The rebels themselves perhaps? Convenient to provoke some international reaction when Assad is winning in Syria.

Here's an idea - how nobody gets bombed an the world just leaves them to it.

What ever the facts are about this chemical weapons incident and no doubt there will be a lot of conflicting positions on this emerging in the next few days, one thing is very clear: the actions taken are those of president under deep pressure on the domestic front benefiting from a foreign intervention as distraction from the problems at home. The situation is extremely dangerous.

Quote from Richard Nixon around the time of his impeachment proceedings: "I could leave this room and in 25 minutes 70 million people would be dead." Link

No need to quote Nixon; from the great man himself!

In another time most of us would have unhesitatingly taken the same position, but US actions and the fact that we have a blatant liar in the WH, means that we're having some difficulty deciding how good the good guys really are!

Well I can see that, but then I don't really assume Twitter rants from an erratic manchild are a good source of truth. So to the general public, I would recommend to believe whatever the majority of the worldwide press says.

Of course I don't assume that it's "fake press" and that they're all liars with "alternative facts" The only liar I see is that dude in the WH.

"Let's bomb Assad! He's committed war crimes!"

The stupid. It burns.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-36843990
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatla_massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zara%27a_attack

Paying attention now?

US strikes on Syria: UK backs Donald Trump's attack that 'kills four children' as Russia condemns 'aggression'

Yes, because anything coming from Syrian and Russian news agencies are always truthful and accurate .

Having said that, I can't see what possible effect Trump thought this attack would have. If it's a one-off, it's nothing more than a token gesture to deflect his waning popularity, if it's the start of a campaign, then he's heading into seriously dangerous territory that I'm not sure he has neither the experience nor intelligence to deal with.

And government reports and journalism in the West is always 100% reliable

Assad kills children. Trump responds by killing children. It's as if Hillary won.

The obvious difference is that while Assad INTENTIONALLY used chemical weapons on children, the US performed a targeted strike on an air base and valid military target where 4 children (allegedly) happened to be. That is a huge difference. That these children were killed needs to be independently confirmed, as all we have at the moment are Russian and Syrian military reports, and of course they will be looking to make it look as bad as possible.

Jesus Loz, the fact that this even needs explaining to you is itself worrying.

Did I say they were? At least the western media is a little more subject to scrutiny than dubious state-run media outlets.

But it's OK for Trump to launch missle strikes without the cause of this chemical weapons attack being "independently confirmed"?

And where is there any shred of evidence that Assad "INTENTIONALLY used chemical weapons on children?"

What is everyone actually arguing about now?

Trump is a shit. Yes.
Putin is a shit. Yes.
Assad is a shit. Yes.

The only relevance here seems to be Trump flailing at home, and launching a strike that only deepens USA's involvement in an unwinnable (for any side) war.

Everyone's a loser.

Trump struck a valid military target, an isolated airbase many kilometres from any civilian areas. Targets do not get any more reasonable or ideal than this.

Assad bombed a civilian area. With chemical weapons. How can it be anything other than intentional, to bomb a civilian area where you know beyond any reasonable doubt that civilians are living there?

Really Loz, are you kind of, well... thick? Either that or you are just being deliberately obtuse. I would prefer to believe the second option.

You quoting mass media "fake news"? Just WOW!

So living Syrian children are potential terrorists, but dead Syrian children are "children of God" now are they, Donald?

Except that the US have no business for that kind of action. US militar action may be legal under US law but it's illegal under international law.
That's nothing but an assumption. Not the attack but who's responsible.

It's a highly logical assumption. Who else do you think could have theoretically dropped chemical bombs via plane in Syria, other than the Russians?

Cui bono?

Members of which faction say they were dropped from planes, and how many people do so? As I recall the attack caught the victims asleep, how well can you see bombs drop in the dark?

Assad is the only party involved who has nothing to gain from the use of chemical weapons. He's been gaining ground for months now, marginalizing the US, pushing back ISIS (also thanks to the Kurds) as well as Al Quaida associate al-Nusra.

In 2013 Reuters reported on Turkish newspapers who said that Turkey had aprehended 12 people, allegedly al-Nusra members, with 2kg of Sarin. According to welt.de, which is a rather conservative outlet, UK intelligence proved that the Sarin used then was not of Syrian origin, which had Obama cancel the planned and already prepared for US attack.

Simple, see which side has the best carrot supply. There is no other way in this day and age to see in the dark.