Assad had almost won the civil war in Syria. There was virtually nothing left of the opposition. He had everything to lose and nothing tactically to gain from massacring civilians. Also, he has never given any indication that he poses a threat to the west. This was an internal power struggle, arguably with bad guys on all sides, and arguably the least bad of them was winning. (The regime certainly aren't worse than ISIS.) Literally the one thing Assad could have done to lose the civil war at this stage was to commit an atrocity that would provoke western intervention, and we are expected to believe that is what he has done. Let's not also forget it is one year since he was last accused of a chemical attack on his own people and now all the evidence points to that attack being conducted by ISIS. The US have admitted there is no evidence he carried out last year's attack. Is it not awfully convenient that he attacked now, giving the west the excuse to overthrow him and collect the spoils of war? The way I see it, there are two possibilities: the first being a false flag attack conducted by ISIS who we know have chemical weapons. The second and less palatable possibility is that it was a false flag conducted by the west. Given the west have everything to gain from this conflict, and given there was no formal investigation to ascertain culpability, no debate in the US Congress or UK parliament, with the Prime Minister stating she would simply fall in line with the hotheaded Trump, only a fool would rule out the second possibility. And we have a responsibility as citizens, as human beings to challenge our leaders on this.