http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23806491

There seems to be little doubt that a chemical weapons attack took place; even the Russians agree. But, unless impartial observers (i.e. the UN) can check within 14 days, traces of any nerve gas would have dispersed from the environment..... and it seems that it was nerve gas. The key information needed to determine which side in the civil war used the chemical weapons is the way in which they were delivered: rocket? made where?

France wants action straightaway, against the Asad regime. But almost certainly, the Asad regime will delay any inspection until it is no longer possible to determine what happened.

Then what does the rest of the world (read: the Western powers) do about it? Nothing? Or just words?

That there has been such an event is almost beyond doubt. All the photographic evidence seems too real to have all been faked.

However

- some of the footage does seem to me to have been added afterwards, showing people acting as if they have been gassed.

- there is no proof of where this attack has occurred

- there is no proof of when this attack occurred

- there is no proof of who is the attacker / who is the attackee

If the gas was delivered over distance, from a military site outside the claimed suburban target area, then there should be evidence of shells or missiles travelling over the intervening distance. I am sure that there are satellites over Syria, from both the US + allies and Russia + allies at all times. Nothing has yet emerged. What allegiance did the people of this suburb profess? Were they pro-Sunni rebels or pro-Alawi government? Was it likely that Assad would order attacks on this suburb of Damascus? From my understanding the area was not pro-rebel. That does not mean to say that it was pro-Assad, or an army stronghold, just that it was an unlikely high priority target.

In this case, more than in most others, I would suggest caution and the principal of 'innocent until proven guilty' should be applied to both the government forces and the various rebel factions. We just don't know the perpetrators, only (probably) the victims.

What we should be doing - and all we should be doing - is to ensure that there are safe areas within and adjacent to Syria, where the non-involved civilian population can find refuge, food, water and safe shelter for the duration of the struggle. Then sanctuary for those displaced who fear to return when the struggle is settled in either direction. We should not aid either side of the combatants.

Realise, please, that if Assad loses and the Sunni extremists gain power, then the entire Alawi and Christian population, as well as the Kurds, will want to (will need to) relocate to a safe haven outside Syria. If the 'moderate' rebels manage to win and keep their power, without it being subsumed into an extremist Sunni government, then the situation may not be so dire, but in my opinion that is the least likely result of this war.

Syria is being destroyed by this war and the few Syrian friends I have working in the Middle East are all deeply concerned about the parts of their families left in the country. Mostly my friends have their immediate families with them, in both Saudi and the UAE, but there are still cousins, aunts, uncles and such left behind.There is seldom any news of or from them.

Other concerns to be tossed in the mix are the borders of Syria - to the North the Turkish border is now much more tightly controlles than a few months ago. The Kurdish areas to the East are permeable, but in limited quantities. The rest is a no-man's-land for a few kilometres, then virtually sealed.

The border to the East is open - to Iraq. Here there are many Sunni volunteers crossing the border both ways to aid the rebels, especially the fundamentalist sects. The majority Shia governing authorities are quite happy to see this, even though they are closer to Assad. It does ease their internal problems.

To the South are Jordan and the Golan Heights, currently held by Israel, who would be completely insane to give them back to Syria. They are much safer in Israeli hands.

To the West is Lebanon, where Hizbollah hold the Bekaah Valley and draw their support from Iran, to whom Assad is also a client. Therefore a lot of Lebanon would be leaning towards the Syrian government if it were not for their record in interference over the past decades. Apart from Hizbollah the Lebanese want no part of this war and would not be willing to give any UN troops free passage to Syria. None of the bordering countries would willingly allow UN troops to attack either side in Syria from their territory, although Turkey may be compelled through their NATO membership. I don't know.

So, as I have said above, stay out of the conflict, succour the civilian refugees. ONLY!!

If it is left to the UN nothing will come of it beyound a strongly worded letter.

Interesting post, HB.

My understanding was that the area was pro-rebels (pro-Sunni rebels I don't know).

I understand your arguments for not ousting Asad, but it creates another problem if he remains in power.

The US took out Saddam Hussein for possessing/using WMD, specifically chemical and biological weapons. If Asad has done the same (and again, it looks as if he has, though it has not been proved), should he nevertheless be left in power? But obviously if he is ousted, it will cause a chain reaction.

I note that Lebanon is also having a spot of bother.... from two directions.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/24/options-syria

This article, originally from the Observer, discusses the options, all bad, but the worst would be to do nothing.

Shall Obama bomb Syria?

I think so.

It seems likely that President Obama will bomb Syria sometime in the coming weeks.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2013/08/barack_obama_s_logic_for_bombing_syria_the_united_states_will_seek_to_put.html

Shall Obama bomb Syria?

I think so.

It seems likely that President Obama will bomb Syria sometime in the coming weeks.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2013/08/barack_obama_s_logic_for_bombing_syria_the_united_states_will_seek_to_put.html

Who should he bomb? The Assad government? The army - wherever they're deployed? The recognised rebels? The Sunni fundamentalist rebels?

How to recognise each faction? They do not have bright coloured flags on horseback these days.

Or should he concentrate on the civilians - do you think they deserve a bit more adventure in their lives?

This is a civil war, being fought by many different factions with differing agendae. To add yet another faction (the US/UK faction) with yet another agenda would do nothing to help the situation - merely bring in other factions (Russian / Chinese / the 'stans) with a multitude of additional agendae.

IB - the Guardian may consider that doing nothing is the worst option, but the only option I would support is establishing more refuges and safe routes to them - whether in-country or just over the borders. But these should be for temporary use only - I would hate to see new Shatila-type places being established. A fully-thought-out policy needs to be agreed to by the UN - not just the UNHCR, who are pretty much a failed organisation as far as follow-on support services are concerned - but the principals who sit in the main chamber.

Sunni-style Islamic fundamentalism is on the march throughout the world and will continue to threaten the Middle East and SE Asia (especially) unless and until the rest of Islam stands up to it and brings the true believers into the modern world. This is not the job of the US or UK government, who have not the understanding nor the credentials to do so.

Temporary refugee camps tend to be an oxymoron.

I'm getting more pessimistic over this situation as the days go by. Start "limited hostilities" and whoosh!

Obviously Assad regime targets for the bombings.

I will add something that won't please the anti-Americans here.

Obama if he doesn't act forcefully now will become even weaker internationally than he already is.

Putin and Iran think they can step all over Obama.

Maybe they can.

Obama made the line, chemical weapons will be responded to.

He must respond.

It's bigger than Syria.

Some of you may not love American power, but I reckon when push comes to shove, you'll like it more than Russian power, Chinese power, Iranian power, etc.

I will add something that won't please the anti-Americans here.

Obama if he doesn't act forcefully now will become even weaker internationally than he already is.

Putin and Iran think they can step all over Obama.

Maybe they can.

Obama made the line, chemical weapons will be responded to.

He must respond.

It's bigger than Syria.

Some of you may not love American power, but I reckon when push comes to shove, you'll like it more than Russian power, Chinese power, Iranian power, etc.

Ah but when Western backed rebels were arrested in Turkey a few months back with chemicals for making weapons all was silent from Obama and Hague. Likewise when the UN inspector Carla Del Ponte found there was evidence that the Western backed terrorist 'rebels' had used chemical weapons in Homs, again deathly silence from Obama. No talk of "red lines' being crossed then. We have been down this road before, the problem here is that the Syrian government have got this mixture of Al Qaeda and Islamic terrorist 'rebels' on the run, they, and their Western backers are getting desperate. So just when UN inspectors arrive in Syria, we are expected to believe that Assad, despite having the 'rebels' on the run, would unleash chemical weapons! He may be a nasty piece of work but he is not stupid. it would be totally self defeating from his point of view. There is more than a bit of evidence, dismissed out of hand by the US, UK and France, that this latest attack originated from the rebels, it is not what they want to hear, it doesn't fit their agenda. And if it does turn out that their friends, the 'rebels' are responsible, which is by far the most likely scenario, will a red line have been crossed? Will the US launch cruise missiles against the Rebel positions to protect the innocent? I think we all know the answer to that question! The hypocrisy here is staggering, Al Qaeda in Afghanistan - Bad, Al Qaeda in Syria -Good. The Syrian government have as much right to wage war on Al Qaeda and assorted foreign Islamic terrorists from assorted countries around the world who are trying to take over the country as do the US, the UK, Israel etc. General Wesley Clark was absolutely right, this attempt to overthrow the Syrian Government was planned by the West years ago. The trouble is it is not going according to plan. But i think they have cried wolf once too often regarding the WMD argument, too many people can see it for the BS that it is. Thankfully.

The hypocrisy here is staggering, Al Qaeda in Afghanistan - Bad, Al Qaeda in Syria -Good.

What a load of nonsense. The reason the US is not supplying the rebels on a large scale - despite the barbaric behavior of the Syrian government - is because they don't want to back the terrorists. These conspiracy theories are absurd.

The hypocrisy here is staggering, Al Qaeda in Afghanistan - Bad, Al Qaeda in Syria -Good.

What a load of nonsense. The reason the US is not supplying the rebels on a large scale - despite the barbaric behavior of the Syrian government - is because they don't want to back the terrorists. These conspiracy theories are absurd.

There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see. This has been going on for a long time, since long before the so called 'uprising'. Presumably you would shout 'A load of nonsense" at General Clark during his lecture! With respect i think he is in a position to know more about the covert US support in Syria than even you.

http://matthewaid.tumblr.com/post/23160615984/u-s-coordinating-covert-arms-supply-to-syrian-rebels

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/12293-obama-deepens-us-support-for-syrian-rebels-with-secret-order

The 'rebels' in Syria are terrorists by any yardstick, if the West get their way and they take over in Syria, which was secular society, people had freedom to practice their religion of choice, women had equal rights, that will all go. Already many reports of Christians being massacred and fleeing for their lives, churches being destroyed in rebel controlled areas. Yet the West are supporting these 'Barbarians', and are quite happy for the Syrian people to be subjected to this barbaric scenario, introduction of Sharia Law etc, just as long as it fits in with their own selfish geopolitical interests. And presumably you are quite happy for Syrian citizens to suffer this fate as well, unless you are in complete denial regarding the realities of the situation on the ground there. The idea that people of the calibre of General Clark are absurd conspiracy theorists is laughable, as is the idea that the US has suddenly discovered a concern for the fate and well being for innocent civilians, given their track record over the past fifty years.

To "prove" your point, you have linked to two conspiracy websites and one has a link to a legitimate source that clearly says that USA is not giving weapons to the rebels. Give it a break.

To "prove" your point, you have linked to two conspiracy websites and one has a link to a legitimate source that clearly says that USA is not providing lethal aid to the rebels. Give it a break.

I wasn't aware the Washington Post was a conspiracy website. There are numerous articles from many many sources that show the US Government have been covertly supporting and arming the terrorist opposition in Syria for years. Is General Clark a conspiracy theorist? But of course anyone who doesn't conform to your blinkered, my country right or wrong view of the world has to be a conspiracy theorist, right? Give it a break indeed.

Your links are to conspiracy websites that are very dishonest and chock full of spin. The Washington Post is the legitimate source that clearly says that USA is NOT giving weapons to the rebels even though the article was more than a year ago when Obama was less skeptical of the rebels. It has become very apparent that too many of them are al Queda and so the USA has backed off from supporting them.

I will add something that won't please the anti-Americans here.

Obama if he doesn't act forcefully now will become even weaker internationally than he already is.

Putin and Iran think they can step all over Obama.

Maybe they can.

Obama made the line, chemical weapons will be responded to.

He must respond.

It's bigger than Syria.

Some of you may not love American power, but I reckon when push comes to shove, you'll like it more than Russian power, Chinese power, Iranian power, etc.

It doesn't please the pro-Americans either. How many mothers, fathers, sons and daughters need to die to cement this incompetent warmonger's legacy. If you care about America, as you claim to; you would recognize it is nothing more than a set of ideals. Worshiping men or political parties that blow in whatever direction the news of the day takes them and helps them retain power is the antithesis of what America represents. People who think like you, (and to be fair there are 10's of millions of you of often opposing political views), are killing America.

Someone's been reading my posts:

http://www.businessinsider.com/colin-powell-syria-caution-2013-8

Obviously Assad regime targets for the bombings.

and a little civilian collateral damage won't hurt

Obviously Assad regime targets for the bombings.

Why? What new events have been identified as being 100% Assad regime doing?

And how to target 'the Assad regime'? Bomb Assad's palaces? (An ex-colleague of mine supervised the building of one). He will not be in them, but in a fully-strengthened bunker somewhere. Bomb military installations? The hardest targets to attack - well defended.

No, easier to follow the principle laid down in Libya - bomb the civilians. That'll contribute to the popularity of Western ways, won't it.

I will add something that won't please the anti-Americans here.

Obama if he doesn't act forcefully now will become even weaker internationally than he already is.

Putin and Iran think they can step all over Obama.

Maybe they can.

Obama made the line, chemical weapons will be responded to.

He must respond.

It's bigger than Syria.

Some of you may not love American power, but I reckon when push comes to shove, you'll like it more than Russian power, Chinese power, Iranian power, etc.

It doesn't please the pro-Americans either. How many mothers, fathers, sons and daughters need to die to cement this incompetent warmonger's legacy. If you care about America, as you claim to; you would recognize it is nothing more than a set of ideals. Worshiping men or political parties that blow in whatever direction the news of the day takes them and helps them retain power is the antithesis of what America represents. People who think like you, (and to be fair there are 10's of millions of you of often opposing political views), are killing America.

Obama is the president now. When he appears weak internationally, the USA appears weak internationally. It is YOU who has toxically twisted my comment to mean something it was not about. It was NOT about partisan politics. You know, you have crossed a line accusing people like me of killing America. But if that's the kind of game you want to play, there it is, says more about you (and the people who would "like" such a rubbish personal attack) than the people you are accusing.

Obviously Assad regime targets for the bombings.

and a little civilian collateral damage won't hurt

War is messy. Obama didn't start it. You want to advocate isolationism, go for it. It's not practical in my view.

The Guardian's latest report on the Syrian crisis.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/middle-east-live/2013/aug/26/syria-crisis-military-action-un-inspectors-vist-chemical-attack

Even Ban Ki-moon has called strongly for action. Hague and Fabius seem to want war. Assad says the claim that his Government was behind the attacks is 'ridiculous'.

But somebody was. The rebels who held the area? Sounds unlikely. Assad's government, who had troops nearby? Also sounds unlikely. A different group of rebels? Maybe, but which one?

I freely admit that I've never been in the Middle East, and really know very little about post-Ottoman Empire developments. Like many other people, I rely on sources like the Guardian (not a conspiracy website, UG, but certainly somewhat left-wing) to inform me. Should I follow Ban Ki-moon, and the Western leaders to call for action.... or the knowledgeable HB?

But action.... against which group?

I will add something that won't please the anti-Americans here.

Obama if he doesn't act forcefully now will become even weaker internationally than he already is.

Putin and Iran think they can step all over Obama.

Maybe they can.

Obama made the line, chemical weapons will be responded to.

He must respond.

It's bigger than Syria.

Some of you may not love American power, but I reckon when push comes to shove, you'll like it more than Russian power, Chinese power, Iranian power, etc.

It doesn't please the pro-Americans either. How many mothers, fathers, sons and daughters need to die to cement this incompetent warmonger's legacy. If you care about America, as you claim to; you would recognize it is nothing more than a set of ideals. Worshiping men or political parties that blow in whatever direction the news of the day takes them and helps them retain power is the antithesis of what America represents. People who think like you, (and to be fair there are 10's of millions of you of often opposing political views), are killing America.

Obama is the president now. When he appears weak internationally, the USA appears weak internationally. It is YOU who has toxically twisted my comment to mean something it was not about. It was NOT about partisan politics. You know, you have crossed a line accusing people like me of killing America. But if that's the kind of game you want to play, there it is, says more about you (and the people who would "like" such a rubbish personal attack) than the people you are accusing.

I could not care less if the US (of A) appears weak internationally. I have a spouse and children; do you? You're always ready to see OTHER people's children die for whatever your political fancy of the week is. I am not!

Obviously Assad regime targets for the bombings.

and a little civilian collateral damage won't hurt

War is messy. Obama didn't start it. You want to advocate isolationism, go for it. It's not practical in my view.

what's the reason/justification why Obama/the US of A should participate in this war?

I will add something that won't please the anti-Americans here.

Obama if he doesn't act forcefully now will become even weaker internationally than he already is.

Putin and Iran think they can step all over Obama.

Maybe they can.

Obama made the line, chemical weapons will be responded to.

He must respond.

It's bigger than Syria.

Some of you may not love American power, but I reckon when push comes to shove, you'll like it more than Russian power, Chinese power, Iranian power, etc.

It doesn't please the pro-Americans either. How many mothers, fathers, sons and daughters need to die to cement this incompetent warmonger's legacy. If you care about America, as you claim to; you would recognize it is nothing more than a set of ideals. Worshiping men or political parties that blow in whatever direction the news of the day takes them and helps them retain power is the antithesis of what America represents. People who think like you, (and to be fair there are 10's of millions of you of often opposing political views), are killing America.

Obama is the president now. When he appears weak internationally, the USA appears weak internationally. It is YOU who has toxically twisted my comment to mean something it was not about. It was NOT about partisan politics. You know, you have crossed a line accusing people like me of killing America. But if that's the kind of game you want to play, there it is, says more about you (and the people who would "like" such a rubbish personal attack) than the people you are accusing.

I could not care less if the US (of A) appears weak internationally. I have a spouse and children; do you? You're always ready to see OTHER people's children die for whatever your political fancy of the week is. I am not!

It occurs to me I'm not being fair. Maybe you DO have a spouse, who is American and has volunteered to fight and risk his life in this not yet declared war. Maybe you DO have children that are ready to lay their lives on the line to achieve an objective that no one has yet been able to define. Previously , I had thought you were just some political hack that had no regard for human life. I thought you were so desensitized to human suffering that you didn't know the difference between a Syrian child being killed by a US (of A) smart bomb and a gay whore dying from someting he caught in the Glory Hole. My apologies.

The Guardian's latest report on the Syrian crisis.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/middle-east-live/2013/aug/26/syria-crisis-military-action-un-inspectors-vist-chemical-attack

Even Ban Ki-moon has called strongly for action. Hague and Fabius seem to want war. Assad says the claim that his Government was behind the attacks is 'ridiculous'.

But somebody was. The rebels who held the area? Sounds unlikely. Assad's government, who had troops nearby? Also sounds unlikely. A different group of rebels? Maybe, but which one?

I freely admit that I've never been in the Middle East, and really know very little about post-Ottoman Empire developments. Like many other people, I rely on sources like the Guardian (not a conspiracy website, UG, but certainly somewhat left-wing) to inform me. Should I follow Ban Ki-moon, and the Western leaders to call for action.... or the knowledgeable HB?

But action.... against which group?

do you really think that any of the UN top lapdogs, nowadays Ban Ki-Moon, are allowed of independent thinking or publicise their personal opinions? there was only one who dared to do that, namely Dag Hammarskjöld, and that was the reason why he was killed.

Obviously Assad regime targets for the bombings.

and a little civilian collateral damage won't hurt

War is messy. Obama didn't start it. You want to advocate isolationism, go for it. It's not practical in my view.

I'm not advocating isolationism, but please expand on your comment about it not being practical. If ever a country could be isolationist, it would be the US (of A). It has been gifted by God/ Bhudda/ Allah/ Shiva with the most supreme geography and climate imaginable.

And how to target 'the Assad regime'?

I'm mostly against intervening in Syria, but because of Obama's red line, we are going to have to do something. It would not bother me a bit if we bomb Assad's airforce, runways, air defences,etc. into nothingness and then bug out of the whole thing.

The Guardian's latest report on the Syrian crisis.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/middle-east-live/2013/aug/26/syria-crisis-military-action-un-inspectors-vist-chemical-attack

Even Ban Ki-moon has called strongly for action. Hague and Fabius seem to want war. Assad says the claim that his Government was behind the attacks is 'ridiculous'.

But somebody was. The rebels who held the area? Sounds unlikely. Assad's government, who had troops nearby? Also sounds unlikely. A different group of rebels? Maybe, but which one?

I freely admit that I've never been in the Middle East, and really know very little about post-Ottoman Empire developments. Like many other people, I rely on sources like the Guardian (not a conspiracy website, UG, but certainly somewhat left-wing) to inform me. Should I follow Ban Ki-moon, and the Western leaders to call for action.... or the knowledgeable HB?

But action.... against which group?

do you really think that any of the UN top lapdogs, nowadays Ban Ki-Moon, are allowed of independent thinking or publicise their personal opinions? there was only one who dared to do that, namely Dag Hammarskjöld, and that was the reason why he was killed.

Correct. A great man who saw only great possibilities. Not unlike JFK and RFK. They all had to die to maintain the "status quo".