Don't see much point?  How about killing a bunch of rebels.

Outside which, you do realize the Syrian Army isn't the only government forces fighting on the side of Syria right?   Hezzbolah, Iraqi Miltias, Iranian Miltias... not to mention just Syrian Army groups that are technically part of the army, but not really under Assad's control.

The government side is almost as fractured as the Rebel side.

The point isn't that you should take their word for absolutely true, but it's worth noting the reason they didn't have teams in quicker is exactly because Syria refused them access to areas they wanted to test for chemical weapons attacks,  the UK report just further backs up that line of reasoning.

Syria was just trying to limit it to the area the chemcial weapons attacks weren't there's.  So they can use

As for a  US attack.... there is no point.

That's why I think the talk of a setup is silly.

The US gets nothing out of this, and Obama has basically been backpeddling ever since he made that "Red line" pronouncement.   I think he said it, simply because he thought like you did.  Assad wouldn't go there.

Then he did, or probably more likely, forces obstensibly working for Syria have, and quite often...

and Obama is essentially left with doing nothing and being embarresed, or do a slight bombing campaign and pretend he did something since anything more then that would be unpopular. 

I'd be shocked if the US got involved again after the 3day weekend of bombardment of non essential military targets they announced.

They'll probably just hit a few missle sites and airforce bases, stuff that won't actually effect the war in anyway and who's only real goal is to protect Israel from attacks on it... and giving Israel airforce a little insurance incase it decides to act.  Nothing that couldn't of been done just by lending them some military hardware anyway.

As for newspapers.  I don't actually have a "main" news soruce.   News is always colored by the writer's bias intentionally or unintentionally, so i generally try to read about 3-5 sources that are likely to disagree on any news story i find interesting.

Not only does it give you a better perspective, it's fun to see how people can see the same thing differently.

When was last time CW had military efficiency above minimal? What it can do, HE cannot?

Terrify the shit out of people.

The things are banned for a reason. 

I mean, if they weren't effective, why does the US still have a  stockpile of old chemical weapons when it has the newest and best conventional weapons out there?

Psychological effect is one thing, miliaty efficniency is another. Risking contaminating your own area, rising deathtoll among civilians, more questions asked by UN for what? Even less point to use them by rebels against SAA for the same reasons of doubtfull efficiency, outside of provocative actions and terror, hence the name terrorists (and yes, various pro-Assad irregular groups could use them as well).

Simple fact that CWs are useless military wise against regulars, because they usually have RKhBZ (Chem Corps), slightly more efficient against irregulars, but given positional wars usually not fought against irregulars -- not by a whole lot. Iran-Iraq war has proofed that CWs are only good against civilians (and contaminating the area whe used massively), that's why you (and we) have them a lot, you know... just in case.

That sounds perfect for this situation then doesn't it?

The Syrian rebels are irregulars who all have their own small areas and pockets of support.  Which is why the rebels don't actually control any provinces and just have specific areas in every province where they exist.

Not really, it's perfect for scenario when at least one of the sides is battling a total war. CWs are good to undermine such efforts, i.e. contaminate an area, making infrastructure unusable, limiting food and water sources, creating chaos and eventually humanitarian catastrophe, your enemy had to handle it somehow to survive. Good example would be Vietnam war. Local uses are military pointless, it's WMD after all. Rebels have their main infrastructure and points of logistics elsewhere, Jordan, Turkey etc.

Please give me a link where I can find more information about what the UK report says about Syria refusing them access. I'm really very interested in finding as much information as possible about how that chemical weapons inspection became reality. I've found extremely few press coverage on this matter so far.

I want to understand the backgrounds. For example, I can perfectly understand why right after the recent chemical weapons attack, the syrian government did not want to let the UN chemical weapons inspectors to the scene.

It doesn't make any sense that Assad would order a chemical weapons attack while UN chemical weapons inspectors are in the country for 2 weeks. It's complete nonsense, so it was either the rebels themselves or it was indeed forces fighting on the government side, but not because Assad ordered it. But in practice, it wouldn't even matter who was actually responsible for the CW attack, because as I've pointed out, the UN inspectors are not allowed to investigate and comment on responsibilities anyway. So their investigations would only prove what everyone already knows, that chemical weapons have been used. Since the UN inspectors would not comment on who is responsible, the majority of the public would automatically believe what the western press has tried to suggest for weeks: That Assad was behind the attacks.

I think he declared the red line primarily because back at the time he was so strongly pressed to declare "red lines". It's very well possible that he chose the chemical weapons because he believed Assad wouldn't go there. But in this case, he was acting very naive, for he should have realized that for the rebel side, this translates to "If for whatever reason the public opinion is convinced that Assad uses chemical weapons, Obama will be forced to attack Assad, for that's what he announced". Some news media have pointed this problem out right after Obama announced the "red line". I've seen a few documentations on the syria conflict in recent weeks, often reporting from the side of the rebels, and in those videos it was obvious how disappointed many rebels are about the US, feeling completetly left out in the rain, more and more realizing that things are not looking good at all right now for them, without getting the outside support they hoped for. Who would be surprised if in their despair, the rebels tried to get help against their enemy by organizing a false flag attack?

I'm not sure if I actually understood you right there, but I (too?) believe that in practice they will mainly attack some military targets that Israel is concerned about. Probably syria's airforce and antiaircraft defense.

I couldn't agree more on this. If one wants to have an at least somewhat balanced opinion on subjects, one has to read multiple articles, preferably from different sources who look at things very different.

I didn't mean to suggest that you have a single main news source if that was your impression, but in my experience even those who read multiple news sources have over time decided on a specific and rather small set of news sources that they found to be more interesting than others and thus read much more often than others. For me, ha'aretz is such a news source, but it's not my main news source either (if only because it's become much less useful since it's behind paywall), but it's still main of my main news sources, meaning I visit the website almost daily.

Have the on-site UN investigators released a report already?

What's this talk of a strike in just a few days, even debated in the UK parliament, before they even have firm proof of chemical weapons being used?

It's like a comedy.

It really kind of is.

Anyone should wonder why some people like Mr. Cameron are in such a hurry to start an attack. One can argue that Obama is in a way forced to act because he set a "red line" and must act now, but why Mr. Cameron? Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz suggests that Mr. Cameron is actually trying to use "Syria to return [UK] to global center stage". (Their latest headline btw is: "U.S.: If we need legal justification for strike, we'll produce one on our own" - which I think is funny, for it sounds a bit like the US declared that it would invent evidence if necessary - similar to when Putin said after it became clear that Iraq has no WMDs ("If I were the United States, I would have found WMDs!")

Some people already demanded a military strike before the UN investigators even began to work, claiming that...

a) it was obvious that Assad is behind the attack

and

b) because it was so obvious who is responsible, the syrian army would have destroyed any evidence before they arrive anyway

...which is just bullshit, because it's practically impossible to destroy all evidence of a chemical weapons attack.

The investigators have not released their report yet (it's expected to be released at the weekend, if I'm correct - the investigators are leaving the country on saturday), but as far as I know they've already stated that they indeed found "certain chemical substances", but they didn't say what kind of substance they actually found yet.