1. Chief UN investigator states that he doesn't have information that would stand in court, on record.
2. Many US Congressmen that were given access to US secret proof have stated that it is dubious, on record.
Are these sources wrong or hand-picked? Which ones did I hand-pick, US Congressmen, or UN investigators, or, perhaps, both?
It was not enough evidence to stand in court, but apparently, there was enough evidence for the West to bomb Syria and cause immanent civilian deaths.
Wittingly or not, you are trying to change subject, twist the narrative and so on. It occurs to me that you Sir are not trying to be objective at all. Looks like here I'm the fool who's banging his head against the wall.
2. Many US Congressmen that were given access to US secret proof have stated that it is dubious, on record.
Are these sources wrong or hand-picked? Which ones did I hand-pick, US Congressmen, or UN investigators, or, perhaps, both?
It was not enough evidence to stand in court, but apparently, there was enough evidence for the West to bomb Syria and cause immanent civilian deaths.
Wittingly or not, you are trying to change subject, twist the narrative and so on. It occurs to me that you Sir are not trying to be objective at all. Looks like here I'm the fool who's banging his head against the wall.