This is such a well presented argument that I can only hope it gains a wide audience.
Luckily, the vote went against Cameron's rush to war in the House of Commons last night. Also, the UN is far from unanimous in thinking Syria needs smacking about with Tomahawks for what might yet prove to be a bogus claim of government-sanctioned chemical weapons use.
This all leaves the US maybe going it alone. Perhaps they will, although I can't quite believe they will be so obtuse. What price must we all pay for Obama's incautious statements about red lines and other arbitrary unilateral posturing?
More and more this strident rhetoric is looking like Obama pre-positioning himself for the coming G20 meeting in St Petersburg. Hopefully that is the case. Having been led up the garden path by Bush and Blair just over a decade ago, a path that soon turned into a prickle patch, the last thing the world needs is to blindly go there again.

Targeting military installations is hardly likely to kill civilians.
The Assad regime imported foreign mercenaries to kill its own people. It's not a big step from there to the use of chemical weapons, which they have, and hope the fog of war allows them to blame the rebels.
If anyone is truly concerned about civilian deaths, then the Assad regime must be removed along with all its inventory of chemical weapons.
Dictatorship is in their DNA, and therefore, there is no prospect the regime will accept a peaceful negotiated solution.
Not as long as they have the unholy alliance of a godless Russia and a God bothering Iran in their corner.
There is only one way for this conflict to end, and that is to change the balance in favor of the rebels. (Syrian civilians.)
The people, the Syrians can then take care of a mass murdering Tyrant, as they see fit.
If Russia wants to maintain any influence, they need to swing their support very much in favor of the Syrian freedom fighters or revolutionists, now today!
Let's face it, there is only one way this conflict can now end!
Some destruction of Assad's military hardware and resources, would likely swing the balance in favor of the freedom fighters, particularly if it were backed up with a no fly zone.
Arming the rebels with anti tank weapons and some S.A.M.S, would further swing the balance in their favor, along with a blockade, that prevents resupplying the Assad regime.
Drones could patrol the sky, to ensure the Regime's tanks and self propelled guns can no longer operate with complete impunity.
As for civilian deaths?
The only way to minimize civilian casualties is to end the conflict as quickly as possible; and, remove the Assad regime!
Simply put, there is no peaceful solution! Too many have died and or sacrificed; and their deaths and sacrifice cannot be in vain!
Look, it's perfectly okay to build dream castles in the clouds. they only become problematic, when you move in as permanent residents.
Rhrosty.

Rhrosty sets a new record for being wrong he wins the internet.

I wonder how long it will be before Australia joins the Yanks on the killing fields of Syria?

Given that both sides of politics in Australia are addicted to playing the 'Follow The Warmongering Leader' game, it won't be too long.

Even the British Parliament refused to endorse Cameron's plans to join the U.S. in another mass slaughter. In Australia we don't have politicians with backbone or ones who have the intellect to see that independence of foreign policy is sometimes the best long-term position.

Rhostry I think misperceives the situation in Syria as being about good guys (rebels) fighting bad guys (regime) who are killing civilians. The reality is much more complex and nuanced.
For instance, what happens to the 15% of Syrians who are Alawites when the Assad regime falls? I suspect they will be either killed or driven out of the country to become refugees in the surrounding countries. Do we want their blood on our hands? Are their lives less important than the other ethnic groups in Syria? The regime will likely fight to the death, because to do otherwise is suicide.
I don't see any solution other than watching and waiting for nature to take its course, all the while seeking some kind of diplomatic solution. To back either side makes us complicit in the blood bath that is taking place and is unlikely to result in less bloodshed.

Rhrosty your statement that "There is only one way for this conflict to end, and that is to change the balance in favor (sic) of the rebels. (Syrian civilians.)" is about one of the most naive statements I have read in relation to the Syrian conflict.

The rebels are a rag-tag bunch of fighters, including mercenaries from Qatar and Saudi Arabia who have a vested interest, along with Israel, France, the UK and the US in the fall of the current Syrian regime.

Additionally, CIA, British SAS and Mossad agents are already on the ground in Syria, further messing around with the rebels. The CIA has also been training rebels in Benghazi for the past year in preparation for the final push into the Syrian conflict.

Don't be fooled by the main-stream media and their minions, seek out and look at the real facts before making such misinformed statements.

Cheers

Geoff

I'm a great fan of you Marjorie,since you have integrity and can't be bought.

The Whabbis, Alawites, Saudis, Hashemites, Sunnis, Shiites, Iranians, Hezbollah, PLO, and Muslim Brotherhood are all Muslims who all hate the West. Rather fortunately for the west, they also all hate each other and they are at presently either killing each other off or helping each other to kill each other off. And we want to get involved and help the people who hate us to win against another group of people who hate us? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense

Even more strangely, the US President Obama who railed against George Bush for going to war against Iraq because the tyrant running Iraq used poison gas on Muslim civilians who hate us, is now saying that the US should get involved in a war against Syria because the tyrant who runs Syria used poison gas on Muslim civilians who hate us.

Cuckoo. Cuckoo.

LEGO,

Copy that, right on the money.

So the nation which has killed millions more people than any other nation since WW2 is again beating its chest and getting ready to kill millions more.

When are the people of the world going to wake up to the Americans? Never it seems.

They just continue with their imperialism, while they hide and deceive behind slogans like 'Bringing Democracy' and 'Freeing the Downtrodden' and 'Protecting Human Rights', etc.

Look at the mess they've made in Iraq and Afghanistan and now they want to have another go!

America must be stopped before it all ends in a nuclear holocaust!

Interestingly, during the Iraq/Iran conflict when they were allied with Saddam, they turned a blind eye to Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iranians.

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Intervention in Syria would seem to be a potential folly, given the failures by the US and its allies in similar Middle-Eastern incursions in recent times.

That's right, David G.

Only this time it is a left wing US President who got in on the ethnic minorities vote, and who preached peace, love and mung beans, who now says that the US should go to war. And it is the left wingers like yourself who are demanding that the US should go to war and the right wingers like myself (hi Spindoc) who are saying that we would be absolutely stupid to side with any of these people.

Even in Australia, there are people like yourself who have no gratitude to the yanks for saving our asses in WW2, so why would the USA want to save the Arabs from killing themselves off when so many Arabs hate them anyway? And so many people like yourself have no appreciation for the US being the world's policeman?

I don't know what virtues the Islamic faith teaches its adherents, but gratitude does not appear to be the most prominent. Although, that self evidently applies to tertiary educated elites like yourself also.

Better to just let our enemies kill each other off and may the worse side win. You have to understand, David G, that us right wingers want the Arabs to stay Muslim and keep stuffing everything up. The Asians are too effective competitors and we don't want the Arabs thinking straight and becoming effective competitors too.

Lego, are you drunk or just high on acid or merely a fool?

You claimed that "...and it is the left wingers like yourself who are demanding that the US should go to war"

Where did I say that? I am fiercely anti-war and I especially deplore American imperial warmongering.

Get your facts right or don't bother writing ridiculous, mendacious comments!

I suspect LEGO and Loudmouth are Trolls.
Obama has been dragging his feet on a Syrian attack but now seems pressured enough to do it. I think Britian pulled out because Putin threatened to attack Saudi Arabia if Syria is attacked.

The real push comes from Israel and the Rothschild financial empire.

Arjay, people like you and me and Geoff and the Emperor, etc, have a constant fight to get our message across on OLO because of the trolls and the intellectually-compromised who think habit is thinking.

Fortunately, there are some excellent people on this forum. They make up for the time-wasters!

DavidG, Notice how Rudd and Carr are rattling the war drums against Syria and Abbott today down played our role. While I don't trust Abbott either, perhaps they are the lesser of two evils.

Arjay, David G, Emperor you might be interested in what the 'Eminent' Paul Craig Roberts has just posted at his highly informative web-site (http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/ ), here is a quick pick of his latest post:

"A foolish President Obama and moronic Secretary of State Kerry have handed the United States government its worst diplomatic defeat in history and destroyed the credibility of the Office of the President, the Department of State, and the entire executive branch. All are exposed as a collection of third-rate liars.

Intoxicated with hubris from past successful lies and deceptions used to destroy Iraq and Libya, Obama thought the US “superpower,” the “exceptional” and “indispensable” country, could pull it off again, this time in Syria.

But the rest of the world has learned to avoid Washington’s rush to war when there is no evidence. A foolish Obama was pushed far out on the limb by an incompetent and untrustworthy National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, and the pack of neoconservatives that support her, and the British Parliament cut the limb off.

What kind of fool would put himself in that vulnerable position?

Now Obama stands alone, isolated, trying to back away from his threat to attack without authorization from anyone--not from the UN, not from NATO, not from Congress who he ignored--a sovereign country. Under the Nuremberg Standard military aggression is a war crime. Washington has until now got away with its war crimes by cloaking them in UN or NATO approval. Despite these “approvals,” they remain war crimes."

Pretty much sums it up doesn't it?

Thanks Geoff for the tip-off. I saw that item on ICH this morning and wrote a post about it on my blog. Have a look at it if you have time:

http://www.dangerouscreation.com

Hi David G.

You must be a left winger because hysterical hatred of the USA is an identifying characteristic of trendy lefties. A right winger who hated the USA is about as rare as a Muslim who believes in peace and tolerance.

And Arjay, the Ivans would never dare attack Saudi Arabia because the even a drop kick like Obama would have no hesitation in declaring war on Russia if they did. Ask Saddam Hussein if threatening the Saudis is a good idea.

Just in case you haven't noticed, Russian made military equipment makes great targets for western weaponry. Every time a Russian tank commander sees a US M1A1 Abrahms tank he orders more vodka. And every time some schmuck driving a Russian fighter plane goes up against a US fighter plane he thinks that he is trying to shoot down a flying saucer.

This video proves that the war on Syria is a lie. General Wesley Clarke was the supreme commander of NATO in the late 1990's.In a private conversation with a general of the Joint Chiefs of staff just a few weeks after 911 he reveals the real truth. The USA was going to invade 7 countries in 5 yrs. This included Irag, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSNyPS0fXpU

Just last week a real patriot of the 911 truth movement died. Lt Col Robert Bowman had PHD's in nuclear physics, aeronautics, taught mathematics and was in charge of NASA's Advanced Space Programs.http://patriotsquestion911.com/

Our leaders and their criminal cabals are nothing compared to Robert Bowman. He should have been the President of the USA and led us out of this oppression.

The nonsense espoused by the likes of LEGO and Loudmouth brings shame on our humanity.

But why attack Syria? If, as many suspect, the chemical weapons are a false flag, in whose favour is that flag flying?
And then we learn that Genie Israel Oil and Gas, Ltd. has been granted an exclusive petroleum exploration license covering 396.5 square kilometres in the southern portion of the Golan Heights.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/israel-has-granted-oil-exploration-rights-inside-syria-in-the-occupied-golan-heights/5346959
This newly discovered development is being bought to you by Bibi Obama and the Cruise Missile Bruisers, aka the shareholders in Genie Energy who include Dick Cheney, Rupert Murdoch and Lord Jacob Rothschild.
This just keeps getting better and better.

Arjay,

"The nonsense espoused by the likes of LEGO and Loudmouth brings shame on our humanity."

Loudmouth doesn't appear to have contributed to this thread thus far.

?

Poirot, In ref to Loudmouth I'm talking about his many unedifying posts on similar topics of which I'm sure you've read just recently.

There will have to come a time when there is no more war, no more conflict, no more aggression or oppression, but we have unfortunately not yet reached that idyllic state, and are in fact eons away from it.

But surely we are at a stage in human history where such an objective has to be seriously considered, and the possible means of achieving this. The world simply cannot go on with 'business as usual' - given where this has brought us, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt and now Syria (and not forgetting the Congo, Zimbabwe, Somalia, Sudan, etc, etc, and even Israel/Palestine, Lebanon, Iran and North Korea).

So many vectors are operating to mitigate against permanent peaceful cooperation and coexistence. Where to start? And, how to start?
Shooting the cr@p out of one another is no solution, but nor is the likes of Saddam or Bashir, or Mugabe or Kim, or Kuny, or so many others of questionable character (and intention).

Not only do we have oppression and inequity/disparity, plus multitudes of corruption, but we have to contend with seemingly insurmountable political and religious divides, and, superimposed on all of this we have gross individual and nationalistic greed, covetousness and super-ambition in many quarters.

How can the 'meek' ever be expected to inherit the Earth in such circumstances? Only perhaps by a total re-think of what is really important in the longer term. Only by a genuine and all-encompassing United Nations and a genuinely fully representative Security Council but with no 'veto' powers - it's all in, or it's not on.

Deposing potentates has not worked well in Iraq, Libya or Egypt, so why should we expect it to work elsewhere?
Can the genuine offering of the olive branch, with masses of genuine and debt-free developmental aid be the solution - with the only 'strings' attached being a genuine commitment to the objectives and directives of the new and improved UN?

If there is a better way, we should all be very pleased to hear about it.

Hi Saltpetre.

I loved your philosophising, and I knew straight away that your sort of muddle headed thinking is responsible for so much strife and division in the western world today.

It is a wonderful idea to think that human beings are intelligent and that we can think our way out of war. But human beings only think rationally when all other means are exhausted. Human beings are tribal and territorial, and no amount of good intentions is going to change our DNA. Every war on planet earth today is essentially a struggle between two or more competing cultures for dominance over a single territory. The question always begs. "Who's culture is running this place?"

Doe eyed idealists think that every war is caused by "oppressors" and "victims", but I put it to you that while in some cases that may be true, for most wars it is a pretty childish way of thinking.

Muslim men believe that they may have multiple wives and that females are minors, but in Australia we say that this is wrong. Are we "oppressing" Muslims because we will not allow them to follow the dictates of their stupid religion? And when civil war eventually erupts in Australia involving Muslims will you say that it was because the Australians "oppressed" them? Or was it a case of two incompatible value systems cohabiting on the same territory?

Next comes the fuzzy concept that all would be well with the world if everybody was equal. That is ironic because it is usually espoused by tertiary educated elites who think that they are God's gift to the human race and everybody else are just stupid peasants or money grubbing bourgeoisie. If there is one thing that life has taught me, it is that people are most definitely not equal. Equality is a nice principle among any social group but it can never be fully implemented because some people are definitely worth more than others and deserve more because of that.

Trying to create class blind societies failed, and trying to create race blind societies will fail also.

"Despite U.S. claims of "little doubt that Assad used these weapons," there is significant doubt among the international community about which side employed chemical weapons."

No there isn't. The evidence is very clear.

"Many view the so-called rebels as trying to create a situation to provoke U.S. intervention against Assad."

As the rebels don't have access to chemical weapons this is a spurious argument, at best based on hearsay.

Marjorie Cohn is at best a pacifist making up stuff to stop US involvement, at worst an apologist for a genocidal dictator.

And yet the Turkish press reported finding canisters containing sarin gas in the possessions of detained Syrian rebels just last month. Or was it the month before? Anyway, it seems the rebels do have access to chemical weapons.

Haldwell,

Perhaps you should read reputable news items, not take rumours reported as fact.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/30/us-syria-crisis-turkey-idUSBRE94T0YO20130530

" (Adana governor Huseyin Avni) Cos said unknown chemical materials were found during the raids and sent away for investigation. He denied media reports that a small amount of the nerve agent sarin had been uncovered."

It is not enough to make Sarin, you need to be able to deliver it.

from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22424188
Testimony from victims of the conflict in Syria suggests rebels have used the nerve agent, sarin, a leading member of a UN commission of inquiry has said.
Carla Del Ponte told Swiss TV that there were "strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof".
Ms Del Ponte did not rule out the possibility that government forces might also have used chemical weapons.
In other words, the jury is still out.
As to how rebels would obtain and deliver chemical weapons, can there be any doubt that agents provocateurs coming across from Israel and/or north from Jordan or south from Turkey would have access to everything in the West's larder?
Fortunately Obama has decided to hold off on any attack until he can get the OK from the US Congress. France has indicated they will wait on the same verdict. So I guess the question of whether to attack or not now rests with the Israeli lobby in Washington DC.

Haldwell,

Carla Del Ponte did not provide testimony, she made a comment in an interview at the early stages of the investigation, that there were some witness testimony that implied that the rebels used sarin gas.

The final verdict of the commission made no such finding.

The CIA has a number of scenarios, with regard to the Middle East (oil supply surety).
According to one conversation I had some decades ago, with one US Embassy individual?
The pentagon has one worst case scenario, of dropping a few neutron bombs, (which they have) over the Middle East, on friend and foe alike, turning all of it into a virtual sea of volcanic glass.
Without destroying any of the infrastructure?
These things, exploded at considerable height, pump out enormous heat and electromagnetic pulses, that basically cripple, (fry) all electronic components.
They also pump out enough rads to kill every living thing in the killing zone, in just days, even those sheltering at conventional shell safe depth.
The nature of the radiation gives irradiated ground zero a very short half life; making it safe to return in around six months, and purloin all of the oil.
Now, it might seem naive to plump for the elimination of the mass murdering Assad regime, with say a carefully planned surgical strike! And that proposition painted as a very possible outcome, by a demonstration, say on several very important/critical military targets, might just bring the Assad regime to the negotiating table?
Moreover, that very outcome would be far less evil, than a worse case scenario outcome, or indeed, the continuing slaughter of unarmed non combatant Syrian civilians, men, women and children!
The Russians won't interfere, with a limited short sharp surgical strike, given they risk plunging the whole world into nuclear holocaust.
But particularly, if Yanks can outsource that task to one or more of their compliant Middle East allies, operating with impunity, under the protection of the US defense umbrella!
Rhrosty.

LEGO, you astonish me, as do so many others on this thread.

Words come to mind like "it is illogical to keep doing the same thing, while expecting (or hoping for) a different outcome".

What may have been if Muammar Gaddafi and Hosni Mubarak had simply given in to the will of the people, without any need for bloodshed?
And, what then if Bashar al-Assad had followed such a lead?
Where might we now be if people did not insist on repeating the same folly, over and over, while expecting a different outcome and a 'better' world to miraculously materialize in consequence?

There is gross disparity in opportunity and capacity between nations and individuals, but no-one can or should expect absolute equality, just a 'fair go' and reasonable opportunity to achieve stability, security and peaceful coexistence with one's neighbours.

Nation States exist, and have a right to reasonable autonomy within a stable and equitable 'world' framework. What they don't have is a right to impose their will on other states (or their own people) by force or by blackmail - and this includes the 'West', the Security Council, and the 'world powers', US, UK etc.

But, we don't yet have a 'stable' and 'equitable' world 'framework' - arguably because this is not seen to be in the best interests of the 'bullies' of this world, because we simply don't trust each other, and because sharing the world's resources and opportunities equitably may be seen as too difficult or as foolish and against self-interest.
The 'haves' remain greedy for more, and the 'have-nots' remain unimpressed with the disparity.

Progress is built on trade, and the road to stability and security will only be built on 'fair trade' and honest dealings.
Time for a new vision of what may be, to learn from past mistakes, and to forge a new, honest and open contract with all the world's nations for the benefit of all human existence, and for the planet.

Hopefully, with equity in trade and opportunity, religious and cultural 'differences' may then become substantially inconsequential.

Saltpetre, your comment stands head and shoulders above the rest of the plebs whose minds are filled with greed and self-delusions.

You are someone valuable, a thinker, a philosopher even.

I tips me' hat to you!

Shadow Minister says "the evidence is very clear" with regard to the assertion that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons on civilians. While it seems clear that chemical weapons were used, I have seen no evidence whatsoever that it was the regime that used them.
If you have this evidence then please share it with the rest of us. And I I mean more than a bald assertion from some US government official. I want to know what the actual evidence is they base this opinion on.

LEGO says "The Whabbis, Alawites, Saudis, Hashemites, Sunnis, Shiites, Iranians, Hezbollah, PLO, and Muslim Brotherhood are all Muslims who all hate the West."
What statistics or other evidence do you have to back up this extraordinary claim?

While I'm sure that none of the groups you mention wish to be ruled by the West, nor do we wish to be ruled by them. That doesn't mean we hate them and nor does it mean they hate us.
In the case of Iran I'm sure they get angry about the sanctions we have placed on them. Destroying their economy. Particularly when we hypocritically maintain large arsenals of nuclear weapons ourselves (Australia excluded) and appear quite happy for other nations such as Israel to maintain large stocks of undeclared nuclear weapons.
Hezbollah won't like us because we constantly back Israel whenever it goes on an orgy of violence killing Lebanese or Palestinians. I've never heard anyone from the Muslim Brotherhood talk about hating the West. Nor the PLO nor the Alawites. The Turks are largely Sunni I believe. They don't seem to hate the West. In fact they have been trying to join the EU for a decade or more.

Dear Saltpeter

Your first premise presupposes that all dictators and tyrants are bad guys who want to oppress everybody, and are bad for the country. What you do not appreciate is that many countries today are multicultural cesspits with societies so divided that they would be ungovernable without a strong leader who was prepared to knock a few heads together to keep his country together.

If Ghaddaffi, Mubarak and Assad had simply stepped aside and allowed elections in their countries which are as badly socially divided as Libya, Egypt and Syria, those countries would have turned anarchic, which is exactly what is happening right now. Egypt has just had an election where the elected president tried to abolish democracy and he had the support of 55% of the population who are religious nutcases to do it. Do you support this democratic decision by 55% of Egyptians to create an Islamic republic or are you smart enough to understand that this will be a catastrophe for Egypt that will send it backwards into the future?

Or do you support the Egyptian armed forces who have arrested their religious nutcase elected President because they are as smart as Kamal Attaturk in Turkey who realised that the time had come to ignore the mullahs and turn Turkey into a modern state, by force if necessary? Democracies don't work in divided societies with diametrically opposed values within the population.

When countries turn anarchic and totally dysfunctional you end up with something like Somalia, North Korea, Cambodia, Iran or Afghanistan where somebody with a gang and a perverted ideology will shoot his way to the top and stay there.

And I most certainly do support the use of force by the western world to stop countries becoming anarchic or controlling anarchic countries before they do become a problem to the civilised world. Whether we should get involved in any war should be based upon a sensible appreciation of the situation and whether or not force is justified and will create some sort of stability with some sort of half way sensible government.

Hi Rhys Jones.

I say that all Muslims hate the west, and you obviously take the opposing view. You have asked me to verify my opinion with statistics and evidence but you have not submitted any evidence to support your own opinion. In debating terms, such a position is known as "unless you can prove me wrong, then it proves I am right." If we differ on this point, RJ, then the onus is upon you to also provide evidence that your opinion is the correct one, or your premise is not supported.

Now, the reason why I know that all Muslims hate the west is because they are Muslims who follow the teachings of Mohammad, who not only preached open hostility and murder towards non Muslims, but he also stressed that non Muslims were not to be trusted and that Muslims should kill, torture, maim, terrorise and "lay ambushes" for them. Since I am sure that you are an anti racist, why you are defending this racist religion is beyond me?

In the case of Iran, you have a country ruled by a gang of religious nutcases who have reversed the modernising efforts of the Shah who was a friend of the western world. They have turned Iran into an international pariah who seems hell bent on building atomic weapons and handing them over to terrorist groups. And you don't think that is a problem?

And one of the reasons why the Muslims hate us is because we support Israel's right to exist. This is anathema to Islam. You see they built a dirty great mosque on top of the Jews most holy place which is their way of saying "this is now Muslim land forever." The Muslims are exactly like the Nazis. Not only do they hate the Jews, but like Hitler, they think that where Islam has conquered a country it can never take a step backwards. To relinquish 'Muslim" is to offend Allah.

And if you can't understand that, then could you please pick up a history book an enlighten yourself?

One of the recurring points of interest in the many threads on OLO is that the right-wing trolls all seem to use pseudonyms. Were I to pen such arrant shite, I would hesitate to put my name to it as well.
Neutron bombs over the Middle East?
All Muslims hate the West?
Seriously, boys. Isn't it time to get a life?

Just build a big fence around the place, arm everybody and let them fight until there's a winner ...

Honestly - this is how I see most of the Islamic conflicts:
There is civil war between differing political or religious ideology even though the vast majority of the population is Muslim. The reason the vast majority is muslim is because in an Islamic country, generally other religions are suppressed at best and openly persecuted at worst. So generally it's Muslims killing, maiming, torturing etc other Muslims. I don't have much of a problem with this anymore because as soon as the UN decides one faction or another is largely at fault and starts interfering the following scenarios start to unfold with nauseating certainty:
Mad crowds protesting and rioting, burning flags and effigies, attacking embassies, foreign peacekeepers, aid workers, journalists and so on ... Because someone killed a few muslims claimed to be 'civilian' ...

No, it matters not that the victims were people in the firing line of one or more of the warring factions. It's OK if WE do it but if YOU do it - then it's infidels killing "innocent muslims" and it must be avenged ... Then again sometimes it can be no more than a rumour or supposed "slur" that sets them off ...

Therefore it's not worth the trouble .... so long as no-one gets across the border ... unless that border is into another muslim country where they can stage another conflict and start killing one another there. Just stay the hell away from our borders! Care factor sunk to zero with me.

Some more information that puts the Syrian regime responsibility into doubt:

Syrians in Ghouta say Saudi supplied rebels were behind the chemical attack. Dale Gavlak who has been covering the Middle East for several years for several agencies including Associated Press, interviewed several people including rebels and their relatives in Ghouta and quote several of them that the weapons may have been supplied by the Saudi intelligence.

The report quotes a rebel leader,‘J’“Jabhat al-Nusra militants do not cooperate with other rebels, except with fighting on the ground. They do not share secret information."

“We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions,” ‘J’ said.

The report further says,

Many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the dealing gas attack.

“My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” said Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of a rebel fighting to unseat Assad, who lives in Ghouta.

Abdel-Moneim said his son and 12 other rebels were killed inside of a tunnel used to store weapons provided by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha, who was leading a fighting battalion. The father described the weapons as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.”

Abdel-Moneim said his son and the others died during the chemical weapons attack. That same day, the militant group Jabhat al-Nusra, which is linked to al-Qaida, announced that it would similarly attack civilians in the Assad regime’s heartland of Latakia on Syria’s western coast, in purported retaliation.

“When Saudi Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who know how to handle and use them,” she warned. She, like other Syrians, do not want to use their full names for fear of retribution.

Quoting Doctors Without Borders the report puts the death toll as at least 355 people.

Geoff

GoP,

Large quantities of Sarin were delivered to an area that previously was being shelled by the Assad forces.

Sarin is a binary gas, i.e. Sarin itself degrades in hours, and needs to be stored as two inert components that are mixed at the point of firing, in special rockets designed to disperse the gas. Anyone that has even a basic understanding would realize that 90% of a binary nerve gas weapons system is the delivery mechanism.

The concept that the rebels have obtained many units of weaponized binary agent that they released simultaneously among their supporters is far fetched in the extreme, especially since building these devices is difficult and expensive, and far out of the reach of the rebels. There is only anecdotal evidence that the rebels have ever possessed any chemical weapon Whereas Assad is known to have a large stock pile of Sarin based weapons.

This is a preposterous as claiming the Americans flew their own planes into buildings on 9/11.

I assume it will only be a matter of time before sarin gas is released into a western city. The gas stockpiles or part of the stockpile will fall into the hands of some of the array of unstables who are in Syria. I cannot differentiate between the so called patriots and the crazed zealots as they seem equally capable destroying everything.
Islam seems terminally flawed and incapable of offering anything to a modern world apart from mayhem and misery.

Hey Shadow Minister and Spindoc. I am really glad that you two are on my side, and I am really glad that Geoff of Perth is on the opposing side. Even Lexi and Poirot must wince with embarrasment when Geoff comes out with his doozies. If I remember correctly, he even claimed that President Roosevelt wanted the Japs to bomb Pearl Harbour so the Yanks could get in on the war.

Geoff and Arjay, what a pair. You can only shake your head in pitying wonder at what fantasy they will dream up next.

"Hey Shadow Minister and Spindoc. I am really glad that you two are on my side," says Lego. It sounds like something you'd hear in a school playground. Primary School of course.

Be warned, Lego. The Shadow Monster is into whipping and seems rather hung up on NAZIS. Perhaps he has a S.S. uniform in this wardrobe along with a plaited whip.

It's a shame that none of you can think outside the war paradigm, the infantile goodies and baddies construct.

Your programming appears set in concrete!

David G,

Perhaps genocide helps titivate you while dressed in your S.S. uniform and plaited whip.

The rest of us deplore the gassing of civilians by the Assad regime. I know that a punitive strike would likely stop these atrocities and break your buzz, but most of us consider crimes against humanity as something to be prevented not celebrated.

Thanks LEGO, you obviously did not read what I wrote, I was just repeating the words of an investigative journalist on one possible scenario who uncovered evidence which indicated FDR did have something to gain by permitting the Japanese to commence hostilities with the US during WW II.

Perhaps you should learn to read a little wider. Myopia is a terrible affliction and tends to stunt one's growth in more ways than one.

Having worked in military intelligence, don't believe everything politicians or the media tell you, the story is often quite the opposite.

Get a grip

Geoff

Hey Geoff, FDR was also tied in with the US beer industry. Therefore, the only plausible reason why he ordered the US military to invade Germany was to destroy the German beer industry and make himself a fortune.

See how much mileage you can get out of that.