We're still not sure of Syria chemical source
THERE appears little doubt that chemical weapons have been used in Syria.
The pictorial evidence is heart-wrenching. There is, however, some serious doubt concerning the source of the weapons.
Even the most brutal and stupid dictatorial regime must surely realise that use of such horrendous killing technology would discredit it in world opinion.
If significant territorial gain, or possible victory over opponents, were to be achieved by such barbaric action, the risk might be considered worthwhile.
Yet no such possible victory, or territorial gain, is even mentioned in the Syrian situation.
It appears only the weakest and most vulnerable were targeted by the strike which, in terms of gaining advantage or depleting the enemy, would be utterly useless.
In such a situation, suspicion must exist that those who desperately need involvement of external military power in the disaster that is the Syrian civil war might have some involvement in the attacks.
Fortunately, public opinion is restraining those world powers who are only too willing to believe the worst of the Assad regime from becoming involved.
If the UN is to retain any credibility, it must be able to prove that blame lies with the regime before such action is undertaken.
If it transpires it can prove the source was elsewhere, I wonder if those so anxious to get involved will attack the rebels?