... Al Arabiya, the origin of the story, is not a neutral in the Syrian conflict. It was set up in 2002 by the Saudi Royal Family in Dubai.The Telegraph: attack is real, but the timing is questionable:
... Saudi-owned media reporting such an inflammatory anti-Assad allegation might be taken with a dose of salt.
,,, When we examine the printed content of their story, it gets more suspicious still. ...
... The other aspect of the suspicious reports is the “convenient” fact they coincide with the arrival two days earlier of an official UN weapons inspection team, ... It begs the most obvious question: What conceivably would Bashar al Assad stand to gain from using banned chemical weapons just at the time he has agreed to let a UN chemical weapons team into Syria?
...even if the pictures are genuine, when did the chemical weapons attack actually take place?The rebels certainly stand to gain from getting the USA and others more deeply involved against Assad. John McCain has been making a lot of noise favoring US intervention on the rebel side.
... Mr Assad has been advancing recently, beating back the rebels and recapturing territory. Using chemical weapons might make sense when he is losing, but why launch gas attacks when he is winning anyway?
Moreover, United Nations inspectors charged with discovering the truth about chemical weapons in Syria arrived in Damascus on Sunday. Superficially, it would seem strange for the regime to gas its enemies within 72 hours of letting these experts into the country.