Evidence for use of chemical weapons includes World Health Organization reports, Amnesty International reports, reports from victims of the attack, and reports from the doctors treating victims / conducting autopsies (e.g. http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/05/middleeast/idlib-syria-attack/ + http://who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2017/toxic-chemicals-syria/en/ + https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/04/06/autopsy-results-of-syrian-victims-show-chemical-weapons-were-used-in-attack-turkey.html)I'm sorry but did I miss the part where we got the proofs? Why does everyone believe Assad used chemical weapons?
(Okay, I thought you were also questioning whether we had proofs that chemical weapons were involved. Glad to see we agree that they were involved. Questioning whether Assad was intentionally using chemicals against civilians here / if insurgents were instead responsible is fair).No one ever once questioned whether or not there was a chemical attack.
One theory I heard was that Assad was testing the Trump administration's resolve to punish chemical weapons use. I don't really buy it though. It doesn't make sense that Bashar al-Assad would invite the aggression of the United States over chemical weapons use one week after the Trump administration basically said that they were no longer going to pursue regime change as one of their main goals in Syria, at least for the time being.I agree Assad isn't a hero or anything, but is there any reason to believe he's actually using chemical weapons on civillians? I just can't believe so many people are just accepting this when they can't seem to answer that simple question.
In light of the policy of the previous presidency I would say that the theory of testing the resolve of the new presidency holds a bit more water. As far as I am aware the US never intervened when Assad used chemical weapons during Obama's presidency. I could imagine that after eight years with a lack of serious intervention one might be lulled into a false sense of continued status quo.One theory I heard was that Assad was testing the Trump administration's resolve to punish chemical weapons use. I don't really buy it though. It doesn't make sense that Bashar al-Assad would invite the aggression of the United States over chemical weapons use one week after the Trump administration basically said that they were no longer going to pursue regime change as one of their main goals in Syria, at least for the time being.
Obama sought Congressional approval to strike Syria. They didn't give it to him. Trump acted unilaterally, which pissed off a lot of people in Congress.In light of the policy of the previous presidency I would say that the theory of testing the resolve of the new presidency holds a bit more water. As far as I am aware the US never intervened when Assad used chemical weapons during Obama's presidency. I could imagine that after eight years with a lack of serious intervention one might be lulled into a false sense of continued status quo.
In a less serious note some of the memes coming out of this are quite hilarious.
There's pretty good evidence that the Syrian government was responsible for chemical attacks in 2013. We know that the Syrian government had access to the types of chemical weapons involved (US + Syria + Russia worked to then decrease Syria's existing chemical weapons stock after the 2013 attacks), we know that the Syrian government had access to the types of rockets used in the 2013 attacks, we have no evidence of insurgents ever using these types of rockets, and we have a clear motive for why the Syrian government would want to launch a chemical attack in these locations - they were opposition-contolled (https://www.hrw.org/report/2013/09/10/attacks-ghouta/analysis-alleged-use-chemical-weapons-syria).It doesn't make much sense when the previous administration was never able to prove Assad used chemical weapons, and when those instances were just as suspect as the current one.