Not sure why you've been downvoted there. Regarding Syria, the same thing happened as with Iraq.
In Iraq, the US and UK said "Saddam has mass destruction weapons, we must attack him", and the French said "okay, just show us the proof, and we'll be on your side". USA said they had a proof but didn't want to show it. France did not support the attack.
In Syria, USA, UK and France said "Bachar use chemical weapons on his population, we must attack him", and Russia said "okay, just show us the proof, and we'll be on your side". France said they had a proof but didn't want to show it. Russia did not support the attack.
OPCW has provided the proof of multiple incidents perpetrated by Syrian government. That you decide to support Assad is a matter of conscience, not absence of facts.
First, let's not call each other names. I certaninly don't support Assad, just as the fact you (or I) don't support Assad certainly doesn't mean you (or I) support ISIS. Our ennemies' ennemies are not always our friends.
Now, I just reported the fact that France said back then "we have evidence", but didn't show it at that time. Then they published an official report [1] a few days later, basically saying "oh, we have good reasons to think it's true, with a high degree of confidence" (haut degré de confiance). Basically, that document says
1- there was probably a chemical attack a few days ago
2- it would be strategically a good idea for Assad to use chemical weapons.
3- we have not heard about rebels acquiring chemical weapons.
4- therefore, Assad is responsible.
That's what happened at that time. Now, if you have a document from April 2018 giving factual proofs, and not just mentioning a "high degree of confidence", I'd be glad to revise my knowledge of the situation.
I wanted to know what happened so I read the report.
I have to say that the "details" are scarce in the report. The investigator not even went to place where the attack happened (because of the danger).
The conclusions are also interesting, because they accuse ISIL, and not Assad. While sometimes ISIL and Assad have shared interests in the ongoing war, that doesn't mean they are the same. After all, we have seen some USA/Iran cooperation in the area too.
So, I find your accusation to the grandparent of "provide leeway for murderers " when he is just saying that the facts are not clear dishonest.
> On the basis of the foregoing, the Leadership Panel is confident that the Syrian Arab Republic is responsible for the release of sarin at Khan Shaykhun on 4 April 2017.
You are right, unwisely I commented before finishing it (it's a long document). I offer my excuses.
I found specially damaging for the Syrian version the point 24 and 26 in the annex II:
"The Syrian Arab Republic informed the Mechanism that the pilot had later been shot down and was missing in action. "
"During a briefing given by the Syrian Arab Republic to the Mechanism in Damascus, a representative of the Syrian Arab Air Force stated that no aircraft of the Air Force had attacked Khan Shaykhun on 4 April 2017. This contradicted the public statement made by the Government [..]"
Thanks a lot, I'll have to read that. It's from 2017, though, I was especially talking about what happened in April 2018 in the great-grandparent-or-something post.
I'm talking about the 7th of april to 16th of april, between the moment an attack happened and France/US/UK decided to attack because they had proof Assad was the author of this precise attack. If you could point me to one of these reports, I'd be grateful.
In Iraq, the US and UK said "Saddam has mass destruction weapons, we must attack him", and the French said "okay, just show us the proof, and we'll be on your side". USA said they had a proof but didn't want to show it. France did not support the attack.
In Syria, USA, UK and France said "Bachar use chemical weapons on his population, we must attack him", and Russia said "okay, just show us the proof, and we'll be on your side". France said they had a proof but didn't want to show it. Russia did not support the attack.