But does anybody actually believe that Syria's leader, President Assad, did this?
The rebels who were fighting the government, including ISIS, were on the run; the Syrian government had Russia's full support; and, because Hillary Clinton did not win the U.S. election, there was the possibility of American non-intervention to play with as the Syrian Civil War came to an end. Why would President Assad take the risk of angering the West and changing his good fortune by launching a sarin attack? It makes no sense.
Perhaps the sarin gas belonged to the rebels and exploded in a storage facility. I could see that; it would certain make more sense than the narrative being circulated. Perhaps the whole ordeal is even a false flag to get Trump to backtrack on this deescalation strategy with Syria and go along with the regime change agenda in the Middle East that Clinton stood for. Ironically, on April 4, 2017, the same day as the alleged gas attack, a hearing began in Washington for a case, filed in 2015, regarding Clinton’s use of a "private server" when discussing matters such as the failed regime change in Libya (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00687)). Let us hope that Washington is not manipulating Trump to pick up where Clinton left off in foreign policy. Because, honestly - and I repeat myself - this does not make any sense:
