So you think we should 'even' the conflict up a bit then, what happens if more Sarin is deployed and we don't know who used it some days ago, both sides have the rocket based systems to deploy the gas.

So who do you hit, we have no confirmation of a) where all the regimes CW stockpiles are, b) has security on any been compromised c) have the FSA captured any, d) is it 'bathtub Sarin' as used in the Tokyo attack. What about the consequences after a strike, do we allow mass slaughter by the rebel forces of those seen as either unbelievers or not believing enough, which has happened in the past look at Iraq and it is happening now in Syria and has happened in Egypt before the military got involved.

What would the Russians and Chinese do, Russia could cut off gas supplies to the west and China call in all the US debt it owns, the rule of unintended consequences. What happens if the rebels won then they had Sarin and the means to attack, would they go after Israel at a later date, and the consequences of that are even worse, with the potential of nuclear weapon release as would have happened in GW1 with the Samson option. Remember, James Baker via Tarriq Assiz warned the Iraqi's off quietly through the UN about the potential consequences of a CW attack on Israel.

Time to stand on the sidelines and watch, help Jordan and Turkey with the refugee situation by all means but get involved inside NO NO NO.

The Syrian conflict pits Hezbollah and Iran against Al-Qaeda, which is a result for the west.
Very many of the world's moslem nutters are there now. Killing each other. Including over 600 from the West. So British jihadists are there instead of here, which has to be good.

One good option would be to seal the country off and supply no more arms or fuel. Then they would eventually be reduced to throwing stones at each other. Already the number of armoured vehicles and combat aircraft is significantly depleted.

It will be very interesting to see the nature of Obama's strike. Will he attempt to decapitate the regime, go for C4ISTAR, take out the threats to Israel which means scuds and chemical weapons stores or will he just go after military assets on the ground? Or some combination. He is forced in a corner by his "red line" speech and has no option but to act.

Obama is indeed in a corner and is looking like lame duck President in particular with the dispute between the Senate and the House of Representatives and the US forces budget. The American public like the British public will be and in fact are, against any intervention in this situation and look as if they want them to sort it out themselves, without having forces in harms way in particular with CW around. Imagine having to work in CBRN suits and respirators in the heat of the day then the cold of the night.

If he orders the strike, and if he uses cruise missiles, how many MANPADS, SAMS and ZSU 23/4s has Assad got available to defend his sites. Are US intel sources up to date in view of places to target and by giving this sort of warning the Syrians would be foolish not to play a 'shell game' of moving stocks and C4ISTR where possible to other sites.

Airstrikes require tanker C4ISTR SEAD and a base or bases to operate from, that's another problem.

Eclectic: unfortunately being on the border of Iran means you can move supplies without difficulty and they will not want to loose their supply line to Hezboullah in Lebanon. The Saudi's Qatari's on one side and Iran on the other, maybe a good time for them to attack each other, draw in all the idiots and crazies and leave the rest of the world alone. What's not to like about that scenario.

Ronald,
Alex Jones is a conspiracy nut. He will find any snippet from an 'expert talking head' purely to get hits and suck in the gullible. The world is certainly not in need of money making conspiracy peddlars like Alex Jones.

Press released from Doctors without borders.

Syria: Thousands Suffering Neurotoxic Symptoms Treated in Hospitals Supported by MSF | Doctors Without Borders

Simply this.

Eclectic you make a great point about Hezbollah and Iran vs Al-Qaeda.
Letting it play out is probably a good idea though one does worry about the civilian population who probably just wish to live their lives and hate both extremes. While I strongly dislike the Iranian regime and certainly Hezbollah I find them both atleast one magnitude better than Al-Qaeda. Under the right circumstances one could sit down and talk to the Iranian regime, to conduct business and trade deals with them like Russia and China do. But Al-Qaeda, as far as I am concerned are the true bad guys. Evil incarnate. The idea that after Sept 11th 2001 we (UK, USA and France) could even remotely be on the same side as them is just mad! To engage in military action on the side that they are!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We should really keep out of it, but if we wanted to do anything it should be to help Assad destroy Al-Qaeda.
Our leaders have truly lost the plot. What a bunch of useless morons they really are. I thought the war on terror was supposed to be about destroying Al-Qaeda, not launching airstrikes on there behalf!

Agree with Broadsword.
Go to war with Tomahawks - knock out C&C.
BTW it's Sunni versus Alawite.
Trying to airstrike at this point would be very risky given the number of manpads.
China's not going to call in its debt, and Russia is not going to cut off gas supplies to the west:rolleyes:
The degree of coordination - the number of sites involved only points to one perp I reckon.
The tone of what MSF is saying points to the scale of this.
Mrs T is a TV producer.
She emailed me on Friday about the unedited raw pics of the gassing that are coming in off the satellites to news organisations worldwide.
The ones you guys don't see.
Not something you can sit by and ignore I'm afraid.

Ronald,
It plays both ways. If Assad is removed and the rebels seize control then Al Qaeda is not going to last long in Syria and certainly not hold any position of power. Only a proportion of rebels within Syria are Al Qaeda or the rest of the extremist nut jobs.

You only have to look at Iraq when Al-Q started pushing their luck and took over suburbs. That resulted in the the US and some insurgents combining forces and taking over those areas where Al Q had tried to set up controlled areas. Yes Al-Q are in Syria but you can't broad brush the majority of Assad opposition in the same light. Al Q and other extremists are always going to be in the background of such conflicts but they are never going to have majority popular support.

So you wish to help hand Syria to radical terrorists tartare? clever move :ok:
If this article is correct then two governments are to blame for loss of life in Syria:-
Former French Foreign Minister Roland Dumas: West was preparing attack on Syria before crisis started | Global Research

Here is a video link of him saying the same.
France's Former Foreign Minister: UK Government Prepared War in Syria Two Years Before 2011 Protests - YouTube

If the UK and France had not stuck their noses in to begin with then Syria would probably be a stable, safe and functioning country right now. If the above is true then those in our nation who planned this are war criminals.

But the key thing is that they are there at all TEEEJ. If we had not gone into Iraq or Libya at all and not planned this whole thing in Syria then they would not be in any of those nations. By doing what we have done, we have helped them via our actions. Our continued and repeated policy of failure has caused this to be the case.

To be honest I have doubts about many of the so called moderate rebels to, I wonder exactly how moderate they are. They are likely less fanatical than Al Qaeda but one wonders by how much. I hope we do not see a post Assad Syria but if we do I fear for all the minority groups.

As someone on here said, before our little wars came along one could safely visit Iraq, Libya and Syria, sure you would likely have a government minder but you would be safe. I would imagine its going to be a VERY long time before its safe enough to visit these nations again without the fear of being kidnapped or killed.

Sunni vs Alawites - indeed but supported by the Shia in Iran.

Tomahawks for C&C - only have a small number of ingress routes and manpads and ZSU23/4 traps can be set up, and in 22 years since GW 1 don't you think governments have learnt both redundancy and dispersal of the C&C networks. Now in theory you could set up a system using PCs or laptops linked together.

China and debt - it could be called in or just make American manufacturers life extremely hard round the world as they have created a culture in the third world by their investment that they call the shots including the extraction of rare earth metals.

Russia and gas - Russia cut the gas off to Georgia when they had a dispute about cost, western Europe needs gas from Russia and Putin has it and is not afraid to use it as a weapon and winter will soon be upon us.

MSF - have only pointed to the scale of the deaths but have not apportioned blame.

TV coverage - if the coverage is graphic then it should be shown to improve the case for action but who shot the pictures and the veracity of the film.

More coverage coming out from the Assad side showing containers in tunnels, which I suspect are part of the Syrian Air Defence system. This may show the idea I postulated earlier about bath tub Sarin.

The UN is toothless in effect, and do you want to cause an even bigger atrocity by throwing Tomahawks around without suitable data, the Syrians still have an air defence system which we may believe is largely intact, we don't know of the S300s deployment and possibly Russian advisor's with them or within the Syrian air defence system as a whole . Satellite technology is wonderful but its only one club in the C4ISTAR golf bag and if you are unable to fly over or near your target area you have no or limited information. If you have to have targeting are we ready as we did in Libya to send in ground forces to act as JTACs in full CBRN equipment.

Any move by the Western countries is now being talked about openly, if you were Assad you'd be playing a shell game. The press is pontificating about the use of bases in Germany, with an election coming up will Merkel allow it, I don't think so, remember some of the 9/11 bombers were based in Hamburg, Italy is unstable politically.

I said earlier and I continue to think is that we stay out, look at the disaster we caused in Libya, and eventually the murder of the US Ambassador, in part due to the incompetence of the US administration. The people ie electorate in both the UK and US if asked would want NO part of this emerging disaster. Support the refugees in Jordan and Turkey only.

Tartare I have taken journo's into war and famine zones and they tell me that they have to look hard to find most of the pictures that they send back so to believe that it is all widespread needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. If it is that bad maybe they should show the pictures that they have, until then it is unconfirmed, let alone who dunnit!!!!!

Tartare

If you really feel so passionate about the rebel's cause, why don't you join them on the ground? From what you say, they need all the help they can get and would really appreciate your tactical military advice.

I would rather send a thousand willing volunteers like yourself, than a single British or US serviceman - who will have no choice in the matter.

It's a total mess. Lets keep our boys and girls well out of it. We don't want any more body bags from yet another religious conflict.

The rebels have a good supply of ATGMs and an intermittent supply of MANPADs. They also have lots of explosives that they use in tunnels, home made weapons and IEDs. Some of this they have captured from the regime, but most has been supplied externally.

The Saudis and Turks have been involved to some extent, but by far the biggest benefactor has been Qatar, who have spent about $3 billion arming the rebels.
Initially a lot of the arms were sourced in Libya (by the CIA, who are organising everything) but the killing of the US ambassador in Benghazi halted this.
The next big source was Sudan and rumours are of Ukrainian aircraft freighting supplies.

But what has been very confusing is the vast preference that has been given to Jabhat al-Nusra over the Fee Syrian Army as recipients for all this kit. Early in the war the FSA were the dominant rebel force, but the supply of Qatar funded arms to al Nusra has seen them come from nowhere to become the biggest fighting force.
Al Nusra is an an Al Qaeda associate and is designated as a terrorist organisation by the UN, the UK, the USA etc. Yet the CIA has been organising their receipt of most of the Qatar funded arms.
Al Nusra are committing lots of atrocities, mass murdering regime prisoners and ethnically cleansing Christians and Kurds. A couple of weeks ago they took over some coastal villages and mass murdered the Alawites there. In all their captured territory they enforce strict sharia law.

So why are the CIA doing this? One theory is that the FSA are militarily ineffective. Consisting of local volunteers who want to protect their homes and deserters from the army they were unwilling to take up the bigger fight against the regime.
Al Nusra, in comparison, are extremely effective. Salafist extremists committed to Jihad with no concern for their own lives they are happy to throw themselves at the regime. For them the goal of establishing a caliphate is worth everything. Al Nusra have been reinforced with volunteers from many countries, hardened Chechen and Pakistani terrorists and lots of very experienced Sunnis from Iraq. As well as the British, Dutch, American etc islamic nutters.

Another thing that is surprising is the very low level of Iranian involvement. In Iran there are very many Shias who want to go to Syria to fight and their government isn't letting them go. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard is well over 100,000 strong and must be desperate to be allowed to get involved. There are a small number of Iranians in Syria, mostly guarding holy Shiite shrines. The restraint shown by the Iranian government has been impressive and surprising.

The USA and UK governments are planning their involvement right now. It could happen tonight or any time from now on. They are convinced (presumably by SIGINT) that Assad was responsible for the chemical attack. Some say he did this deliberately to terrorise his opponents, knowing that Russia and China would back him all the way, especially at the UN. But the USA/UK are bypassing the UN, using the Kosovo precedent. Just now they are putting assets in place and gathering target information. They have SF in place to help with the latter.

The USA have at least 360 Tomahawks in theatre and can easily deploy armed drones. As in Libya they will not put boots on the ground. The big question is whether they will bother using manned aircraft. LCRA is an unsinkable aircraft carrier and there are plenty of Turkish and Israeli (even Jordanian) bases that could be used. But to go down this route would take a huge commitment and if they just want to give Assad a bloody nose it isn't necessary.

I'm pretty sure that if Hague had anything that indicated direct regime action in this attack he would be on every TV channel and newspaper front page with it. Even he can't be stupid enough to think that the public are supportive of the rumours and innuendo he's spreading.

If there was concrete evidence, we would already know about it. The fact that we can capture SIGINT isn't a secret and releasing it would probably swing public support behind some kind of action.

TTFN

Interesting point Eclectic, I wonder indeed why the Iranians are not doing more, they will likely be the next target on the list for the US, UK and France. I wonder who is next on the list of places to attack, Iran? North Korea? No wonder they both wants nukes for self defence!
If Iran wanted to they could fully swing this in favour of Assad and end the war sooner rather than later. In moral terms it would be the best course of action.

I really hope our nations do not launch military action, but they are just warmongers and cannot help themselves.

The UK, French and US politicians really are a pathetic bunch of losers. Unable to run their own nations properly but ready to stick their snouts into the affairs of other nations. Thank god for China and Russia, two voices of reason in this world, it gives me much comfort that our nations are in decline but China and Russia are on the rise. The future could interesting especially sometime down the road the USA, UK and France economically collapse. If that happens we will see China, Russia and India being the dominant military powers on Earth. Fun times ahead, just not for London, Paris and Washington:ok:

Eclectic: I'm afraid you are far to gung ho for your own good and I might even say very one sided with an axe to grind. If, as other posters have stated and I agree with them, that if you feel so strongly about the situation, your flight could be leaving from Birmingham or Heathrow soon. It appears you have a desire for military intervention but I suspect that you will not be part of a UK response, just shouting from the sidelines unlike others who will actually push the release button.

To come back to the main point of the suspected agent being Sarin, I refer you to the report from the Guardia/Observer today:

Syrian hospitals treated thousands for poison gas symptoms, says charity | World news | theguardian.com

The potency of the agent released appears very low with a 10% mortality rather 85 - 90% you would expect with Sarin. This leads me to believe that this is 'bath tub Sarin' rather than industrially made.

As to intelligence available and stating that the decision has already been taken, in the UK, as it is not an emerging danger to the UK Parliament will have to be recalled and the situation debated and voted on. the perils of democracy mean we cannot just attack in this situation.

You also assert that Cyprus is an unsinkable aircraft carrier, which is true, but I suspect the Jordanians would be unhappy to be seen as such and your laughable conspiracy theory that Israel that would allow bases to be used is patent nonsense and will not allow SLCMs to overfly their territory. The Israeli's will just sit behind their border and let everyone kill each other, less of a problem for them and a politically neutral stance.

Eclectic, as I stated at the start, your flight leaves soon from an airport near you, go and join the fight, as if you go it may mean one less UK/US serviceman/woman who has no choice in going, or are you either a troll or a keyboard warrior who unlike many on here like myself served in HM forces. We should stay out and only help the refugees in Turkey and Jordan. NO NO NO to any involvement.

@ air pig

I think you are being unfair.
If you look back through this thread you will see that I have repeatedly said that we should not get involved. And I have consistently pointed out how nasty the rebels are.

All I am posing is facts on the ground and my analysis of them.

I'm not arguing for or against involvement, but your remark does make me wonder. I see that sentiment stated around here a lot these days. I would love that our boys and girls didn't have to be put in harm's way, but that is rather what they're for. WWI & WWII were total messes, the Falklands, GW1, GW2, NI, etc. The fact that there might be loss of life in a military action is probably not always the prime reason for not going. When our seniors faught the Nazis, the decission was taken (partly, at least) on the basis that the bad guys were wrong and we were obliged to try to stop them.

So this "total mess" (which I fully agree it is) and our potential military involvement there will need to be decided upon other criteria. That's not to say we shouldn't weigh up the possible losses - Charge of the Light Brigade springs to mind, Little Big Horn, etc.

That said, I too hope we don't have to face yet another senseless loss of life for the wrong reasons.

Eclectic: In that case I apologise if you think I am bring unfair, we just have different views of each other analysis. The fact that the rebels are nasty is not in dispute, but in my opinion throwing Tomahawks at the Assad forces may even make that country more unstable, allowing the rebels to fracture into smaller and even more violent groups. There are too many outside influences in this situation for this to be resolved around a table in a civilised matter, as no one will give way. Assad regaining control with an iron hand in a steel glove, whilst not the best idea or desirable, it may, by being a 'strongman' solution bring some peace in the area.

Unfortunately, religiously motivated groups all over the world commit atrocities without them being extensively reported in particular in central Africa and Asia.

The use of a CW is to be deplored and perpetrators should be brought before a legally constituted court on a charge of either a war crime or as an outside attempted genocide.

As I have previous stated, we need to stay out and watch from the sidelines, giving only refugee aid.

The wars and actions you have stated were in my opinion either wars between nations and in response to expansionism of other countries, liberation of places as desired by their inhabitants as in the Falklands, internal support for the civil authorities as in NI or under UN mandate (not GW2) or by invitation by a head of state as in Oman or Borneo.

This conflict has no real impact on the UK, and may indeed cause internal security difficulties as we have seen in the past. If there was a strategic importance, then I'd go with the idea of intervention but as there isn't this is one to sit out.

The oath I swore at Cranwell was for the protection of the Queen and Country, anything else has to be very carefully thought out, planned for and most importantly an exit strategy and post conflict reconstruction where required, not just kick the door in and think 'wtf do we do now' as happened in Iraq. I have no problem in deploying forces, but what is the objective and outcome envisaged not just giving politicians a warm fuzzy feeling at being big and hard, invariably it's not their blood and treasure being lost.

@ air pig

I have never said that we should use Tomahawks. Just that we are likely to.
We shouldn't do anything, leave them to fight to a standstill. But Obama committed USA with his "red line" and the UK is his closest ally. So we will probably launch a handful of Trafalgar SLCMs on co-ordinates provided by the USA and with them providing us with replacements FOC.

If you go back to the beginning of this thread you will see that my position has been consistent. You will also see that we are in total agreement.

Meanwhile: AFP: Hollande says 'body of evidence' shows Damascus 'responsible' for chemical attacks: https://mobile.mmedia.me/lb/en/Newes...emical-attacks

Another factor. When Obama attacks Syria will Assad retaliate by launching his considerable rocket force against Israel?

Quote:-

Game on
Looks like it's finally time for Assad to get some Tomahawk lovin'.
Good luck boys and girls - get some.
At the risk of sounding like a chickenhawk - previous posters who say it aint our problem need to have another look at the pictures of poison gassed kids.
Tally ho...

Eclectic

From your previous post above, I got the distinct impression you were advocating the use of Tomahawks and that our forces should be used.

[QUOTE]@ air pig

I have never said that we should use Tomahawks. Just that we are likely to.
We shouldn't do anything, leave them to fight to a standstill. But Obama committed USA with his "red line" and the UK is his closest ally. So we will probably launch a handful of Trafalgar SLCMs on co-ordinates provided by the USA and with them providing us with replacements FOC.

If you go back to the beginning of this thread you will see that my position has been consistent. You will also see that we are in total agreement.

Meanwhile: AFP: Hollande says 'body of evidence' shows Damascus 'responsible' for chemical attacks: https://mobile.mmedia.me/lb/en/Newes...emical-attacks

Another factor. When Obama attacks Syria will Assad retaliate by launching his considerable rocket force against Israel? ][/QUOTE

You make very valid points, sometimes politicians should just shut up and say nothing as they are frequently hoisted by there own petards. If Assad does attack Israel even with conventional weapons the Israeli's will strike and strike hard, if CW is involved then all bets will be off. I suspect that he Israeli's will see it as an attempt at state sponsored genocide and attack with some small but powerful nuclear weapons. Obama needs to be cognascent of this and go and read his history before even thinking of authorising missile/air strikes and its after effects.

We have to wait until the UN have investigated and seen their results. The so called international community is calling for action and as usual the UK/US and this time France are stepping forward as its policeman. It would be good if others did the job instead of the usual countries who then suffer a backlash due their actions. Oh and a last point, we can't afford it !!

Hmmm, I'm obviously not @ecletic, but are you sure you didn't attribute @tartare's post #385 incorrectly to him?
Or are you suggesting @tartare = @eclectic?

Well spotted Henra

Apologies Eclectic, I meant Tartare!!

Must be the result of mixing EFES and red wine.

Syria agrees to allow UN access but US says move is ‘too late’

Western-Mid East military action prepared for Syria. Israel, Jordan, Turkey face up to Syrian counter-attack. Russia on war alert

June: Sarin in Syrian Crowd Control Munitions?

Air Pig,

Re Post 421, I quite agree. And I think you make my point quite well in that the decission to involve or ignore was based on factors other that people getting hurt. Where we go with Syria, who knows?

I do not what our people in harms way for the wrong reasons, all I'm saying is that the modern aversity to mil ops based purely on the possibility of casualties is not how decissions should be made.

As for "no real impact on the UK", everything is global these days and there are terrible wrongs being done in Syria.

I fully take your point about the actions I mentioned. Again, just examples of places we went for reasons other than head count.

I think the 10% sarin mortality rate was from those making hospital alive.
Very many were killed and didn't make hospital.

Highly graphic *WARNING* video of some that didn't make hospital: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2r7hUwAxxc

Photographs and analysis of the actual chemical weapons used: Preliminary analysis of alleged CW munitions used in Syria | The Rogue Adventurer

Courtney is exactly right.
Wars are messy, there's never been anything clinical about them.
But when do you make a call.
Limited ingress for cruise missiles?
Then how come the Operation Orchard managed to get a couple of Sufas and F15s past the Syrian air defence network to take out the reactor, and that was a couple of years ago?
If the spams decide they're going to act, I wonder will the air defence network will prove just as effective now as it did then.
BFB - let me see if I am understanding you correctly.
I am a civilian.
I have never served - and have always been open about that fact in posts here.
There is nothing worse than a walt.
Yet I do have an interest in, and moderately detailed knowledge of intel, politics, aircraft and have spent a little time in Israel as well, shortly after the beginning of the second Intifada (I am a gentile by the way).
Therefore I have no right to express an opinion in this forum?
I think you need to read what I've posted a little more carefully - and please don't try and use that tired old trope of `if you're such a man, go and join them.'
I wasn't advocating putting you and your kin in harms way.
I was saying use cruise missiles - which appears to be exactly what is going to happen.

Edit - the story is moving fast see this NY Times report.
Monkey - that is - quite a video!

What if it wasn't Assad's lot who released the chemicals?

We've heard from Hague and Obama that there will be 'consequences' if they did.

What if - just if - the rebels used chemicals against their own people hoping to blame Assad? (It would certainly look good, given that there were UN Chemical experts in the area.)

After all, martyrs are martyrs and (as far as the revels are concerned) "It's a just cause".

Do you think Hague and Obama would take out the rebels?

It does appear that Sarin may have been used. But who used it? - Surely it is incumbent on those who retaliate to determine beyond reasonable doubt who used it before they even consider any form of military response?

Meanwhile...allah akhbar indeed...:eek:

No more alu snack bars from this lot either...

Delta Hotel.

Click the link at the top...

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6c5_1377374025

BBC News - Syria crisis: Diplomacy has not worked, says William Hague

If this leads where we all think it is going, please please please have a desired end state.

Re the videos, Su-24MK and Su-22M4 use KAB-500KR TV guided bomb or KAB-500L laser guided bomb.

Re chemical weapons. Syria has one of the world's largest stockpiles. Assad has been using them regularly against the rebels since 19 March this year, without the world doing anything.
This latest horrendous event in Damascus was exacerbated because the civilian population were still in place and because people were sleeping on the ground floor to avoid the dangers from artillery on the upper floors.

Since the attack there has been a sharp increase in the rate of supply of munitions to the rebels with many hundreds of tons crossing the border from Turkey.

There is no good thing that we can do. There is not even a best thing that we can do. Any action that we do or don't take will result in disaster.

Even helping the Kurds in the north resist the genocidal attacks from al Nusra would be opposed by our NATO allies, the Turks.

You have some evidence for that, or is it yet another pearl from the Wee Willie Hague book of propaganda?

Alemaobiano

And of course those nice, friendly, rule & fairness-adhering chaps in Al Qaeda PLC. wouldn't dream of using Bio-Chemical weapons on an area of secularist Syrian civilians would they?

Knowing that the gullible, soft-handed, spineless political apparatchiks of the liberalist western democracies would fall for such a trick.

Syria is not our war.

@ alemaobaiano
Go to YouTube.
Type in Syria Gas
Arrange results in date order. Then go back to before the current attacks and you find videos like these: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCYZKiw10jk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0B1ChYAdcws
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jqh74v9QpuU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ed19qlsh-Mw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHwmjCRDZAw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLPmmfg_oYA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BYbC-Y0y5k
Plus more.
Here is helicopter delivery:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oUFi79VAUA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZZr-nmB0do

But there is little doubt about both sides using chemical weapons. The regime have far more supplies so have been using it more.

If it is proven that the Syrian government used chemical weapons in this case, then I believe we should take action. Not necessarily action to remove the government from power, but tactical strikes on stores of chemical weapons and any facilities used to direct their deployment.

I hear a lot of people saying "it's not our war" and such like, but I disagree. Irrespective of the difficulties such situations pose (and they are many, whichever action you take), ultimately we are facing a humanitarian crisis that we may have the technology to stop. Where innocent children are being slaughtered in the most excruciating and heinous fashion, I believe it is the responsibility of everyone with a moral compass to do whatever they can to make it stop. It's not the same as Iraq or any of our other recent mistakes; this is about saving lives that are being lost, not speculation on potential threats or a venture to acquire oil. If ever there was a purpose for having the UN, this is it.

looks like its going to happen, Syria: PM Cuts Holiday To Discuss 'Attack'