3 ms·

I wanted to know what happened so I read the report. I have to say that the "details" are scarce in the report. The investigator not even went to place where t

I wanted to know what happened so I read the report. I have to say that the "details" are scarce in the report. The investigator not even went to place where the attack happened (because of the danger). The conclusions are also interesting, because they accuse ISIL, and not Assad. While sometimes ISIL and Assad have shared interests in the ongoing war, that doesn't mean they are the same. After all, we have seen some USA/Iran cooperation in the area too. So, I find your accusation to the grandparent of "provide leeway for murderers " when he is just saying that the facts are not clear dishonest.

varjag 8y ago
You didn't really finish the report, did you? Page 33: > On the basis of the foregoing, the Leadership Panel is confident that the Syrian Arab Republic is responsible for the release of sarin at Khan Shaykhun on 4 April 2017.
- RobertoG 8y ago
  You are right, unwisely I commented before finishing it (it's a long document). I offer my excuses. I found specially damaging for the Syrian version the point 24 and 26 in the annex II: "The Syrian Arab Republic informed the Mechanism that the pilot had later been shot down and was missing in action. " "During a briefing given by the Syrian Arab Republic to the Mechanism in Damascus, a representative of the Syrian Arab Air Force stated that no aircraft of the Air Force had attacked Khan Shaykhun on 4 April 2017. This contradicted the public statement made by the Government [..]"