Politicians around the world are rightly condemning the recent suspected chemical weapons attack in Syria that killed dozens of civilians, including children — even if their finger pointing at President Bashar al-Assad lacks conclusive evidence to support their confident accusations.

By: Carey Wedler/ANTIMEDIA Politicians around the world are rightly condemning the recent suspected chemical weapons attack in Syria that killed dozens of civilians, including children — even if their finger pointing at President Bashar al-Assad lacks conclusive evidence to support their confident accusations.

Of course, these allegations ignore previous evidence that Syrian rebels were responsible for the attack — arguably rebels the West has made a habit of empowering over the years.

Regardless of who was responsible for the gruesome attack, however, the politicians condemning the carnage most vehemently have little ground to stand on considering their perceived authority stems from a government guilty of using chemical weapons.

The use of chemical and biological weapons in warfare was banned after World War I — a prohibition that was reaffirmed in 1972 and again in 1993. Tear gas, which is recognized as a chemical weapon, was included in the 1993 ban, but the final agreement allowed governments to use it domestically for riot control.

American police have used it to suppress protests for decades. Though the vast majority of protesters at the Dakota Access Pipeline demonstrations in Standing Rock, North Dakota, were peaceful, law enforcement sprayed them with the chemical weapon, anyway. Though tear gas is a relatively mild chemical weapon compared to sarin gas, it can cause severe adverse health effects. A reputed U.N. lawyer forcefully condemned its use, along with other heavy-handed police tactics. Few American lawmakers came to their defense.