Zim > Source does NOT prove who used it. If you truly don't understand the full extent of ISIS territorial conquest in Syria, the number of defections (with weapons, supplies, and 'other' things) from the Assad Forces ... then there is no further point in discussion.
Hooray for French Intelligence for at least adding ONE fact to your argument. The chemicals used, possibly/probably sarin (read more carefully, Zim) bear the same signature of chemicals used in previous chemical attacks.
Tests conducted in Turkey on victims of the attack found isopropyl methylphosphonic acid, a chemical that sarin degrades into, in blood and urine samples, but the French analysis went further.
French analysis of the chemical compounds from the site also pointed to the presence of sarin, hexamine and diisopropyl methylphosphonate, a compound formed when sarin is synthesised. The chemicals found there essentially match the biological fingerprint of the Assad government’s sarin manufacturing process, as the same chemicals were found in samples collected from a 2013 attack in the town of Saraqeb in Idlib, which was also linked to the regime.
Chemistry 101 - SARIN, itself, was NOT detected. It degrades too quickly in the environment for that to be possible. SARIN, itself, was NOT detected in the victims - the body breaks down sarin too quickly for that to have been possible.
Why are those points important - because of your constant referal to 'degrading' and 'shelf life' - the 'chemical' used in the attack could be fully degraded Sarin, long past it's shelf life of a few weeks to months. The 'residue' is still an organophosphate poison that will yeild the same forensic analysis in post-mortems - isopropyl methylphosphonic acid,.
And the so-called evidence that this was 'definitely' produced in Assad's labs is weak, at best. So sourcing is consistent with Syrian techniques of manufacture (but absolutely NOT proof - the technique or even use of the two marker chemicals by themselves in lieu of actual sarin could be done by anyone - and points to (another word, implies) Syrian government use - a conclusion, based on conjecture - but absolutely NOT proof.
Proof of delivery by air ? Nope - TOTAL FAIL of French Intelligence. Finding the chemical markers at an 'impact site' that was provably tampered with (video and photos of ISIS forces with hours of the reported chemical deployment time) - is not only NOT evidence - it is not a substantiated claim.
So much for your 'evidence' Zim. It doesn't take an expert to rip it apart. All you have are conspiracy theories, supported by terrorist supplied evidence.
That various intelligence services choose to present that as bona-fide 'evidence' speaks volumes of their willingness to 'go along with the US story' - and not be honest about their findings - basically that they can NOT determine what actually happened. At least the UN investigations in 2013 were honest about those limitations, and so stated. The use of circular logic abounds.
Do NOT accuse me of changing my story, ZIM - ad hominen attacks don't work with me. My story has been consistent from day one - and I have presented, NOT 'conspiracy theories' - but well researched information. But go ahead - use the Alinsky technique of demonizing those that you disagree with by using more personal attacks.
To be honest - the venom in your discussion methods has been surprising to me. It is beneath you.
Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good ...
| 