Why do so many figures on the left who are against Syria intervention in principle always go along with the empire's claims that Assad has committed a chemical attack? It may be a strategy for getting themselves accepted in mainstream circles, since the very idea of false flags is considered a "conspiracy theory" that's too taboo to discuss.
Because of this social ban against questioning the official narrative about Syria, many opponents of intervention are convinced that questioning it would be absurd, and that the skeptics shouldn't be listened to.
Yet any honest research into the situation in Syria gives us ample evidence that the conspiracy theorists are right. In April, seventeen witnesses to the alleged chemical attack from earlier that month
testified they hadn't been attacked with sarin.
This version of events is supported by the story from famed reporter Robert Fisk, who interviewed witnesses to the incident that stated no gas attack had taken place. Additionally, the White Helmets have
shown in their own clips and photographs that while handling victims of the "chemical attack," they didn't use any of the necessary gear for protecting themselves from sarin exposure.
The case for Assad's guilt, meanwhile, so far rests only on dubious statements from Western institutions and leaders, and from the very big logical stretch that Assad had a good strategic reason to gas civilians in his own territory while he was already winning the war. So has been roughly the case for the supposed chemical attacks from Assad in 2017, 2014, and 2013:
in all of these instances, the evidence has gone overwhelmingly against the official narrative. But the existence of the war machine requires that the official narrative is believed, so dissent has been marginalized as much as possible.
Comment: Where have we seen this before?