Which of these is it, I don't know, but Assad and Al Qaeda both don't care how many people are killed and how much collateral damage is caused as long as it furthers their aims and stranglehold on Syria. Personally, I think the measured response from Obuma at this time is the right one of no action until it is clarified who is responsible. If it is Assad then I think B2 deep penetration bombing attacks on some of his command structure bunkers would be the correct response, at the same time letting him know that their is one with his name and bunker location on it if he uses them again. If it is Al Qaeda then the use of drones and decapitation attacks on their leaders is the right response. USAF have plenty of experience with this tactic in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen.
Sadly, like so often in wars, innocent civilians are dragged into the conflict and are maimed and killed. 
All agreed there Rods2 
Indeed, Assad would not be the first dictator to be a gambler, a chancer, who gambles and takes military action to see what the response will be. No response, and yes he will do more........a lot more!
We joked about the build up of a Royal Navy fleet (task force?) going to Gibraltar in response to Spain's strange ways recently, but now perhaps we can see what the real, very serious, objective was. 
In this World there will always be big risks, especially when democratic countries of the west face up to dictators in the East. Can we stand by though and let mass killings take place, regardless of who causes such acts in the 21st century? Don't we have a duty to fellow mankind to take action? Remember also that we have thousands of British Syrians living in our country who are pleading for some form of action to stop these outrages. Of course, the West will be damned if we do, and damned if we don't. But such is life. 
Hitler comes to mind of gamblers that were not stopped. He gambled on the remilitarization of the Rhineland would bring no response from France and Britain even though it was a blatant violation of the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler took this as a green light for annexing Austria and Czechoslovakia and then finally the step too far of Poland.
I think there were four objectives for the task force, a show of force in Gibraltar, a task force near Egypt in case UK nationals need to be evacuated, Syria and our anti-piracy commitments on the horn of Africa.
In the 19th and the first half of the 20th century the UK was the world's policeman, since then it has been the Americans and I think there is a moral duty to enforce the rules banning the use of chemical and biological weapons. I think this can be done from the air as I don't want to see US or UK troops on the ground there. In the last 15 years the UK has been involved in too many wars of dubious origin.
Not surprisingly Rods2 you came to the main dictator I was eluding to, although there have been others!
However, I, and I am sure you, are not suggesting we are dealing with someone like Hitler with true international inspirations for power. But I am certainly warning that we cannot, nor must not, allow some two bit dictator to use internationally banned weapons against their own people without justice being exerted on them.
International Law however is toothless (a statement that get me into a deep discussion at uni with a internationally respected Professor who thinks differently!) and in my humble opinion MUST be enforced by international partners under the UN banner. But it takes the one superpower, the USA, and others like Britain with a military capacity to back up the former, to "make the aggressor an offer they cannot refuse". That is what has to be done. It is not perfect; never will be, and it carries risks. But the onus is on the great powers to enforce discipline on the minor power, like the parent does with a child. If they do not then it teaches Assad, and other wannabe dictators hungry for power at any cost, that such action as releasing chemical weapons on civilians, let alone mankind generally, will go unpunished and they can go on doing this, or worse, without fear of retaliation.
Going back to Hitler; yes, if only Britain had had the military power to react to the invasion of Czechoslovakia by his forces, then history could have been very different. That is the lesson the World has learnt. You cannot allow a political gambler to get away with atrocities against mankind. In a minor way Maggie Thatcher made sure of that over the Falklands. In a major way, the USA's stance during the Cold War with the USSR ensured full scale war never happened due to both sides understanding what would be the penalty for entering into such a conflict.
This is what Assad must be taught. He cannot get away with it, no more than any other power hungry menace.
Was Assad responsible for the gas attack? I believe now there are enough witnesses on the ground, including operatives from Britain, USA and other countries, who are convinced it was. Assad is the one with heavy military hardware. He is the one who is known to have been bombarding his own populations with heavy shells. He is the head of the country, and must be made to pay. The World must not allow him to get away with these acts by blaming weaker opponents, like Hitler blamed the Jews for the firing of the Reichstag!
