{Editor's Note: You may not realize this, but there are a plethora of great libertarian writers out there other than ourselves! One such writer is Richard Moyer, who writes at Shades of Thomas Paine. We will occasionally share some of his articles here. He recently took a look at how the nerve gas attack in Syria, who may be responsible for it, and who stands to benefit from this heinous act.}As many as 1300 people lay dead in Damascus today, many of them women and children, most definitely killed by nerve gas. The rebels are blaming Syrian dictator Bashar Assad's regime. Most people might take Syrian rebel's statements with a grain of salt, so the big question is who did it?One way to find out is to see whose gas it was, but this is irrelevant.Given that it is a war zone, and both the sitting Syrian government and the rebel groups have been found with nerve gasses, it doesn't matter whose nerve gas it originally was. It may very well have been manufactured Syria, but it could also be from the former Soviet Union, only to have been stolen and sold by the mob. The question of whose gas is totally irrelevant, being that rebel stores could have been captured by the government, or vice versa.The best way to figure it out, though, is to check motives.

1. The rebels have nothing to lose in terms of international reputation. They are, in fact, some of the very least popular people in the world with such headliners as Al Qaeda in Iraq, Turkish Jihad and Abu Sakkar, the literally heart-eating Syrian rebel.
2. Obama has publicly declared the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime a 'red line' that would imply American intervention.
3. The rebellion isn't doing well.
4. Rebels are demanding international response to the gas attacks (presumably in their favor).
5. The US backs the rebels, and a US invasion would end Assad's regime within days.

So given that Assad is killing the rebels pretty effectively, the US has mostly stayed out of the fight so far, and the rebels have nothing to lose, would it make sense for Assad to cross Obama's red line in such an atrocious way? The tactical advantage gained by killing 1300 people, primarily civilians, is nearly zero. The strategic disadvantage is enormous, especially if the United States is sharpening their axe for an intervention, as the US is predisposed to do. See this list of US military actions if you don't believe that.So, regardless of how monstrous the man may be, it makes absolutely no sense for Assad to use chemical weapons in such a clumsy, personally counterproductive way. Likewise, it would make no sense for the rebels to claim credit for using chemical weapons in a way that turns Syrian public sentiment against them.However, a false flag attack is theoretically enormously helpful to the rebels.Read the rest at Shades of Thomas Paine.Receive access to ALL of our EXCLUSIVE bonus audio content – including “Conspiracy Corner”, “Degenerate Gamblers” and the “League of Liberty Podcast” by joining the Lions of Liberty Pride and supporting us on Patreon!