What we know of the situation in Syria is this. The Assad regime is a bunch of murderous thugs that very likely have used chemical weapons against its own population for whatever strange reason that a murderous thug regime could come up with.
We also know that the rebels are a bunch of murderous thugs that have terrorized the civilians in the enclaves that they have carved out for themselves in Syria. The scale of atrocities perpetrated by the rebels is most likely only limited by capability, not by a lack of intent.
We also know that there is a chaotic mosaic of support and counter support between the groups that have made Syria into a slaughter-house for civilians. The gulf states support one group; Egypt supports another; Turkey supports a third. The West supports one set, and Russia and China support Assad.
It gets more confusing. Iran supports Hezbollah in Lebanon, who supports a group that fights against who Iran supports in Syria. Iran also supports Hamas in the West Bank who supports another group that fights against whoever Iran supports in Syria. This pattern repeats itself through all major power’s clients.
What we further know is that the UK government does not have leaders at the moment who possess the skills and talents to lead the nation in a semi-war like would happen in Syria. Cameron and Clegg are simply not of a sufficient fibre, personally, to lead anything. William Hague is an intellectual midget. Would you really want them to lead us in war?
Western support, either directly or indirectly, to the rebels would lift the limitations imposed by their ability. If the West would bomb the Assad forces, or supply arms to the rebels, they would increase the capability of the rebels to commit their own atrocities.
Syria is not a civil war that this country should get involved in, even if it is heart-wrenching to watch the people froth and twitch as they die. It is for us to resolve our anger, haul people to court if we find them abroad, and to use the rule of international law.