RT: Given the complex situation on the ground it is always difficult to determine who has done what, but with the repeated allegations, why does the U.S. continue to support groups which are being accused of committing war crimes?

Jim Jatras: I wish I knew the answer to that question. They’ve been doing it for five years, and of course you know that the American media don’t make it real clear the nature of the groups we’re supporting in Syria. We keep hearing about a moderate opposition instead of calling them what they are. These are radical Islamic jihadi terror groups – the same ones we keep saying we’re worried about launching attacks here in the United States. And here we are supporting groups in Syria that have this jihadist ideology, cut off heads of little kids, use chemical weapons and I don’t think the American people really make the connection because the media does not report it.

RT: What is the red line, that if the group crosses, the U.S. might stop backing it? Isn’t the beheading of a child or the use of prohibited weapons enough to put an end to supporting a particular group?

JJ: I think what it likely to resolve it in another sense is by what’s happening on the battlefield. The reason these two chemical attacks were launched, clearly is a false flag in the case of the one that landed in opposition-controlled territory, is to try to pull a rabbit out of the hat to stop the Syrian Army’s offensive in Aleppo, supported by the Russian Air Force. If Aleppo is liberated this was is going to be effectively over. It will take some time, but there won’t be any question any more which way things are going militarily. Maybe that’s got to be the solution because I don’t see the open-mindedness here in Washington. Quite the contrary. Remember the letter from the 51 diplomats at the State Department. And Hillary Clinton has indicated through her puppet Michele Flournoy, her designated secretary of defense, that if things are still going like this in January… they want to launch airstrikes against Assad. I don’t see an open mind here in Washington.

RT: Such a chemical attack against civilians is a deplorable method. What would the Syrian Army have to gain from such tactics?

JJ: Sure it is. But it begs credibility to suggest that this came from the [Syrian] government. Why would they do that? They are advancing on Aleppo. These are not – as far as anybody can tell – weapons-grade gas attacks, at least from what I’ve heard on the news reports. It seems to be more of what is known as ‘kitchen gas’ variety that is certainly within the capabilities of these terrorist groups. It makes perfect sense that’s where it would come from. And frankly, I don’t think it’s going to wash with anybody here.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.