For the umpteenth time:
1. The Syrian regime has a huge chemical weapons capability - it has never denied it and has not signed international treaties against the use of chemical weapons. There's no evidence that the Syrian rebels have a chemical weapons capability (unless you count calor gas as a chemical weapon), I'm sure it's not easy to develop a chemical weapons capability - besides the payload, where do you start getting gas masks, NBC suits, heavy duty gloves etc?
2. In the worrying scenario that an Al-Queda affiliated group did obtain a chemical weapon, I struggle to believe they'd waste it bombing their own supporters in an attempt to draw US air-strikes - they're much more likely to attempt an attack on Western targets.
3. The chemical weapon attack came days after a rebel attack on President Assad's family, revenge is a plausible motivation especially for hot-heads like Maher Al-Assad.
4. The behaviour of the Syrian regime following the attack suggests that they had something to hide, especially denying access to the site of the chemical weapons attack to the UN weapons inspectors for two days.
5. The attack was against rebel supporters. All these false flag conspiracy theories are all well and good, but 1500 people lost their lives in this attack, what effect would it have on rebel fighters if they found out their loved ones had been killed in such a cruel and nasty way by their own side?
So in short, the Syrian regime had the means, motivation and disposition for this crime, the rebels only the motivation and disposition. Although there's nothing conclusive in the above there's even less evidence to support Putin's ridiculous assertion that the rebels carried out this attack.
. That's his primary objective after all is it not 
