I'm sure they do know more than us, however, we have no idea what level of knowledge they have, nor does (more importantly) the rest of the international community.

We went to war a few years back on the basis of "evidence" of wmd's in Iraq and the so called ability the country had to strike mainland Europe within 45 mins...it was all complete bullshit and is widely acknowledged as being so. Literally millions marched on the streets against it, but we still invaded without any long term strategic thinking. I worry this is heading the same way. The US defence secretary is saying this is a one off strike, the British Prime Minister is saying they may continue depending on any more evidence found....we all know to our cost that confusion and spurious evidence isn't the best pretext to begin bombing countries and creating a potentially disastrous conflict.

Would you be comfortable betting your house on this evidence being entirely accurate? If yes, tell me why, if not, why? Why should we be risking thousands, if not far more, lives on this? At the moment, it's apparently targeted strikes...who knows how accurate they'll be, or what repercussions it'll bring.

It's strange, I remember trump lambasting US foreign policy during the election campaign. He essentially had an isolationist standpoint, repeatedly giving assurances he would not be involving the US in other people's conflicts. Now, a small village in Syria is allegedly attacked and he's dropping bombs on the place within a week? You telling me it's simply because Assad allegedly used a gas attack? (If he in fact did, who knows for sure)