[Skybird]

The likelihood always was in favor of the chemicals being used by Assad's side, the question was about evidence to prove it (just assuming it is a bit thin for going to a time-limited war), and the question was how it came to it, since, the attack obviously made no sense and was counterproductive for Assad, which gave argument for assuming it could have been the rebels as well - which is another reason why the regime's responsibility must not be assumed, but proven.

However, we can have no interest in helping the rebels' side. If there would be no AQ, djihadists, Iranians and Hezbollah, one maybe would debate the option (and even then I am likely refusing to participate in any strike). But considering the nature and internal battles of the factions forming the rebels' "alliance", as well the as West-hostile stance of the Syrian population, evidence for this or that is unimportant, since it does not change the matter of main concern.

Send the bill for any strike now to the Saudis.