Inspired by the furore over the chemical atrocity in Syria I think we need to just get our brains into gear and ask some pertinent questions rather than firing off missiles.
1) Who is the major beneficiary of the chemical weapon atrocity is it;
a) President Assad and his forces or
b) Rebel forces - wishing to depose President Assad
2) What strategic advantage were President Assad's forces aiming to gain by the use of Chemical weapons against a small Civilian target?
3) Why having used chemical weapons did the Syrian forces not immediately occupy the area attacked to ensure that no Western journalists etc. had access to it?
4) Unless Assad and his commanders (and his Russian advisers) are all mentally deranged they would know
a) That the use of Chemical weapons would bring down on them the full wrath of the western press and every politician in the West
b) That president Trump being the guy he is would quite likely unleash the full force of American power to punish them
c) That therefore using chemical weapons except 'in extemis' or in order to gain an enormous strategic victory was imbecilic
Now I do not believe President Assad is a blithering idiot. I therefore do not believe he ordered or had any pre knowledge of the chemical atrocity. It is of course possible that a Pro Assad officer ordered the attack off his own bat though again it is difficult to come up with a single logical reason why any reasonably intelligent officer should order a very limited chemical attack on a civilian target and them not immediately secure the target to remove the evidence of the attack.
So I believe that elements of the rebel forces, facing defeat, deliberately engineered a chemical attack on civilians (probably civilians who were supporters of a different rebel group) in order to achieve the AIM of a massive western attack on Assad.
I have said it before and I will say it again. Damascus before the so called 'Arab spring' was the most cosmopolitan and relaxed city in the Middle East. Girls wandered about in western fashion and gays chatted away with each other in restaurants and coffee houses without being persecuted. admittedly it was a good idea not to voice vociferous anti regime statements and Western Democracy was unknown (as -of course - it is through out the Middle East) but as Dictatorhips go it was pretty benign,
All the so called 'rebel 'groups would, if they got into power, have very different agenda and if any one in the West thinks, for a moment, that some lovely secular Western style Democracy with a independent press and a independent judiciary would evolve from the ashes of the Assad regime then they are very stupid.