I am no supporter of the Ba’ath dictatorship in Syria, but the circumstances of the chemical attack in Damascus are very suspicious and Eisa Ali illustrates why: “So lets see which makes more sense:
1) Assad, with the upper hand in the battlefield, launches a chemical attack knowing full well it would provide the “red line” the west have been waiting for to get involved. This western attack will turn the tide and cause the rebels to win. Assad, knowing this, has taken care over the last two years to keep the west out of getting involved with air strikes and a no fly zone ala Libya. Despite this he decides to launch the attack when UN inspectors are in the country.
2) the rebels, suffering massive setbacks on the battlefield, facing huge anger from the population in areas they claim to be liberating and infighting over loot and other issues with other groups including other rebels and the Kurds, need to turn the tide on what is turning out to be a complete catastrophe. Looking for a reason to bring the west in on their side to change the tide, they launch the attack when UN inspectors are in the country, to influence global opinion and give Hague and Obama the smoking gun they need to attack Syria.