“Do you maintain that Assad is not dropping barrel bombs on his opposition?”
I maintain that he did not suddenly transform into a sexual sadist who gets off on bombing civilians for no reason. When he uses bombs he’s using them against enemies in a war.
“Do you also maintain that the chemical weapons attacks never happened?”
I maintain that it’s absolutely absurd for the US State Department to be claiming conclusively that the Assad government was responsible for the attacks mere hours after they happened, without launching anything remotely resembling an in-depth investigation. The American power establishment has been trying to get its dick into Syria for decades, and has an extensive history of using false flags and propaganda to manufacture consent for evil acts of war.
“Which of the eight “facts”, I have mentioned, do you refute?”
It starts to break down at 3. There were indeed peaceful protesters who opposed Assad, just as there have been peaceful protesters who oppose Trump. These peaceful protests, however, were almost immediately infiltrated by violent jihadist factions. There is no reason to believe that these known violent jihadist factions weren’t responsible for sparking and escalating the violence. They are terrorists. And now these terrorist and jihadist factions are the only remaining groups fighting Assad apart from a few opportunistic foreign militias. This means 4 is flawed as well.
6 is wrong because the US has been actively arming and training terrorist groups in Syria, and has attacked the pro-Assad military on two separate occasions, but yes Russia’s presence is part of the reason there hasn’t been more full-scale engagement.
7 unbelievably flawed. Assad stood literally nothing to gain from killing children. The argument that he did it to make dissidents fear him makes no sense because if that’s why he did it he wouldn’t be publicly denying it at every opportunity and swearing that he would never do such a thing. He stood everything to lose and literally nothing to gain. Your premise that he had some sort of crystal ball telling him that the retaliation for the alleged attacks would be relatively minor is also completely unfounded, obviously.
8 is inaccurate because fighting invading platoons of foreign forces and terrorist groups is not “civil war”. It is war, but it is not civil war.
Your bit about Assad being an autocrat who believes in his right to rule is also unfounded. There is no evidence that the election which overwhelmingly supported him was illegitimate.