Trump called on “all civilized nations” to join the U.S. in seeking an end to the carnage in Syria. Civilized Nations? Perhaps Trump has a different meaning of this phrase. For a world that too often seems impervious to the horrors of Syria’s civil war, Chemical weapon attack on 4th February 2017, killing dozens of civilians, bore witness to a new level of atrocity. People gasping for breath, turning blue, lying dead in the street all victims of airstrikes apparently by President Bashar al Asad’s forces. But, still to be determined. Syria’s foreign minister has dismissed allegations that the Syrian Army had deployed chemical weapons in the city of Idlib, saying the military will never use such weapons against its own people. There’s been an unseemly rush to judgment here. The question will be whether Trump is so impressionable; whether he believes the mainstream media, who are drumming the drums for war. The real red line in Syria is not chemical weapons; the real red line for the US has always been the imminent prospect of a Syrian government victory. And the US troops are there to prevent that, let there be no mistake about that. Right after three days, the United States launched a missile strike in early hours of 7th April 2017 on a Syrian air base. Washington claims it’s in response to this week’s chemical attack, while Russia condemned the move as “aggression” and immediately suspended crucial coordination with Washington in Syria’s congested skies. But it is also hard not to feel unsettled by the many questions raised by President Trump’s decision. Among them: Was it legal? Was it an impetuous, isolated response unrelated to a larger strategy for resolving the complex dilemma of Syria, a nation tormented not just by civil war but also by the fight against the Islamic State? So far, there is no evidence that Mr. Trump has thought through the implications of using military force or figured out what to do next. For a man who had campaigned on an “America First” platform of avoiding entanglements in overseas conflicts and who repeatedly warned his predecessor, Barack Obama, against military action in Syria, made a breathtaking turnaround in the space of 63 hours after the chemical attack. He has long argued that the top priority was fighting the Islamic State, not forcing Basha ul Assad from power; indeed, as recently as last week, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and the United Nations ambassador, Nikki Haley, had reinforced the perception that Mr. Trump was perfectly willing to live with Assad. The overnight missile attack, which marked that Washington has directly targeted Syrian President Bashar ul Asad’s forces, was condemned by his allies in Russia and Iran but welcomed by the Syrian opposition and its supporters, who expressed hope it signaled a turning point in the devastating six-year-old civil war, created by Obama administration. Washington very deceitfully arranged Muslims fight Muslims, and succeeded to make two main factions of Islam stand against each-other, which unfortunately has involved the whole Middle East. The most unfortunate part is the proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Had Shah Faisal bin Abdul Aziz alive and in power or person in-charge had his wisdom and caliber, the whole scenario would have been different. Instead of conflict there would have been harmony between the Muslims. The bombing represents Trump’s most dramatic military order since taking office and thrusts the U.S. administration deeper into the complex Syrian conflict. The Obama administration threatened to attack Asad’s forces after previous chemical attacks, but never followed through. Trump called on “all civilized nations” to join the U.S. in seeking an end to the carnage in Syria. Civilized Nations? Perhaps Trump has a different meaning of this phrase. About 60 U.S. Tomahawk missiles hit the Shayrat air base, southeast of Homs, a small installation with two runways, where aircraft often take off to bomb targets in northern and central Syria. The U.S. missiles hit at 3:45 a.m. (0045 GMT) 7th April morning and targeted the base’s airstrips, hangars, control tower and ammunition areas. They were fired from two warships in the Mediterranean Sea, at least seven people were killed and nine wounded in the missile strike. The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, an opposition monitor reported. The Kremlin said President Vladimir Putin believes the U.S. strike is an “aggression against a sovereign state in violation of international law.” Spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Putin believes the U.S. launched the strikes under a “far-fetched pretext.” Washington’s move deals a significant blow to the Russia-U.S. relations, which are already in a deplorable shape, the attack creates a “serious obstacle” for creating an international coalition against terrorism. Russia’s Foreign Ministry immediately suspended a memorandum with Washington signed after Russia began an air campaign in support of Asad in September 2015 under which the two countries exchange information about sorties over Syria. The Kremlin later moved to diminish the attack, saying that just 23 of 59 cruise missiles reached the air base, destroying six Syrian jets but leaving the runway intact. A Washington led coalition has been bombing State targets in Syria since 2014, while Russia’s air force has been striking both extremist groups and Syrian rebels in order to aid Syrian official forces. Saudi Arabia and Turkey, which support the Syrian opposition, welcomed the missile strike, with Riyadh calling it a “courageous decision” by Trump. Iran called it a “dangerous” unilateral action that would further complicate the conflict. The British government says it was informed in advance about the strike and firmly supports the American action. The barbaric chemical weapons attack launched on Tuesday 4th April is still not clear about the involvement of the Syrian government. It may have been a strike by a U.S. backed rebel command based in the area to craft a passage for Washington to start striking Syrian forces directly. Asad’s government had been under mounting international pressure after the chemical attack, which killed 87 people, including 31 children. Syria rejected the accusations, and blames opposition fighters for stockpiling the chemicals. Russia has tried to clearify the position stating that the toxic agents were released when a Syrian air-strike hit a rebel chemical weapons arsenal on the eastern outskirts of Khan Sheikhoun, and that blame should not be apportioned until a full investigation has been carried out. There’s a big question, who manufactures the chemical weapons and who supplies those to the fighting countries and the rebels? Obviously United States and United Kingdom. Then, who should be held responsible for chemical weaponry and carnage. All the weapons of mass destruction are either supplied by or helped-develop by these so called Developed & morally-concerned Western countries. These Western developed countries research, invent, develop, use and then sell the same WPMDs to other less developed cronies. While discussing Washington, we forget British who are equally rogues. America is nothing without the support of British in this region. Russia’s intervention in Syria since September 2015 has turned the balance of power in Asad’s favor, and Moscow has used its veto power at the Security Council on several occasions to prevent sanctions against Damascus. The U.S. had initially focused on diplomatic efforts after the chemical attack, and had pressed the U.N. Security Council to adopt a resolution drafted with Britain and France that would have condemned Syria’s suspected use of chemical weapons. But the vote was canceled because of differences among the 15 members. It was the deadliest chemical attack in years in Syria, Chlorine gas attacks have become almost routine in northern Syria, but medical workers and other witnesses, citing the symptoms this time and the high casualties, even more lethal nerve agents and other banned toxins were probably used. Although Asad doesn’t control the entire country, he has effectively won the war against his opponents waged by the United States and others against his government. So, why would he attack? Why now? There’s every possibility, Washington backed rebels were directed to pave a passage for US direct attack by using chemical weapon attack. on April 4th a chemical attack struck the town of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib, a province in northern Syria controlled by an alliance of rebel groups, including a powerful faction linked to al-Qaeda, all backed by Washington. At least 85 people, including 20 children, died, according to doctors and a Syrian monitoring group. Chlorine gas attacks have become almost routine in northern Syria, this one was different, medical workers and witnesses said, Chlorine attacks usually kill just a few people, often those trapped in an enclosed space, and the gas dissipates quickly. This time, people collapsed outdoors, and in much larger numbers. The symptoms were different: They included the pinpoint pupils of victims that characterize nerve agents and other banned poisons. Symptoms included suffocation; fluid in the lungs, with foam coming from the mouth; unconsciousness; spasms; and paralysis. One doctor posted a video of a patient’s eye, showing the pupil reduced to a dot. Several people were sickened simply by coming into contact with a few hours later. Russia, intervened militarily in 2015 to save Asad from defeat by rebels, vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution in February 2017 that would have provided a chance to some forces in Syria for using chlorine-filled barrel bombs. No one is sure, it was Syrian forces, or rebels or a planned attack by Washington for further interference and attacks. History reveals, Washington is capable of playing games with this mode. Now comes the Trump administration, which had made clear that ousting Asad is not a priority and fighting the Islamic State takes precedence. President Barack Obama, after calling for Asad’s ouster in 2011, shifted toward that same view, but only after repeated efforts to work with Russia on a political solution. Obama also had a record of condemning Bashar ul Asad and urging that he and his allies be prosecuted for war crimes. How strange, Washington enters into one’s territory through a deceived act by creating and supporting rebels in the area and asks to prosecute against the ruler of that country. Instead, Washington should be held responsible for all the butchery in the area and should be prosecuted for war crimes. Since long United States is involved in disturbing the international peace. On Tuesday 4th April, Trump called the attack a “reprehensible” act “that cannot be ignored by the civilized world.” The usually invisible secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, condemned Asad by name, and said that he must be held accountable and pointed out that Russia and Iran “also bear great moral responsibility for these deaths.” But the comments have little power, coming as they do after weeks of Trump voicing both distaste for America’s traditional role as a promoter of human rights and support the rebels in various areas around the world. Trump also had blamed Obama for the new attacks, citing his “weakness and irresolution” in setting a red line in 2012 against chemical weapons and then doing “nothing.” Has he conveniently forgotten September 2013 tweets telling Mr. Obama “do not attack Syria”? The government of Asad, who renounced chemical weapons nearly four years ago after a large chemical attack that American intelligence agencies concluded was carried out, denied that his military had been responsible. A statement from the Syrian military accused insurgents of responsibility and said they had accused the army of using toxic weapons “every time they fail to achieve the goals of their sponsors.” But only the Syrian military had the ability and the motive to carry out an aerial attack like the one that struck the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun. Russia made another explanation, a spokesman for its Defense Ministry, Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov, said Syrian warplanes had struck an insurgent storehouse containing toxic substances to be used in chemical weapons. The scale and brazenness of the assault threatened to further subvert a nominal and often violated cease-fire that had taken hold in parts of the country since Asad’s forces retook the northern city of Aleppo in December 2016 with Russian help, emboldening the Syrian leader to think he could win the war. The attack also seemed likely to dampen peace talks that have been overseen by the United Nations in Geneva and by Russia and Turkey in Astana, Kazakhstan. Incredulous over the chemical assault, humanitarian groups demanded action from the United Nations Security Council, where partisan divides over who is to blame for the Syrian war have paralyzed its members almost since the conflict began in 2011. Britain, France and the United States were pushing the Security Council to adopt a resolution that condemns the attack and orders the Syrian government to provide all flight logs, flight plans and names of commanders in charge of air operations, including those for 4th April, to international investigators. The draft resolution, negotiated among diplomats from the three countries was circulated to all 15 members of the Council, with any positive out come. For Trump, who has repeatedly blamed what he has called President Barack Obama’s failures for the Syria crisis, the chemical weapons assault posed a potential policy dilemma and exposed some glaring contradictions in his own evolving positions on Syria. Trump’s administration, in recent days described Asad’s hold on his office as a political reality, an assertion that has drawn strong condemnation from influential Republicans who say Asad must leave power. Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson, who earlier had said that Asad’s fate “will be decided by the Syrian people,” struck a sharply different tone now, urging Asad’s allies Russia and Iran “to exercise their influence over the Syrian regime and to guarantee that this sort of horrific attack never happens again.” Russia has insisted that it had no military role in the strike. But Washington said Russian officials were trying to evade their responsibility because Russia and Iran were guarantors of the Asad government’s commitment to adhere to a cease-fire in the peace talks that the Kremlin had helped organize in Astana. Today Washington and allies are blaming Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin for the Syrian genocidal war, including a series of apparent chemical attacks on innocents. Indeed, if it is so, they are war criminals by any definition. BUT, what about Barack Obama and his advisers who deliberately indulged Washington into this conflict just to oust Bashar ul Asad for their own gain or perhaps to finish the influence of any strong leader having hold in the area after changing Iraq and Egypt’s managements. However, Trump is now commander in chief. He must decide whether to continue the passive approach and watch continued genocide unfold or whether chart a new course. The question is what comes next. There are options, starting with military strikes that harm Asad’s capacity to surrender doesn’t seem working. As Washington backed rebels actions become worse and worse, Asad’s action also goes to worst. Now, even a very limited strike would widespread the war. If the super-powers are sincere and really serious to finish this massacre, support from China should be sought and all the super-powers can come to some conclusion to finish the war. Saudis and Iran should sit and settle the conflicts, Pakistan can also play a vital role between the two. At a news conference Trump claimed the last chemical bombing changed his mind. “I will tell you that attack on children had a big impact on me. Big impact,” Trump said. “It was a horrible, horrible thing. I’ve been watching it and seeing it, and it does not get any worse than that. I now have responsibility, and I will have that responsibility and carry it very proudly. I will tell you that. It is now my responsibility.” That is a political statement without any agenda, what will he do? Trump has the chance to highlight and correct his predecessor’s tragic error in policy. That of course would mean admitting his own position on Syria and his affection for Putin, but better not to compound his mistakes by mimicking Obama’s policy. Alternatively, Trump can double down on Obama’s policy of retrenchment, as he seems to be doing on human rights and lack of urgency on Russian expansionist designs. Perhaps one should call it the Obama-Trump doctrine, since the continuities between the two administrations foreign policy postures grow more obvious every day and increasingly outweigh the discontinuities. Let’s hope Trump chooses to find a positive way to finish the conflict of Syria. JUST for record and to remind; Criminals using chemical/other means for mass slaughter: Churchill: Beginning 20th century, recommended using mustard gas on Iraqis to save on munitions, bullets and bombing, post WWI rather a costly affair. T. E. Lawrence (aka Lawrence of Arabia) seconded him saying, ‘By gas attacks the whole population of offending districts could be wiped out neatly.’ Churchill was later to cause a famine 1943 in Bengal by stealing away the harvest for the over-fed Allied forces in Europe-killing at least 4 million Bengalese. ‘They breed like rabbits,’ and ‘why Gandhi had not died yet?’ The drunk criminal had said. H. S. Truman: Used Atom bombs 1945 killing over 200,000 instantly and causing radiation to millions. John F Kennedy, Lyndon B Jhonson and Nixon: Allowed the usage of Agent Orange, a defoliant causing cancer, deformities and genetic changes in millions of people in Vietnam 1961-1971. Saddam Hussain: During the 1980-1988 war against Iran, used mustard gas on Iranian troops, supplied by the US. The whole world, Arabs and the West looked away. The shameful refrain from the Western media, ‘Iran alleged that poison gas was used in the war.’ Saddam used the gas on his own nationals Khurds but Saddam was America’s ‘pawn’ then. G W Bush: US forces used Depleted Uranium (chemically toxic and radioactive) 2003 in civilian areas in Iraq. His poppy G.H.W.Bush had already caused the deaths of at least 1 million Iraqi children by imposed sanctions. To say that Assad would use chemical weapons under the circs is outright ridiculous. Dites-moi quelque chose d’autre! Tell me another! Bashar ul Asad should also have deep concern over the causalities of his nationals and try to finish the conflict. The only possible way which may finish this carnage is to divide Syria into two parts for the two factions of Muslims, so clash of Muslim vs Muslim comes to an end and SUN rises with a peaceful Middle-East. We must not loose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean, if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.