Who is 'they' in reports alleging gas attacks and what sources identify the victims?
Executive summary
Reports alleging "gas attacks" use "they" to mean a range of actors—state forces, non-state militant groups, cults and sometimes unidentified perpetrators—while the identified victims are most often private citizens and civilian populations, with police, schools and military also repeatedly targeted; authoritative identifications of perpetrators and victims come from investigative bodies such as the OPCW and UN, international media and forensic studies, though disputed narratives and state-backed counterclaims exist [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. Who "they" are when reporting modern chemical attacks: state militaries and rebel labels
In high-profile recent cases "they" has most often referred to state actors: investigations by the OPCW, the UN and allied fact‑finding missions have concluded that the Syrian Air Force and other Syrian government forces were responsible for multiple chlorine and sarin attacks in 2017–2018, including Douma and Khan Sheikhoun, and those reports explicitly name Syrian military units as perpetrators [1] [5] [2] [3].
2. Who "they" are in non‑state or domestic terror incidents: cults, terrorists and insurgents
Outside Syria "they" has meant non‑state perpetrators—from Aum Shinrikyo, the Japan‑based cult that planned and carried out the Tokyo subway sarin attack and earlier Matsumoto incidents in the 1990s, to Islamic State and other insurgent groups that have tested or used chlorine and mustard in Iraq and Syria—cases where police and criminal investigations, forensic evidence and court proceedings identified the group members as the perpetrators [6] [7] [8] [9].
3. Who the victims are: civilians first, then public‑facing institutions
Quantitative analysis of global chemical‑terror incidents over decades shows private citizens and their property are the most common targets (25.6%), with police units and educational facilities each accounting for roughly 12–13%, and military and government targets following—underscoring that "they" often victimise civilians and public institutions rather than only combatants [4]. Contemporary field investigations and survivor testimonies from Syria and other conflicts repeatedly describe civilian victims—families, children and hospital patients—suffering symptoms consistent with nerve agents or chlorine exposure [2] [5] [3].
4. Sources that identify perpetrators and victims: forensic, investigative and testimonial evidence
Reliable identifications come from a mix of forensic toxicology, on‑site environmental sampling, medical records, eyewitness testimony and multilateral investigative bodies: OPCW forensic reports (and its Investigation and Identification Team) and UN fact‑finding missions have used environmental and medical samples to attribute attacks and to document victim numbers and symptoms [1] [3]. Independent media reporting and NGOs, including Reuters and the BBC, have interviewed survivors and catalogued victims while citing those international reports [5] [2]. Historical cases—Tokyo 1995 and World War I/Nazi extermination gassings—are documented through court records, scientific analyses and abundant contemporaneous documentation that identify both perpetrators and victims [7] [6] [10] [11].
5. Disputes, counterclaims and limits of attribution
"Alleged" gas attacks frequently spawn competing narratives: state actors accused of attacks sometimes point to rebel provocations or claim new evidence absolves them, as in political statements around Ghouta where Russian and Syrian officials suggested opposition forces could have been responsible—an argument observers and some investigators have contested while also noting gaps in open evidence [12]. Investigators such as Åke Sellström have at times cautioned about technical uncertainties even while noting that delivery systems and access to stockpiles make state responsibility more plausible in major incidents [12] [3]. Where sources are silent or investigations were not permitted on the ground, reporting must acknowledge those evidentiary limits rather than assert certainty [3].
6. Reading reports critically: whose interests shape "they" and victim lists
The label "they" is politically freighted: governments accused of using chemical weapons have incentives to deny and deflect; opposition groups and advocacy networks press for accountability and emphasize civilian suffering; investigative bodies aim for forensic objectivity but can be hampered by access constraints and state obstruction, and media outlets select details that fit narratives that engage audiences—so parsing who "they" are requires checking whether attributions rest on forensic samples, witness medical data, chain‑of‑custody standards and multilateral investigative mandates or on single‑source claims [1] [2] [7] [4].