Quote:
Originally Posted by August
One would not necessarily be tied to the other. Assad could easily have had new chemweps provided to them later, perhaps by their close allies Russia and/or Iran. How's that for an implication?
But i'm curious, have you any proof that it was somebody else that did this? I mean absent some compelling evidence to the contrary i'm gonna have to go with the dictator that had them in his arsenal, had used them against civilians before, has the means to deliver them, the motive for doing so and a foreign military power protecting him.
|
Ahh, yet is there evidence of such transfer?
I don't need proof that some one else did it, I need proof that some one specific did it, for example Assad.
However, in good faith, to answer your question, if I had to assighn blame I would be more inclined to believe that rebels grossly misreported the attacks if did not carry out the attacks themselves. Not only is this hypothesis simpler and thus passes Okam razor test, but at the same time it is fairly obvious if you look into the rebel reporting that the western narrative is exclusively built around.
I belive I have posted the analasys of that reporting above in the easy to understand meme form.
But I guess more complex hypothesis, with demonised Assad acting against his interests and some how procuring new checmical weapons, are sometimes more convenient if you want to justify acts of agression. Quick question - is the source for Assad acquiring new chemical weapons the same as for Sadam?