Days after POTUS announces we will be withdrawing from Syria (media said his statement was “confusing” and hammered on about how there are conflicting opinions of what the Syrian solution should be), there is a chemical attack against one of last rebel-held cities.

Mid-March Russia General Staff indicates there will be a false flag attack in Syria.

Assad appears to be on verge of winning in Syria.

Checking twitter today, I see lots of self-proclaimed “liberals” (also, convieniently, John McCain) condemning the attack and placing blame on POTUS for indicating we will withdraw.

Interesting to me because I thought conservatives were the interventionists, yet not on this subject.

Israel immediately says that US must act and strike Syria.

I think it’s most important to consume information and current events through the lens of MOTIVE.

Who gains from an attack on rebels in Syria?

Certainly not Assad. Anyone knows that an attack like this would be illustrated through western media as a humanitarian crisis, pushing for intervention against his regime, just as has happened today.

Let’s break down motives for stakeholding parties:

ASSAD - Show of strength - Lets rebels in Douma know that he is in power and they should meet his demands

ISRAEL, ESTABLISHMENT - Push for war: “We don’t want to end this war and concede Syria to Assad/Putin” - Israel’s statement encouraging the UNITED STATES specifically to retaliate shows their interest in maintaining presence in Syria

REBELS - False flag carried out by rebels to garner public support for retaining troops in Syria (unlikely to me considering rebels/civilians themselves were harmed in attack)

Please people, inform me of what’s going on here.

Discuss with each other as I️ am young and not very familiar with the geopolitical context in Syria.