Quote (Goomshill @ Apr 13 2018 06:30pm)
im torn on believing whether there was actually a chemical attack or not
on one hand, its unnecessary and far too convenient: Russia and Assad had Douma surrounded and were about to rout the last of the rebels. They knew they were about to get destroyed, so faking a chemical attack wouldn't be hard, they could even use some of their own chlorine stores to create evidence, and the white helmets have a history of faking atrocities to garner sympathy. For Assad, it would seem like a misstep that he should use chemical weapons when he's going to take the city easily by conventional weapons. Why? And that's the other problem: He had a reason why- same reason they would do a chemical strike when obama made his red line, as a provocation to test Trump's response and send a message to the rebels, knowing that its not enough to just drive them out of the city but they have to crush their will and show the US won't come to save them, with russia and assad making the calculation that they could engage in such an aggression and get away with it. Or, more mundanely, just one syrian general acting out on his own.
one thing is for sure, with the amount of propaganda on both sides, and the total inability to trust either the russian or us intelligence assessments (yellowcake and aluminum tubing?), I can figure we'll never know for sure
You make a good point for why they would use and i agree we'll never know who was actually responsible. It's just seems that every time these chemical weapons were used is when the rebels have pretty much lost or are the verge of losing. If Assad used these weapons at the height of war when his back was pinned against the wall, that's understandable, but to use them when you've basically won and are essentially just cleaning up seems counter intuitive.