So whilst we all agree Asaad is a horrid individual - i'd still like to see some concrete evidence that he carried out this attack.
It makes no sense.
It's akin to a boxer having knocked out his opponent and he's out for the count. While the referee makes a ten count, the winning boxer then decides to take a piss on him, and for good measure removes his shorts and takes a shit on him, thus disqualifying himself. Why would he do that?
It's as if WMD's debacle etc never happened.
It's as if those making these claims don't have their own interests in place. If this is a case of 'humanitarian effort' - where's the love for those in Yemen, Sudan, etc?
It 'made no sense' when he used sarin in 2012. Or when he used chlorine bombs on multiple occasions since then. It made no sense for Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait, or later to play hardball over WMD; it made no sense for Gadaffi to start killing his own people in 2011...it was only going to end one way for all of them. Also, Assad probably feels less vulnerable because he has the protection of Russia. Another possibility is that he didn't personally order this specific attack, it could have a been a senior member of the military - maybe he's given them carte blanche to do whatever they think is necessary.
Just saying 'why would he do it' is not a strong argument that he didn't do it. Just look at the facts as we know them:
Assad's forces have used chemical weapons (including sarin) before
There's no 'concrete evidence' that the rebels have access to sarin
Even if they did, there's no 'concrete evidence' that there was a chemical weapons factory where the attack happened (as claimed by the Russians)
Scientifically, if there was an attack on a factory where sarin was been made / stored, it's very unlikely that it would be released in this way (someone posted something earlier today about this - it was in this article
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-39500947)
So given that there are realistically only two options as to whom is responsible, it's pretty obvious who the evidence points to.
Reading a couple of the links posted recently, I have no idea how reliable those websites are, but I'm seeing a lot of stuff trying to claim that it's all fake and it's actually the US that are responsible, etc...people talk about not believing the 'mainstream media' but then unquestioningly believe an article on some random website because it fits in with their vaguely anti-establishment / conspiracy theory views. I mean for example, the idea that Obama orchestrated the sarin attack in 2012 to justify a subsequent invasion of Syria is just ludicrous. Firstly, it ignores the fact that he
didn't actually invade Syria. Secondly, why would he deliberately make himself look weak by drawing a 'red line' and then not taking action when the line was crossed (if his plan all along was to invade)? Thirdly, his whole foreign policy from the start was based on
not getting into any more wars (at least on the ground) - he pulled the US out of Afghanistan and Iraq, and didn't send troops to Syria (or back into Iraq) when he could have on several occasions, to combat ISIS. And if there is actual evidence that the US is responsible for all of this, why have neither Assad nor the Russians made any claims along these lines?
It's not exactly radical anymore to suggest the the US are not squeaky-clean, but I don't understand this apparent urge some people have to somehow blame them ahead of regimes like Syria and Russia.
