'my friend in syria told me assad did it' does not qualify as admissible evidence, neither does 'we intercepted a phonecall where someone saying he did it'. syria doesnt manufacture its artilary, so anyone can grab a few shells from their supplier and pull off a false flag. im not claiming assad is innocent. im just claiming that the lack of hague action proves my point on the lack of credible evidence. and untill there is evidence, bombing assad could mean, helping the people who used the chemical weapon take over syria. it is a possibility untill solid proof is found. if there was any half decent proof assad did it, israel and US would have already bombed his stockpiles.
UN says deal reached on increasing flow of supplies to Yemen (AP)