The U.N. Security Council unanimously passes a resolution laying the groundwork for an inquiry that would assign blame for chemical weapons attacks in Syria's civil war. Rough Cut (no reporter narration).Wasn't the chemical weapons issue settled two years ago? What is going on? This same script is being pulled out over and over again by the same discredited people.
Will the United Nations Security Council come to a political decision or a fact-based one this time around?
The UNSC has very little credibility. It is fighting an uphill media battle. Its statements on the Syria war are frankly meaningless. No one cares what the UNSC has to say about anything at this point. If it wants to save both time and money, as well as its own political credibility, then it should skip all the bureaucratic nonsense, and assign blame for the use of chemical weapons to ISIS/ISIL, and their backers. The evidence is already there.
II.
Who is more likely to use chemical weapons on Syrians? A medical doctor trained in London who has an entire nation behind him or cold-blooded sectarian terrorists who are not even Syrian? If you have to think on that even for a second then God help you.
Of course, Assad is a dictator, he is not morally defensible, and his system of government has reached the end of the rope. But, as long as the foreign-backed masked terrorist groups kidnap people, threaten ethnic cleansing, destroy private property, use chemical weapons on civilians, and spread a hateful ideology in the name of God then there will be a need for a strong unifier like Assad in Syria to stabilize the society.
The people of Syria have been given two options: secular tyranny or chaos and terrorism. If the Syrian opposition was better run, more independent, more tolerant, more visionary, and just plain smarter, then events may have unfolded differently in the last four and a half years.
