Given the recently leaked discussion about a false-flag attack to start a war with Syria, we're talking casus foederis here. Imagine the Turkish government pulls it off and invokes Article 5 of the NATO Treaty --- not a pleasant thought, is it?

Lunatics, everywhere!

Normally I like to say it is 'good' when the far left and far right can agree on something. In the case of the chemical attacks in Syria though, I find the agreement that they are the worst crime during the whole conflict is deeply troubling. When hundreds of times as many noncombatants have already been killed by 'traditional' means it seems perverse to focus so much emphasis on the chemical attacks.

I even agree with placing a huge importance on the chemical attacks, but to somehow suggest the legitimacy or illegitimacy of Assad's regime rests on that question is just wrong imho. He had done far, far worse, over far less provocation long before the chemical weapons attacks.

As I see it, the anger about 'chemical weapons' is based on the idea that they do not distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. Of course, it's also true that conventional bombs don't discriminate either, so that argument is a weak one at best.
When collateral damage is greater than the damage to the intended target, your methods are usually deemed immoral. (let's just not think about Japan right now)
I would agree, this idea of 'drawing a line that must not be crossed' is stupid and limiting. I also agree, distinguishing between differing non-targeted attacks on a population seems silly, if the method ends in civilian death, it ends in civilian death. If it ends in more non-combatant civilian deaths than combatant deaths, it makes the attacker immoral.
The means seem far less important to me than the ends. (not intended to suggest that ends justify any means)

Distinguishing between combatants and non-combatants is irrelevant when the weapons are specifically and intentionally used to target non-combatants. Not even the smartest and most precise munition is going to help non-combatants when Assad or Al Qaida militants are specifically targeting them.

I think I get you, but on a different level it is in those cases that distinguishing between combatants and non-combatants (by the rest of us) is the MOST relevant. Without that distinction, Assad/etc. can't be forced to answer for targeting and killing 'civilians'...indiscriminate weapons allow them the argument that 'we didn't TARGET non-combatants' with little way to prove otherwise.
I'm wondering why (if they're willing to use gas, and willing to directly shoot non-combatant civilians) aren't they using flechettes? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/flechette?s=t
An incapacitated/wounded 'enemy' serves you far better than a dead one. They require assistance and care, while a body can be left to fend for itself.

Oh- and aren't the Al Qaida militants supposed to be on the civilian's side, or did I miss something? I had not heard of THEM shooting civilians there.

Moving this video to radx's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.