The non-violent opposition (yeah, there's such a thing, but I haven't seen them mentioned in any English press so far) claim there's proof that it wasn't weapon grade chemical weapons - closer to terrorism-level homebrew than to actual military quality. If so, that would point to (one of) the rebels (groups) or Al-Qaeda being behind the attack, not the regime.This is my main worry. The only evidence we've seen so far is that chemical weapons have most likely been used. We have no idea who did it. Before we put our troops at risk to take out a government and put some rebels in power, we better make damn sure those rebels didn't try to kill their own people with chemical weapons to force our hand. We have a shitty track record in that area, and I seriously doubt this will be any different.
Anyway...Both sides are known to have used chemical weapons in the past. It's odd how now, all of a sudden, these 250-to-1,500 casualties get such attention, when there are now an estimated 100,000 civilian deaths in Syria in the past two years. What changed? Who stands to benefit if things escalate? This isn't a logical moment for the Assad regime to break out the chemicals - they were doing pretty good!