Why the downvote?

@DrunkCynic Can you point out anything factually wrong with my answer though? I think this question is fine. It is not asking for what the exact reasons are, its asking for what are advantages to his actions. That is something that can be easily analyzed.

You clearly deserve downvotes because you state it as a fact that the chemical attack did in fact happen and was carried by the Syrian regime. U.N has already publicly stated that they do not know who did it. Your 4 reasons are also ridiculous.

@dan-klasson I only make the same assumptions that the OP's question did. I agree with you it will never be 100% known who actually did it, but the OP asked for reasons why Assad could have done it, not if he did it: What could Assad realistically hope to gain from launching such an attack? And why is 4 rediculous? Every army in every war always has horror stories of on the field commanders going rouge. You think when American troops in Vietnam raped some random village it was on the orders of the president?

@DavidGrinberg Firstly, what OP said was "most claim Assad did it, some claim it was an accident". Secondly, he wrote "What could Assad realistically hope to gain from launching such an attack? (emphasize mine). None of your 4 reasons were remotely realistic.

@dan-klasson (1) Once again, this question has already made the presupposition that Assad did it. This question is not asking if he did or didnt. It is clear from the OP's writing. (2) Some people have mentioned they believe my reasoning is unreasonable or unrealistic but no one has yet to actually explain why. Can you pick out a specific claim I make and explain to me why its not "remotely realistic"? IE what is not remotely realistic about chemical weapons instilling fear or chemical weapons being effective?

@DavidGrinberg 1. No, read my last comment again where I quote OP directly. It should be obvious that he did not make any such presupposition. 2. Assad's goal is to win the war. He perfectly knows well what happened to Gaddafi and obviously do not want the same fate. He's been instilling fear for a long time, and being on the winning side of the civil war obviously hasn't changed that fact. All the other reasons are equally invalid and ridiculous if you consider the reasons he has for not using chemical weapons.

@dan-klasson 1. We'll have to agree to disagree there. I get what your saying, I think he clearly states that answers should assume that Assad did it with the rest of his post. If you want to continue this part please open a chat. 2. Gaddafi didn't use chemical weapons. And Assad already has beforehand (with no real consequence). Yes he has been instilling fear for a long time. He wants to do more of that. This could easily be him turning up the pressure. Now I totally agree with you, there are reasons not to use chemical weapons. But the OP asked for reason to use them, so I answered that.

@DavidGrinberg 1. I respect your opinion, but I would appreciate where, in your opinion, he makes that assumption that you are claiming. Because I don't see that. 2. True, Gaddafi didn't use chemical weapons, but after Obama's 2013 red line comment, it was pretty much clear to whole world what was about to happen to Syria. If it hadn't been for John Kerry's slip of the tongue to call for Assad to hand over his chemical weapons, and the subsequent Russian proposal, there is a very high chance U.S would have made a similar intervention as they did in Libya. Witch equal end results.

@dan-klasson Now you are making unreasonable conjecture based on things that didn't end up happening.... We're getting wildly off topic. If you want to continue please open a chat.

@David Grinberg Yeah sure it didn't end up happening. But you gotta admit it's likely we could have seen an intervention similar to Libya in 2013, or no?

in either case, you seem to agree that your points are not very reasonable when compared to his reasons not to use chemical weapons

which was my point

i think, unless someone comes up with an actual realistic reason, the answer to the question would be there are no reasons

Hi there

@dan-klasson (1) I dont agree it was likely we would have intervened. I think at the time there were many signs Obama was desperately looking for a way out. He happened to find it with the weapons disarmament plan, but if it wasn't that it would be something else

Obama is on record as stating that Libya was his worst mistake. He clearly didnt want to do it again.

(2) I dont agree

I dont believe any of my points are unreasonable

The only part I agree with you on are that there are real political reasons not to use chemical weapons

But that does not mean they outweigh the reasons to use chemical weapons for Assad.

Also, in case you had any misconceptions (though this is not really relevant to the question or answer), I do not believe there is conclusive evidence to show that he did or did not do it. He may have. He may not have. I don't know. Either way, its not relevant to the question.

The US secretary of state has said that President Bashar al-Assad has one week to hand over his entire stock of chemical weapons to avoid a military attack. But John Kerry added that he had no expectation that the Syrian leader would comply.. Sounds to me like he was about to do it again.

So given that U.S had already threatened them with an attack. You still consider your four points being realistic?

@DavidGrinberg

Yes. The US had threatened an attack multiple times

This was one of the big criticisms of Obama

He drew a red line

It was crossed

He said so harsh sounded words

But ultimately did nothing

And found ways to cop out of his satements

There was literally a patten. Assad, if it was him, didnt inherently have a reason to expect anything different