How do we KNOW it couldn't have been the "rebels" launching the gas?

[BainsBane]

31. You falsely accuse me of misleading while you blatantly distort the NRR piece

Last edited Sat Aug 31, 2013, 12:26 AM - Edit history (1)

This is the expert's assessment: "

(A rebel attack)is feasible, but not particularly likely," said Winfield."

The rest of the piece is entirely hypothetical. NO WHERE does it say the rebels likely released the gas. It says the exact opposite of that.

You oppose the war, so you have tried to twist the evidence to support your predetermined view that intervention isn't necessary. You accused me of a misleading subject line, which wasn't the case even based on your misreading of the article. You are obviously creating a scenario that fits how you want to see the situation. The facts are not so simple. Evidence shows that the Syrian airforce very likely released those chemicals. Who else maintains a force of fighter jets? Why would rebels risk, and ultimately pay with, their lives collecting video evidence if they had just dropped weapons? This is not a Hollywood movie with clear good and bad guys. Assad is and always has been a ruthless dictator willing to do anything to hold on to power. He doesn't wear a white hat and ride off in the sunset with the pretty woman. This is an ugly situation all the way around. Civilians are being gassed and the ability of the US to stop that is meager at best. You can oppose the war, but that means you have to face the reality that children will continue to be killed. Of course, that would likely be the case with extended US intervention anyway. War, whether foreign intervention or civil war, is ugly, and particularly so in Syria.