Why would diplomacy try to avoid public ‘red lines’? Especially on something like chemical weapons? Because terrorists are generally lazy. They would much rather toss a bomb into a pressure cooker, or strap it to a person, than go through the effort to create some extensive remote timed detonation system.
And you can use common household chemicals to create a similar result to militarized chemical weapons. If the terrorists who are attempting to topple Assad can get the US military to topple him for them by killing a few hundred innocents, it is an event that they’re more than willing to fulfill. Not only will the military do their work, but they can sit back and point at the great Satin who is once again bombing innocents, and forcing their way into Islam’s sphere without invitation.
I have no love of Assad, but creating yet another terrorist Mecca after making so many is hardly in our interests.
“you can use common household chemicals to create a similar result to militarized chemical weapons. If the terrorists who are attempting to topple Assad can get the US military to topple him for them by killing a few hundred innocents, it is an event that they’re more than willing to fulfill. Not only will the military do their work, but they can sit back and point at the great Satin who is once again bombing innocents, and forcing their way into Islam’s sphere without invitation.”
Excellent what if, and a very probable one.
When I was much younger, I found this out by mixing ammonia and bleach when I was cleaning house.