|The attack was NOT carried out by the Syrian government|
You are being lied to by western politicians and media
Here is a story from 5th May
Obama had previously stated that a chemical weapon attack by Assad would be crossing the line
That news story (and the many others I read and heard before regarding the same thing) is hardly proof of a Western conspiracy to carry out a false-flag attack to justify a military intervention in Syria, as you seem to suggest.
It's a far better explanation that Western Intelligence agencies (as well as most lay people) knew well that the Syrian Regime possessed chemical weapons.
It is also the simplest, and therefore most likely, eplanation. Occam's Razor.
|Then there is a chemical attack and all the western politicians and media jump on it and start talking about possible responses|
If you cannot see the reality of what is happening, then you need serious help
Well, they aren't really considering military interention. Which also undermines your point above.
It is mostly hot air IMO. I doubt they want a blatant escalation with Assad's puppet masters in Iran, and his Russian friend.
Western leaders are also weary of the influence and scale of anti-West Islamists (Al-Nusra Front) within the Syrian Opposition.
|Obama, Cameron and the rest are just plain evil and want to do whatever it takes to get rid of Gaddafi, Mubarak, Assad etc and replace them with "friends" who will play to their rules|
If you believe that American, Britain and friends are the "good" guys you are sick and twisted
I do agree with you that Western Leaders and their foreign policies are hardly the champions of some idealistic ethical and moral devine good against all those who represent nothing but pure evil.
However, that doesn't make the other side pure goodness either.
You have to also recognise that opposing the West's plans for increased political, economic and social influence are other non-Syrian outside entities with their own plans to influence Syria. And their reason for controling Syria is the exact same as the West's - to benefit themselves materially.
I visited some relative in Syria in 2010, and the place was filled with Iranian imports - everything for cars to basic food items. Virtually all were of far worse quality and just as expensive - if not more so - than their Western counterparts. Others could easily be produced within the country with basic machinery and training of the Syrian people - producing more jobs, better quality product better adapted to the Syrian market, and of course more affordable products and higher standards of living for Syrians.
Instead Bashar Al-Assad bans all Western Imports, as well as domestic production in Syria of anything that Iran can produce, sell them, and make a profit out of.
In regards to the Social Influence of Iran, it is really laughable that the government calls it the Syrian Arab
Republic, and claims to represent Pan-Arabism, when the very same government does everything it can to distance the Arabs of Syria from Arabs in other countries - especially since most are Pro-West. Government TV propaganda makes "Arab" equate to "Anti-Israel", and of course Persian Iran is always shown as the hero in this good fight. Disgusting Persian foods were everywhere, guest ministers on a news discussion show (no real discussion - just people agreeing with ministers) ranted about how Syrians should learn from Persian Culture, and a different news story was saying how Persian is being taken up by college students almost as much as French (the langauge of the previous Imperialists controlling Syria).
Now this very same Iran is Assad's biggest supporter, sending him everything from arms, tactitians and even thousands of fighters, including elite Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps teams. So as you can see, the West is not the only outside power trying to influence Syria.
The question is which of the two morally ambiguous sides is better for the Syrian people. I personally think, without a doubt, it would be the West. Syria and Jordan are very comparable neighbouring countries. Jordan is almost identical to Syria, except that it fell under the West'ssphere of influence, and even before this civil war, it was way better off than Syria in almost every way possible.
|The rebels fighting in Libya and Syria are backed, funded, armed and organized by CIA and other western intelligence agencies|
With Libya, maybe. But the rebels in Syria are hardly organised or that well equipped. The are made up of loads of various militias helped by defected Assad Army and security forces members, who are attempting, and failing, to take on the far better equipped forces fighting for Assad. The best organised seem to in fact be the foreign Islamists,many of whom are anti-West and affliated with Al Qaeda.
|The politicians and media feed you propaganda and you just accept it blindly and ignorantly|
I think it is equally important that you do not feed on, and blindly accept, the propaganda from the other side (the likes of Russia Today and Press TV).
|If you find it hard to comprehend that you are on the side of the sick, evil and twisted, then read about the 1953 Iranian coup d'etat|
It might be far more relevant to look at the Soviet-backed 1970 Coup d'etat in Syria, that brought Bashar Al-Assad's father, Hafez Al-Assad into power.
|All day the media have been asking this question|
"What should be done if it is proven that Assad used chemical weapons against his own people"
Well how about an alternative question
"what should be done if somehow someone somewhere manages to prove that it was the Syrian rebels, backed by the western intelligence agencies, that were responsible for the chemical weapon attack that killed hundreds"
All the people who are outraged at Assad, assuming he is responsible will conveniently change their tune if they were told it was actually "us" who were the ones responsible
Well,like I said previously, Assad's forces are by far the most likely culprits, and the media is only doing their jobs in asking questions about a very important and relevant topic.
Goodluck trying to prove it was the Rebels who somehow managed to get hold of a chemical WMD and attack an area under their own control to frame their enemies and get the West to intervene - even though a lot of the rebels are anti-West, and most are against direct Western intervention.
Also, the West really isn't likely to do anything past hot air and empty threats. The most they will likely do is try to arm some of the rebels who aren't anti-West Islamist crazies thinking they are fighting a new Crusade.
Though doing so will make whoever they are arming look like Western patsies and puppets, and turn the likes of Al Nusra Front against them (which actually already happened already). This will make the fight against Assad even more difficult than before.
Hardly a diabolical master-plan by the West to take over the world...