...I'm not happy with the explanations
You mean to tell me that - once again - the Syrian Army had the Jihadist forces all but totally defeated and then used chemical weapons knowing that it would cause international outrage and possibly an escalation in the war against them? Why on earth would anyone get to the point of victory the hard way - with their enemies capitulating and leaving the area - and only then deploy Chemical weapons? What possible good would that do? In fact the "Rebels" have used chemical weapons while blaming Assad's regime for the very purpose of turning international opinion in their favour before. And yet we're not supposed to notice the rather obvious pattern?
The situation in Syria is complicated, there's no doubt about that, but as bad as Assad is he is far, far better than the alternative - the imposition of a Sharia state. If you have any doubt about that then please check out an earlier post of mine regarding what the religious minorities think of Assad & the alternative - we must ensure Assad remains. The fact that the three main Muslim backers of the opponents to Assad are Saudi Arabia, Qatar (two of the prime financiers of Sunni terrorism and political Islam throughout the world) and Turkey (under the Sharia loving President Erdogan) should be more than enough to alert us to who exactly, among this motley crew, are the good guys - or the least bad guys we could say.
As I've quoted before, you can tell a lot about someone by examining the character of their enemies.
Certainly Russia is backing Assad for its own reasons but I still insist Assad is the best option and would yield to Westernisation should the real villain of the piece - Iran - be confronted & thwarted. See a previous post here on this.
Take a look at the following 4 minute video - yes he does get a bit shrill and he is from one of those awful sources on "the alt-right" (whatever that is - hard to tell with the ever broadening definitions in play) but do tune out the distractions and check out his research. The facts are good and should not be ignored. (I'm not at all sure though just how much an action by America's military is merely a political pawn for assisting the Republicans in the upcoming mid-terms, but the idea of initiating wars of distraction or convenience is certainly not without precedent either.)
In any event, what dolts we all are to simply believe any politician when the facts are so damnably against them.