Besides tens of interviews reported by different sources, many of them inside Syria, there are many expert reports emerging every now and then that give more evidence that raise what the Syrian government has long been insisted about the attack on Syria’s Ghouta on August 21: It was the opposition militants.

Hundreds of people were killed and scores of others injured in the chemical attack which took place in the suburbs of Damascus on August 21.

The militants operating inside Syria and the foreign-backed Syrian opposition claimed that the deadly attack was carried out by the army.

Damascus, however, strongly denied the accusation, saying it was a false-flag operation carried out by Takfiri groups in a bid to draw in foreign military intervention.

US officials however continue to insist that the case for Syrian government responsibility for the attack in East Ghouta is stronger than any suggestion of rebel involvement, while experts say otherwise.

Most recently, the head of the UN weapons inspectors said in a December report that the American case for Syrian government firing chemical weapons was weak, because the rockets can only go 2 miles, but government-held territory is much further away.

Another study titled “Possible Implications of Faculty US Technical Intelligence,” by Richard Lloyd, a former United Nations weapons inspector, and Theodore Postol, a professor of science, technology and national security policy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, argued that the question about the rocket’s range indicates a major weakness in the case for military action initially pressed by Obama administration officials.

Based on mathematical calculations, Lloyd and Postol estimate the rocket with such aerodynamics could not travel more than 2 kilometers.

To illustrate their conclusion, the authors included the original White House map that depicted areas under Assad control and those held by the opposition.

Based on the firing range and troop locations on August 21, the authors conclude that all possible launching points within the 2 km radius were in militant-held areas.

“This mistaken intelligence could have led to an unjustified US military action based on false intelligence. A proper vetting of the fact that the munition was of such short range would have led to a completely different assessment of the situation from the gathered data,” the report states.

Same findings have been endorsed by Russia which supports Syrian government’s case of the chemical incident being a provocation by the militants, which staged a false flag attack to drag the US into the conflict and capitalize on the damage that the Syrian army was likely to sustain in the American intervention.

Reviewing the incident, the Russia Today wrote in a September report that not only the militant groups were behind the attack but it was also planned by Saudi and Israeli intelligence elements.

The report pointed out to a CNN article that said the US military was training anti-government militants with the securing and handling of chemical weapons.

Under the name of the Destructive Wind Chemical Battalion, the insurgents themselves even threatened to use nerve gas and released a video where they killed rabbits as a demonstration of what they planned on doing in Syria.

According to the French newspaper Le Figaro, two brigades of anti-government militants that were trained by the CIA, Israelis, Saudis, and Jordanians crossed from the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan into Syria to launch an assault, respectively on August 17 and 19, 2013.

According to the British Independent, it was Saudi Prince Bandar “that first alerted Western allies to the alleged use of sarin gas by the Syrian regime in February 2013.” 

Turkey would apprehend Syrian militants in its territory with sarin gas, which these terrorists planned on using inside Syria. On July 22 the insurgents would also overrun Assal and kill all the witnesses as part of a cover-up.

A report by Yahya Ababneh, which was contributed to by Dale Gavlak, has collected the testimonies of witnesses who say that  “certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the gas attack.”

These are only parts of many other reports which give evidence and make argument cases about the whole story being contrary to what the administration of US President Barack Obama insists on.

But they all end up with the US not even considering the possibility that it was the rebel side that crossed its ‘red-line’ and still taking the position that the only acceptable outcome for the coming Syria negotiations is for Assad to be replaced by the US-backed opposition.

SHI/SHI