[fnordfnordfnord]

It doesn't even make sense, since CW are much more effective against the general population than troops. ie: It is much easier for troops to deploy countermeasures that negate or reduce the effectiveness of a CW attack. OTOH, in unlucky environmental conditions, a CW attack can wind up harming the rebel attackers and surrounding innocents as well, while the troops sit in their anti-CW gear and wait it out. Arming rebels with CW is just about the dumbest, least effective, most dangerous way to use CW; and ought to be a war crime in its own right.

[shimon_e]

Obviously the suggestion is stupid as both the rebels and the Syrian forces have mutual enemies that they both would use chemical weapons on.

I don't think Israel will allow an enemy guerrilla army from being armed with chemical weapons.

The real issue here is that Russia has vowed to protecting the Assad regime. This conflict is ultimately a proxy war.

The real question I have is why Russia is protecting Assad? Is it just a question of support what in their eyes is the lesser of two evils or is it a case of RDF?

[m0skit0]

That if Israel isn't backing the rebels. Israel doesn't like Syrian government -basically because it's one of the few Arab states that has a logical stance against Israel dominance in the region-, and hopefully a new government will be more "puppety" to their interests. Also Syrian government is pretty secular, which also bothers most Arab nations. Most US arab allies would prefer a more "islamic" government, probably this suits Israel as well so they have more justification in their "preventive" attacks (like they do in Lebanon with the Hezbola excuse).