There has been direct testimony from intelligence officials and thousands of pages of reports including very technical details.
Do you want server logs, intercepts, confessions? All these provide nothing of value to the general public.
When intelligence agencies share clear evidence a dictator gassed his own civilian population, no one cares or trolls ask for more evidence.
>When intelligence agencies share clear evidence a dictator gassed his own civilian population
Funnily enough, there's no clear evidence of this. According to OPCW leaked documents there's a higher probability the gas was manually placed at the site. [1] Which of course, calls into question the Syrian government's involvement, especially given earlier intelligence showing ISIS had possession of such chemical weapons.
You're asking for clear evidence but then using an op-ed from a known controversial journalist on Syria, sharing a Wikileaks leak after the GRU was caught hacking the OPCW ?
Clear evidence you can't fake: a rush of hundreds of people (including children) to the different hospitals near the Khan Sheikhoun site while all showing the same respiratory and neurological symptoms. How can one fool so many doctors?
This seems to be some form of strawman, given I never even implied there was no attack. Merely that it was misattributed according to leaked documents written by chemical experts.
Also, Assad was by all accounts winning the war and pushing back on all fronts at the time. Do you think he's such a lunatic and so strategically bankrupt that he'd launch a chemical attack on his own people while he's winning? Or is it more likely that ISIS launched a false flag attack using chemical weapons that we know they have in order to get the West to do their bidding against Assad?
The Syrian war is a mess, and there are no good guys. The US-backed rebels commit war crimes and behead children, for example.
The source of leaked documents really doesn't concern me as long as they are authentic. For argument's sake, if Snowden was a Kremlin double agent I wouldn't care because he revealed genuine government wrongdoing.
Attacking the source generally isn't a valid argument, especially given the authenticity of the information.
All of that was based on the opinion of a private organization. No intelligence official ever had possession of the server or was involved at any time.
Do you think it's prudent for the intelligence community to allow private organizations to attribute nation state attacks on their behalf without inspecting the evidence?
It's a pretty simple question, and that's what it boils down to.
When intelligence agencies share clear evidence a dictator gassed his own civilian population, no one cares or trolls ask for more evidence.