© SyriaCampaignFBFake rescue by White Helmets
According to the CNN report:
"The lack of complete information played a role in deciding not to strike a larger set of targets including airfields, aircraft and helicopters, one defense official said. Others factors, like Russian positioning, also played a role in the decisions."The difficult part to accept is that prior to the US and coalition strike, it was fully possible to confirm whether the chemical attack in Syria indeed contained sarin.
What's difficult to accept, it was admitted that the sources used to confirm details of the attack were multiple media sources. Accord to Friday's White House statement,
"this conclusion is based on descriptions of the attack in multiple media sources, the reported symptoms experienced by victims, videos and images showing two assessed barrel bombs from the attack, and reliable information indicating coordination between Syrian military officials before the attack. A significant body of information points to the regime using chlorine in its bombardment of Duma, while some additional information points to the regime also using the nerve agent sarin."On one hand, alternative news gets challenged for using the internet as sources for information, and yet here countries are using the internet to decide whether or not they should bomb countries without proper thought or intelligence. Something to reflect on here.
Following the strikes on Syria during Friday night, both the French and British governments released the apparent evidence they used to justify their actions on Syria. Their reports admitted to not having any actual intelligence and the "evidence" was based on "open source" information widely available on the internet.
Comment: The power and satisfaction of the invasion trumps the justification for the attack, hiding it behind a facade of 'humanitarian concern' and cooperating media sources.