You're completely missing the point of the article and reframing the discussion to fit into a false dichotomy, after admitting that "tldr".

Yes, Assad is a dictator. Yes, Saddam was a dictator. Yes, Gaddafi was a dictator... This is not the point of the piece.

The piece is demonstrating that that western interventionism hinges on deception, duplicity and disinformation. The chemical weapons attack is used to justify US/NATO intervention of a sovereign nation. Intervention in the middle east has an abysmal track record - ie. Iraq, Libya.

Because someone is anti-warmongering and interventionism doesn't equate to being pro-Assad. These types of false dichotomies are juvenile and frankly idiotic.

For close to a decade, US and NATO governments have altered the reasoning behind intervention countless times.

• US must intervene because Assad is massacring his own people
• US must intervene to promote democracy and peace in the middle east
• US must intervene because Assad used chemical weapons
• US must intervene to rid the middle east of ISIS
• US must intervene and occupy Syria to counter Iranian influence
• US must intervene and occupy Syria to defend the Kurds
• US must intervene and occupy Syria because oil

These are excuses for military interventionism.

What happens after intervention?
Will it become a bastion of democracy and freedom like Iraq and Libya?

A million Iraqis dead, ongoing occupation and never ending sectarian violence - smells like freedom.

The destruction of the richest nation in Africa and replaced with a failed state of warlords, terrorist groups and open slave markets

• sounds like liberation.