War is ugly, these were journalists shot up by an Apache, do you think while they were being murdered in cold blood they were thinking "boy I'm glad I'm not being gassed and they're being honourable by shooting us with projectiles"
When these scumbag rebels which WE (the west) armed and trained are using civilians as human shields, how in the hell do you expect any military to engage them without any collateral damage ?
Not to mention there's currently ZERO evidence which said it was the SAA who used the chemicals as opposed to Rebels using them in order to keep their buddies in the fight
How do you fight an enemy that locks people in cages and uses them as shields without collateral damage ?
As for the question of evidence and who you choose to believe, that's up to you - but I think you'd be pretty naive (and stupid) to believe anything the Syrian army says whatsoever, it's not like they're renowned for being a bastion of truth, there's enough good documented evidence that shows them lying through their teeth time and time again.
From a military perspective, any response would probably be geared towards taking out assets, such as suspected chemical weapons caches, airfields, aircraft, hardware used to deliver chemical weapons etc, basically things that can be used to deliver chemical weapons would be targeted, rather than taking on infantry - probably using tomahawk cruise missiles.
Personally I couldn't care less if an entire hospital was gassed, we (the UK) shouldn't be involved in Syria at all. If the US want's to stomp around the place, funding and arming the various Jihadist groups they used to be bombing and generally ballsing up yet another country then so be it, let them get on with it. Why the hell do we have to get involved?
I don't believe you when you say you couldn't care less if an entire hospital was gassed, I think that's just internet "I don't give a ****" bravado, I don't really think you mean it, not if you were forced to sit and think of it, or witness it happening.
The questions is - is there
ever a time where someone who has the skills and capabilities to intervene, should do so? or is it acceptable to never intervene at all, ever. To the point where inaction essentially gives the green light to someone like Assad and whoever is propping him up, to use any means necessary to delete his enemies, including crimes against humanity and mass genocide, presumably - you'd be willing to sit by and watch hundreds of thousands of people be exterminated, before lifting a finger?
On the question of why we (UK) should be involved, I think any action that is taken - has to be done so as part of a coalition, it has to be a joint response, we can't just expect the US to do everything, every time - we should pony up the effort and take part. It's the responsibility of being an ally, and I think there comes a point where a line gets crossed and there's a responsibility to enforce real consequences, consequences that would make such a regime stop and think in future.
he has been consistently inconsistent and several times, without much consistency, gone against his support base. Saying he is looking at and/or ordering the military to look at a drawdown in Syria doesn't mean anything until its actually happening.