There was apparently a use of Sarin gas in outskirts of Damascus, and the death toll among civilians mostly is claimed to be close to 1,500. All affected areas were either rebel areas or contested areas, and they were spaced enough to make a rogue false flag attack by a rebel group unlikely. It's likely that the Syrian government killed civilians with Sarin, albeit the figures are questionable.
Now let's assume there's going to be a second poison gas attack, this time 2,000 deaths, and all in loyalist quarters. Let's further assume we get to see some mobile phone camera videos on how the rebels did it with captured stocks.
Do the pro-war folks think this means 'the West' ought to bomb Syrian rebels then?
Or would they expose their hypocrisy / lies by not demanding such a strike against the culprit rebel group?
Let's say there's going to be a two-week bombing campaign to 'punish' (a.k.a. "bully") the Syrian regime for killing about 1,500 people with poison gas (or rather for being disrespectful).
A few days into the bombing spree rebel groups overrun some loyalist positions and besiege two enclaves of Christians. They assault and conquer one and massacre the population; 5,000. Then they move into position to assault the other one.
How would this make the 'punishment' campaign look like?
Would the bombing campaign leaders improvise some massacre-averting sorties against the besieging rebels à la Sarajevo?
Some people talk about a 1925 ban on poison gas and how ever since no employment of poison gas must be tolerated.
Do these very same people believe that the U.S. needs to ask Iran for pardon because it aided Iraq in the operational employment of poison gas against Iranian forces in the 1980's and shielded it against the UN at the time? Maybe they believe some finger pointing is overdue in the U.S. domestically before the country has a whole can claim to protect this generations-old ban? (Just kidding.)
Let's assume the Assad regime decides it needs to retreat and secede itself. The Alawites proclaim an independent country in the coastal region where they have a solid majority. The remainder of loyalists - including refugees of other faiths - move there and can defend the region against the rebels which take over Damascus and proclaim victory.
Would the Western World treat this Alawite secession the same as the Kosovo secession or would it behave hypocritically?
Do you believe that the people who stand in front of cameras and proclaim their support for an attack on Syria learned about such scenarios and have deliberated about them?
The apparently planned attacks are meant to punish, but not to overthrow the regime (or so say the talking points). Anyone care to elaborate how bombing Syrians is helpful after Syrians were killed?
Syrians are suffering. Well, that's war (a lesson many people are apparently unable to keep in mind longer than a few years). Could the suffering be reduced instead of increased?
Some countries believe in doing so by accepting war refugees. Those countries which pretend to be oh-so concerned about atrocities in Syria - would they be ready to harbour a couple hundred thousand Muslim, brownish war refugees?
Or maybe someone did a calculation and presented it publicly, so we all know how many humanitarian goods and individual counter-gas sets could be shipped to Syria at the same cost as a bombing campaign?
- - - - -
By the way; here is another, apparently excellent, map of the larger region.