected arsenal of chemical weapons in that province?

If that's the story this could only be down to one of two things:

The rebels WERE stock-piling chemical weapons that in the past were confirmed as having been deployed in Iraq and s the Syrian air force attacked and destroyed them.

Or the Syrian air force themselves dropped these chemical weapons on that target.

Are there any other possible options for this atrocity or are these the only 2 scenarios?

If there aren't, then it comes down to a simple two-sided "who do you believe" choice.
Appalling event no matter which one it was there's no doubting that. But until absolute and conclusive investigations are carried out, we all of us are none the wiser.   

[TepidT2O]

Ah, the old false flag fall back..

[JohnnoWhite]

Ah, the old false flag fall back..

Genuine question directed to Zeb but if you have a view as to how best to establish what happened please let's hear it.

[oldfordie]

BBC analysis on the Air strikes. one piece of evidence is very powerful.

Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, a former commanding officer of the British Armed Forces Joint Chemical Biological Radiological Nuclear (CBRN) Regiment, said Russia's assertion that the strikes had hit rebel chemical weapons were "pretty fanciful".

"Axiomatically, if you blow up Sarin, you destroy it," he told the BBC.

Experts say the explosion resulting from an air strike on a chemical weapons facility would most likely incinerate any agents. Sarin and other nerve agents are also usually stocked in a "binary manner", which means they are kept as two distinct chemical precursors that are combined just before use, either manually or automatically inside a weapon when launched.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-39500947

[CornerFlag]

Lots of bad hombres, though.

"Hombre?"

Seriously though, I think it's a situation where there's never going to be a right answer given the number of belligerents in the area.  You create a vacuum by removing Assad and you allow the Daesh forces to move in.  You remove the non-Daesh rebels and Assad's grip tightens along with Daesh.  You remove Daesh and Assad's grip still tightens and causes chaos in the rebels.  I don't know enough of the Kurdish forces to say much about their position, apart from possibly supporting their position more than the others.  In every way causing some sort of power vacuum in Syria will only serve "bad hombres" in any number of degrees.

But it's a complete lose-lose situation.  Do nothing and lose.  Do something and lose.  The only thing I can possibly see is in the removal of Russian support to Assad somehow.  How that happens, couldn't say.

[JohnnoWhite]

BBC analysis on the Air strikes. one piece of evidence is very powerful.

Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, a former commanding officer of the British Armed Forces Joint Chemical Biological Radiological Nuclear (CBRN) Regiment, said Russia's assertion that the strikes had hit rebel chemical weapons were "pretty fanciful".

"Axiomatically, if you blow up Sarin, you destroy it," he told the BBC.

Experts say the explosion resulting from an air strike on a chemical weapons facility would most likely incinerate any agents. Sarin and other nerve agents are also usually stocked in a "binary manner", which means they are kept as two distinct chemical precursors that are combined just before use, either manually or automatically inside a weapon when launched.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-39500947

That's pretty damning technical evidence. It needs to go to the UN who MUST intervene NOW and establish beyond doubt who was responsible for this atrocity.

[oldfordie]

That's pretty damning technical evidence. It needs to go to the UN who MUST intervene NOW and establish beyond doubt who was responsible for this atrocity.

They probably will but the UN will be very wary of an escalation when Russia are involved.
I think our government +the USA are reluctantly acknowledging Russia part in all this as it places them in a very difficult place.

[neilem]

I don't really understand what Asaad would have to gain from using chemical weapons, as badly timed as it is, so I'm not buying this narrative... it's actually the rebel groups which would profit from such actions.

Without any meaningful investigation, didn't the US almost put boots on the ground due to the last chemical weapon attack which Asaad was accused of? Only then the Syrian government complied to the letter in destorying all their stockpiles, just so they couldn't be accused any longer - until now of course.

Thought this was interesting view on the chemical attack (not sure on the background of the journalist, so take it at your will):
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/xjOSZ6QgGgY" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/xjOSZ6QgGgY</a>

[JohnnoWhite]

They probably will but the UN will be very wary of an escalation when Russia are involved.
I think our government +the USA are reluctantly acknowledging Russia part in all this as it places them in a very difficult place.

Like always, killing people is shite all round.

[So… Howard Philips]

If the Sarin weapons were in the rebels hands they would almost certainly be in mortar or similar shells, as the rebels have no air capacity to drop bomb sized weapons.

If the rebels have chemical weapons I'm surprised that even one or two shells haven't ended up in ISIS hands and found their way to a European city.

Or maybe they were dropped from a Syrian airforce plane to see how much Putin's new mate in the White House would let them get away with?

[Zeb]

As you say Johnno, it's a truly shite state of affairs. To answer your question, I think it's simpler, when one of the competing narratives is obvious nonsense, to say that it leaves one plausible option.

One factor remains true regardless. Assad is bombing his people and not giving a shit about the consequences of when those bombs fall. Because the official line from Moscow is that he knew there was a lab and storage facility and knew the gas could escape into a civilian population. And did it anyway. Or, we could listen to our own experts from places like Chatham House, and the bastard's dropping bombs with sarin in them on people. It was rockets containing it last time.

I agree with Corbyn about the UN, or would if it weren't just pointless because of the Russian veto the past few years. But do agree having it documented and recorded properly is important. If Assad is ever tried for his war crimes that level of proof will be needed to hang the fucker.

[JohnnoWhite]

As you say Johnno, it's a truly shite state of affairs. To answer your question, I think it's simpler, when one of the competing narratives is obvious nonsense, to say that it leaves one plausible option.

One factor remains true regardless. Assad is bombing his people and not giving a shit about the consequences of when those bombs fall. Because the official line from Moscow is that he knew there was a lab and storage facility and knew the gas could escape into a civilian population. And did it anyway. Or, we could listen to our own experts from places like Chatham House, and the bastard's dropping bombs with sarin in them on people. It was rockets containing it last time.

I agree with Corbyn about the UN, or would if it weren't just pointless because of the Russian veto the past few years. But do agree having it documented and recorded properly is important. If Assad is ever tried for his war crimes that level of proof will be needed to hang the fucker.

Then it's the UN's duty to get him on trial and face the world. I don't want him to get away with these crimes. I want him nailed on legally. Just a final point - sn't it time that this veto /get out of jail free bollux was over-ridden if 99.0% of the nations demand justice?

[Zeb]

Then it's the UN's duty to get him on trial and face the world. I don't want him to get away with these crimes. I want him nailed on legally. Just a final point - sn't it time that this veto /get out of jail free bollux was over-ridden if 99.0% of the nations demand justice?

It would also require the means to bring things to an end, and the will to use them and see things through, wouldn't it?

[TepidT2O]

It would also require the means to bring things to an end, and the will to use them and see things through, wouldn't it?

And this is the issue....  they don't..

[oldfordie]

 
Think the Russians are testing Trump. he gave the impression he wasn't interested in dragging the USA into any more conflicts.
Assad has to be named and shamed with proof but vetoes and sanctions are sod all to whats actually happening.
Russia has sent Warships to protect Syria from USA warship attacks. USA has said it is not ruling out any further attacks.
The balls in Assads court now, just hope Russia has knocked him into line and he takes the warning.

[JohnnoWhite]

It would also require the means to bring things to an end, and the will to use them and see things through, wouldn't it?

I know the situation is volatile so many examples of the same threats etc but the hidden worries are the ones that scare me.
For sake of argument let's say the Syrian rebels are comprised of those who would bring Jihad to the West - I've no idea if this is a factual probability and will try and get more info on what are the factions and what are they aiming for in due course.
But were it to be the case, what would we want to happen? If the requirement to end this is troops on the ground in Syria, then the omens look not particularly attractive. Russia stands with Assad - whatever their strategic motivation is for their position. Cue major and I mean MAJOR conflict should Russia stand firm. It's a bubbling volcano and scares the shit out of me.
If it's a choice between that nuclear confrontation and doing nothing concrete because we have no leverage or stomach for that, then may God forgive me for saying this but I'd prefer we did nothing. Unless there's the prospect of an economic embargo we could pursue ?
It's a heads or tails no-one wins situation. Fucking terrible is what it is.

Edit: Who are this lot - Jaysh al-Islam?  Some links describe these as part of the Syrian opposition to Assad but then state that they too are Jihadists? What the fuck is the truth there?

[neilem]

If the Sarin weapons were in the rebels hands they would almost certainly be in mortar or similar shells, as the rebels have no air capacity to drop bomb sized weapons.

If the rebels have chemical weapons I'm surprised that even one or two shells haven't ended up in ISIS hands and found their way to a European city.

Or maybe they were dropped from a Syrian airforce plane to see how much Putin's new mate in the White House would let them get away with?

Many if's, maybe's, and assumptions made there. It still does not make sense for Asaad to do this, even if he had the chemical weapons at his possession (the government's entire stockpile was destroyed), and on the day before peace negotiations were to take place.

Why disrupt this when he is quite clearly making positive progress (from his point of view) in regaining control of Syria from the rebel groups (whoever they actually are)? Why introduce the risk of more foreign countries intervening in this conflict? Asaad is a dictator yes, but hasn't lost his marbles.

I could be completely wrong, but I'm not one to be drip fed information from mainstream media... especially if it doesn't make sense or any reaction is purposely rushed without obtaining proof, as is in this case. I encourage everyone to do their own research, it's a complicated world out there but it's your duty to check things out if something doesn't smell right.

[zero zero]

I could be completely wrong, but I'm not one to be drip fed information from mainstream media... especially if it doesn't make sense or any reaction is purposely rushed without obtaining proof, as is in this case. I encourage everyone to do their own research, it's a complicated world out there but it's your duty to check things out if something doesn't smell right.

Where are you "checking things out"?

[Zeb]

@Johnno - Should shift over to the Syria thread on here. Few of the regular posters on that can do succinct, well sourced, explanations. Or at least as best anyone can for that civil war.

Just as far as it goes with Corbyn/Labour (and related to this thread), I think we should be open to what is possible and useful without either rushing to denounce all military action or to cheer on any and all use of force. If there aren't any direct military options useful, then we can look to non-military ones. Help for refugees fleeing the fighting, continued support for any groups who reject jihadi ideologies, and political pressure on combatants and those supplying them to find a way to end the killing. I've never been of the left who've renounced the use of force by the US and Britain. Most of the lefties I learned from had fought in WW2 or Korea though. You'll have grown up with the likes I know.

[JohnnoWhite]

@Johnno - Should shift over to the Syria thread on here. Few of the regular posters on that can do succinct, well sourced, explanations. Or at least as best anyone can for that civil war.

Just as far as it goes with Corbyn/Labour (and related to this thread), I think we should be open to what is possible and useful without either rushing to denounce all military action or to cheer on any and all use of force. If there aren't any direct military options useful, then we can look to non-military ones. Help for refugees fleeing the fighting, continued support for any groups who reject jihadi ideologies, and political pressure on combatants and those supplying them to find a way to end the killing. I've never been of the left who've renounced the use of force by the US and Britain. Most of the lefties I learned from had fought in WW2 or Korea though. You'll have grown up with the likes I know.

No me neither although I'm proud to say my grandad was a conscientious objector in WW1. Not that he was a coward at all. He volunteered to go to France as a stretcher bearer- they got shot at too! But he objected to being forced to fight German working class lads in what he judged to be a macho fall-out between the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha family. He believed he had more grievances against the ruling class and the aristocracy than the Germans! When he died in 1963, me and my dad went to the undertaker's chapel of Rest to find Ted laid out in a royal blue burial gown. My old fella said " You can get that Tory rag off him for starters. He's been a socialist all his life and he's being buried in bright red." That's what he was too!

[Wabaloolah]

Just what has this Syria stuff got to do with the Labour Party? Is there not a thread to discuss that?

[Zeb]

Many if's, maybe's, and assumptions made there. It still does not make sense for Asaad to do this, even if he had the chemical weapons at his possession (the government's entire stockpile was destroyed), and on the day before peace negotiations were to take place.

Why disrupt this when he is quite clearly making positive progress (from his point of view) in regaining control of Syria from the rebel groups (whoever they actually are)? Why introduce the risk of more foreign countries intervening in this conflict? Asaad is a dictator yes, but hasn't lost his marbles.

I could be completely wrong, but I'm not one to be drip fed information from mainstream media... especially if it doesn't make sense or any reaction is purposely rushed without obtaining proof, as is in this case. I encourage everyone to do their own research, it's a complicated world out there but it's your duty to check things out if something doesn't smell right.

Well there are only two stories to choose from here. And it should be possible to quickly determine which seems to be more plausible.

Option 1: Assad's air force bombed a sarin production centre and stockpile. The chemical, somehow, escaped in an active form and killed civilians living close by.

Option 2: Assad's air force dropped the sarin themselves from stockpiles which were built up over decades and were subsequently not disclosed to inspectors for destruction.

Useful links:

How easy is it to make Sarin? https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2013-10-10/no-you-can-t-make-sarin-in-your-kitchen

How many sarin factories are the rebels meant to have? https://www.sams-usa.net/press_release/sams-deeply-saddened-loss-dr-ali-darwish-hamas-orthopedic-surgeon/, https://www.sams-usa.net/press_release/another-chemical-weapon-attack-hama-week/

[Trev20]

Just what has this Syria stuff got to do with the Labour Party? Is there not a thread to discuss that?

Exactly what I was thinking reading the thread today.

[RedBootsTommySmith]

Hawaii 5-0, Tulsi Gabbard on Trump's action:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=X5ywMjq9djg


And Lyndsey Graham's take:

https://youtu.be/6q44qea3zmc

[Alan_X]

Exactly what I was thinking reading the thread today.

Agreed - I'll split and move over.

[Alan_X]

See the underlined - I do offer my apologies for not checking out that place. Let me assure you there's not an anti-Semitic bone in my body...

I'm sure that's the case Johnno.

My point is a general one and not just for you - be very careful when you do a quick Google and paste a quote. I always have a look at other stories on the site, the 'who we are' or 'our aims' links. It's really good discipline and I've had times where it's made me question where I was going with a particular argument.

If you look back at the Syria discussion I haven't said where I stand. I pointed out your use of a single source because I think it's an extremely complicated situation that doesn't fall into a simple black/white analysis.

I've looked at multiple sources and multiple points of view and I don't have 'a position' on Syria. It's a horrible situation with horrible people on all sides. There's an argument the Trump's action makes sense when the two sides in a fight include Assad on one side and ISIS on the other. Both are disgusting pieces of shit that are killing innocents indiscriminately. But Trump is clearly an idiot who wouldn't think that clearly.

I agree with you that the UN would ideally be involved but the UN only works when it has the support of enough of the major world powers.

[TepidT2O]

And this is the problem... Russia and possibly China won't vote for any investigation, so it somewhat screws using the UN.

Russia want Syria as they want a friendly port in the Med...  hence their interests come first ...

[JohnnoWhite]

Hawaii 5-0, Tulsi Gabbard on Trump's action:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=X5ywMjq9djg


And Lyndsey Graham's take:

https://youtu.be/6q44qea3zmc

A scary microcosm of the polarised options.

The democrat lady from Hawaii reminds the US of 2 things here:
Bush's false flag evidence on Iraq's WMD presented as "fact" to the UN back in the day

and makes the gung-ho link with Trump's illegal and undemocratic missile strike without even a discussion with / vote in - never mind the consent! - of Congress.

That good ole Republican boy Graham is now "proud of Trump" and just wants GI boots on the turf and aims to suck Iran into his equation of destruction at whatever the cost (he's not bothered to work those costs out yet but by golly, he sure as hell wants to do it)

https://egbertowillies.com/

America's - and the world's - dangerous political polarisation personified.

[puroresu_kid]

I don't really understand what Asaad would have to gain from using chemical weapons, as badly timed as it is, so I'm not buying this narrative... it's actually the rebel groups which would profit from such actions.

Without any meaningful investigation, didn't the US almost put boots on the ground due to the last chemical weapon attack which Asaad was accused of? Only then the Syrian government complied to the letter in destorying all their stockpiles, just so they couldn't be accused any longer - until now of course.

Thought this was interesting view on the chemical attack (not sure on the background of the journalist, so take it at your will):
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/xjOSZ6QgGgY" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/xjOSZ6QgGgY</a>

Sounds similar to the those who claim Assad isn't the biggest killer of civilians, has no torture dungeons and is really just a nice guy trying to keep his country together.


While in the real world:

[Alan_X]

I don't really understand what Asaad would have to gain from using chemical weapons, as badly timed as it is, so I'm not buying this narrative... it's actually the rebel groups which would profit from such actions.

Without any meaningful investigation, didn't the US almost put boots on the ground due to the last chemical weapon attack which Asaad was accused of? Only then the Syrian government complied to the letter in destorying all their stockpiles, just so they couldn't be accused any longer - until now of course.

Thought this was interesting view on the chemical attack (not sure on the background of the journalist, so take it at your will):
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/xjOSZ6QgGgY" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/xjOSZ6QgGgY</a>

Tom Duggan is a 'correspondent' for  21st Century Wire. A despicable shitstorm of conspiracy shite including gems like this about Sandy Hook:

http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/02/21/sandy-hook-game-changer-solid-new-evidence-of-a-cover-up-presented/

And fuck only knows what shite he's spouting about concrete and explosions. 'When a shell lands on open ground the ground absorbs the shock and directs it up in a v-shape...' what the hell is he on about?

[AaronSingh25]

I don't really understand what Asaad would have to gain from using chemical weapons, as badly timed as it is, so I'm not buying this narrative... it's actually the rebel groups which would profit from such actions.

Without any meaningful investigation, didn't the US almost put boots on the ground due to the last chemical weapon attack which Asaad was accused of? Only then the Syrian government complied to the letter in destorying all their stockpiles, just so they couldn't be accused any longer - until now of course.

Thought this was interesting view on the chemical attack (not sure on the background of the journalist, so take it at your will):
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/xjOSZ6QgGgY" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/xjOSZ6QgGgY</a>

This.

I've read up on the links posted here. I've tried to follow the narrative on mainstream media, read a few blogs from posters i like, and tried to look at official reports - as to the proof Asaad was the one who used chemical weapons.

I'm just bemused as to why this not so minor fact is essentially being ignored, and a guilty narrative widespread.

Asaad is a horrid individual, but as most reports on him indicate - he's also a very intelligent man. Why on earth would he used chemical weapons, when essentially bar a few pockets of resistance, he was won.

If you played this out in a court of law, it wouldn't even go to trial - the evidence is so flimsy. It's just a collection of reports saying IT'S HIS CHEMICAL WEAPONS, yet no actual evidence. As someone posted, there's only group of people that benefit from the implication Asaad used them.

[Alan_X]

This.

I've read up on the links posted here. I've tried to follow the narrative on mainstream media, read a few blogs from posters i like, and tried to look at official reports - as to the proof Asaad was the one who used chemical weapons.

I'm just bemused as to why this not so minor fact is essentially being ignored, and a guilty narrative widespread.

Asaad is a horrid individual, but as most reports on him indicate - he's also a very intelligent man. Why on earth would he used chemical weapons, when essentially bar a few pockets of resistance, he was won.

If you played this out in a court of law, it wouldn't even go to trial - the evidence is so flimsy. It's just a collection of reports saying IT'S HIS CHEMICAL WEAPONS, yet no actual evidence. As someone posted, there's only group of people that benefit from the implication Asaad used them.

Why would Assad use chemical weapons?... Are you completely unaware of Assad's history, the history of his father and the other Baath party leader Saddam Hussein?

[RedBootsTommySmith]

Why would Assad use chemical weapons?... Are you completely unaware of Assad's history, the history of his father and the other Baath party leader Saddam Hussein?

Are you unaware of (Pulitzer prize winning investigative reporter) Seymour Hersch's claims of US malfeasance in the 2013 sarin attacks blamed on Assad?


http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/04/28/seymour-hersh-hillary-approved-sending-libya-sarin-syrian-rebels.html

They don't wear back hats or white hats any more, so it's hard to see who are the goodies and the baddies, here.

[TepidT2O]

Are you unaware of (Pulitzer prize winning investigative reporter) Seymour Hersch's claims of US malfeasance in the 2013 sarin attacks blamed on Assad?

Sauce?

[RedBootsTommySmith]

Sauce?

Updated earlier post

Also, here's a link to the referenced Lehman analysis:

https://nsnbc.me/2013/10/07/top-us-and-saudi-officials-responsible-for-chemical-weapons-in-syria/

[Alan_X]

Are you unaware of (Pulitzer prize winning investigative reporter) Seymour Hersch's claims of US malfeasance in the 2013 sarin attacks blamed on Assad?


http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/04/28/seymour-hersh-hillary-approved-sending-libya-sarin-syrian-rebels.html

They don't wear back hats or white hats any more, so it's hard to see who are the goodies and the baddies, here.

As I've said, I don't claim to know exactly what happened and it's entirely possible that Hersch is correct. But go back to Hersch's original article in the London Review of Books:

The sensors had worked in the past, as the Syrian leadership knew all too well. Last December the sensor system picked up signs of what seemed to be sarin production at a chemical weapons depot. It was not immediately clear whether the Syrian army was simulating sarin production as part of an exercise (all militaries constantly carry out such exercises) or actually preparing an attack. At the time, Obama publicly warned Syria that using sarin was ‘totally unacceptable’; a similar message was also passed by diplomatic means. The event was later determined to be part of a series of exercises, according to the former senior intelligence official: ‘If what the sensors saw last December was so important that the president had to call and say, “Knock it off,” why didn’t the president issue the same warning three days before the gas attack in August?’

That's just a snippet but the fundamental point is there. The answer to my question about Assad's ability and willingness to use chemical weapons is pretty obvious. Assad has used chemical weapons and Hersch acknowledges that there are Syrian Army protocols for their use and sensors in place to monitor them.

So yes, you're absolutely right that there are no white hats and no black hats. It's also an area where asking 'why would/wouldn't (insert name here) do that...' is a poor question and you have to go to the actual evidence. And if the evidence is not clear then rather than claiming that x or y did it we should all accept our lack of knowledge in this particular case.