Regarding the infamous gas attack of 21. August in Damascus, I start being fed up by the lack of proficiency of the governmental public relations services and of the mass media. Therefore I will stick to the news in this post.
Firstly, I would like to clearly state that I don't negate that a gas attack has taken place on 21. August. I don't negate that hundreds of people have been killed. My only concern is the weakness of the arguments displayed to the citizens of our democracies so that they properly understand what has taken place and can then support their respective governments. This is how war becomes legitimate: when a democratic Nation unanimously decides to back its government when it has to enforce peace wherever it is.
Today, my only concern is the respect for the citizen.
This one additional point which would deserve some more documentation: according to the US government, 12 attacks have lead and to the French MOD, large areas have been covered, but in none of those were NGOs. Or they would have counted victims as well.
The map provided by the White House proves the intrication of 'loyal' and 'rebel' areas. Making use of a volatile combat gas in such areas may hit the rebels as well as the loyal neighbourhood. Mainly if there is wind,as it seems to have been the case on 21. Aug.
Again new questions without any answer.
My only conclusion is a political one: having set a red line like the U.S President did, having made bold statements on the vital need to get rid of a dictator, necessarily drives diplomacy into a corner where it has no other issue than a headlong rush, where the tempo is no more set by two of the main world powers but by a coalition of insurgents, may they be legitimate or not.