US involvement in Syria is risking regional war that could include Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq, Israel, Iran, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, with the potential to drag in the bigger powers.

In their seeming urgency to present a case for war, BBC reporters have neglected factual accuracy of reported events and very much taken their lead from Western governments.

The demand by Cameron and other western politicians to increase the flow of arms is reckless and cynical, and will certainly ratchet up the death toll and spread the war.

Using humanitarian strife in Syria as a pretext to fulfill future plans for US aggression against Iran should be recognized for what it is: a grave violation of international law.

Few things are more ludicrous than the attempt by advocates of US and Israeli militarism to pretend that they're applying anything remotely resembling "principles".

It is highly likely that the US will have been notified about these attacks in advance and they are part of a growing campaign of intervention in the civil war in Syria.

The US insists Syria must unilaterally give up its chemical weapons while allowing Israel to maintain and expand its sizable arsenal of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.

The US and Israel fear chemical weapons might end up in the armoury of the rebels, especially the Islamists, that Washington, London, Paris, Qatar and Saudi Arabia are supporting.

A US war in Syria, will look less like Iraq and more like Afghanistan 1979–88, when the United States backed an Islamist-dominated insurgency against a Russian-backed regime.

The alliance of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel, Jordan and the western powers has in its sights the taking out of Syria as a key ally of Iran, and with it Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Is the slaughter and chaos taking place in Syria the intended result of US policy rather than the tragic but unintended result of its failure, as Western propaganda claims.

Obama has repeatedly stated that there are "preconditions" for peace negotiations, the most important one being the downfall of the Syrian government, ie, regime change.

The intensity and frequency of the airlifts shipping arms to the rebels suggest a well-planned and coordinated clandestine military logistics operation.

Sending western troops into Syria would be badly received – especially in the UK, where by a 32-point margin (55%-23%) Britons reject the idea of sending in UK and allied troops.

A grim anniversary should have sent Obama on a visit to Baghdad with reparations for the Iraqi people, instead he's in Israel conferring on the next American war in the Middle East.

Washington views any effort to curb Israel's freedom to fly sorties when and where it fancies in Syria as a threat to regional stability.