Perhaps the Syrian Air Force bombed a rebel chemical weapons depot. This is what Russia now says, and presumably it has better intelligence in Syria than the West.
This certainly makes more sense than what the global media complex is insinuating: that Syria is using chemical weapons. If we were to put our thinking caps on, there are three reasons why the Syrian government would not use chemical weapons and three reasons why the rebels would.
First, the Syrian government is slowly but very certainly winning this war. The rebel areas are being reduced. So, it is not the Syrian government that is desperate but rather western-backed rebels.
Second, the Syrian leadership – political and military – is well aware, and probably fearful, that any use of unlawful weapons could lead to being potato sacked and prosecuted by the International Criminal Court. By contrast, rebel leaders are more anonymous and can simply deny that they launched a chemical weapon attack.
Third, the Syrian government is not keen on giving the US or NATO any pretext for an intervention, and chemical weapons could trigger that. By contrast, the rebels are actually motivated to see chemical weapons deployed in this war, as they could then accuse the Syrian government of using them and plead for intervention.
This is kind of a no-brainer. Scratch the thinking caps. None needed.
And you know what the “international community” really needs to examine? How the Geneva Convention might apply in this case, in order to prosecute the rebel leaders and those who provide aid and assistance (like Se. John McCain).
Specifically, there is also the Chemical Weapons Convention (1993) of which the US is a signatory… Along with almost all other nations.
This is known as the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction.
Clearly the rebels unlawfully possessed and stockpiled chemical weapons. Now the question is: Who can be potato sacked and carted off to The Hague?