Not everybody thinks that Assad was behind the chemical attack. Recent news has shown that ISIS has been very weakened within Syria and driven out of many areas. It seems pretty silly to me for Assad to do something which would give the western media even more ammunition against him.
The former UK ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford, has implied that the chemical attack is typical of a 'false flag' operation. He said on the BBC that there is "no proof that the cause of the explosion was what they said it was" and that it simply wouldn't make sense for Assad to launch such an attack as it would be "totally self-defeating."
Ron Paul, a former politician, asked "Who benefits? It doesn’t make any sense for Assad under these conditions to all of a sudden use poison gases – I think there’s zero chance he would have done this deliberately".
In a TV interview last Wednesday a congressman questioned the mainstream assumption that Assad was responsible for the chemical attack. He said: "It’s hard to know exactly what’s happening in Syria right now. I’d like to know specifically how that release of chemical gas, if it did occur — and it looks like it did — how that occurred. Because frankly, I don’t think Assad would have done that. It does not serve his interests. It would tend to draw us into that civil war even further.”
Andrew Wilkie, an Australian independent MP, has also voiced concerns about the presumption of guilt without evidence.
The expression of these doubts is, of course, very unpopular and it takes some guts for anyone to put their head above the parapet and voice these concerns.
We rely entirely on the information the media feeds us and unless you are are a neutral observer actually there on the ground, without a proper investigation I can't see how anyone can say unequivocally what happened and who is responsible.
