Would Obama Still Attack Syria If The Syrians Place Human Shields Of Women And Children At

Why united nations is silent on bloodshed in Syria?

It isn't. It has condemned the ongoings in Syria and mass slaughter of civilians a plethora of times. I think you mean why has it failed to carry out significant action. That falls to good ol' politics and the five permanent Security Council (SC) members (France, UK, China, USA, and Russia). The main issue is that to pass a clause in the SC all of the aforementioned countries must not stand in the way of it by casting a 'no' vote, which results in the veto of the clause. Seeing as Russia and the USA are on opposing sides in the conflict there are almost zero agreements on what course of action to take since Russia supports the Assad regime. That's the general reason though it's more complex than that.Hope that helped.

Do we have any proof that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons, including against its own citizens?

There are no proofs so far. The Syrian government have denied the accusations that they are behind the chemical weapons attacks we see in the horrific video. I say it is a rather strange coincidence that a day after the UN inspectors land in Syria for their investigation this happens... “This would be a major atrocity if it is as initially claimed,” Thielmann said in an interview. “But on the other hand, one doesn’t want to find out 24 hours later it looks a whole lot different than the initial report.” The claim that more than 1,300 died in government shelling of the Ghouta district near the Damascus airport came from George Sabra, a member of the main political opposition, the Syrian National Coalition, at a news conference in Istanbul. If disproved, the allegation may cost the opposition trying to topple Assad vital credibility. Sellstrom told Sweden’s TT newswire by phone from Damascus that the high numbers of reported injured and dead “sound suspicious.” He said he has seen only TV images of the attack. It’s difficult to assess victims’ symptoms from video, Coyle, now a senior science fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, a Washington research group, said in an interview. Nonetheless, the “fact that so many of the wounded and dead have no apparent shrapnel or other types of wounds that might come from rifle or artillery attacks is also suggestive” of chemical weapons, he said. [...]The timing for a government attack is “odd” with the UN team already in the country, Thielmann said. It benefits the opposition although “it’s hard to believe they would actually use chemical weapons against their own adherents "source: UN Inspectors Seek to Investigate Alleged Syria AtrocityIt would not be the first time that power hungry wolves would take their own people to their deaths for their own worldly benefits (eg. pact of Zionists with Hitler which lead the poor Jews to their deaths, other example chemical, other example: chemical weapons used by Saddam Hussain against his own people )

What is the logic behind terrorist attacks abroad? What do they hope to accomplish?

Broadly, this falls under three buckets:Show your supporters or potential supporters you are strong enough and sophisticated enough to carry out these more difficult attacks. You're able to outmaneuver foreign intelligence services and strike at the heart of the enemy.Cause Western nations to get scared and move into an isolationist mindset. The 2004 Madrid bombings are the best example - they caused Spain to pull out of the Iraq war with one blow.Alternatively, cause Western nations to get massively involved in the middle east (or whatever country hosts the terrorists) and make it easier to recruit warriors against the invading force.In the context of today's attack in Paris - assuming ISIS or a similar group is behind these attacks, launching successful attacks like these is win-win assuming you can pull it off (which they have been able to):Just being able to carry out such harmful attacks in the heart of a Western nation is a huge morale win for their cause. If potential recruits are on the fence due to lack of confidence regarding how strong or sophisticated ISIS is, this should give them a serious push to join the cause.If France behaves a-la 2004 Spain and pulls its forces out of the Syrian conflict in fear of more retribution then that's a huge victory, both morally and tactically given the recent French air strikes in Syria.If France doubles down in Syria that's also pretty good for ISIS. It fuels their anti-crusader cause while added French forces wouldn't make a huge changes considering that the US and Russia are already involved.Sadly, this is a good day for ISIS.

Why doesn't the USA attack ISIS with a nuclear bomb, killing ISIS and their prisoners?

This is not about USA nuking isis anymore. It is more complicated than that. For ANY COUNTRY to nuke/destroy ISIS, there needs to be a combination of 2 things.the will to destroy ISIS.the ability to destroy ISIS.Turkey is a rogue nation which is buying ISIS oil, and ISIS has been using this money to buy weapons. If turkey refused to buy isis oil, or if USA refused to sell weapons in return for money to whoever is willing to buy, ISIS would simply die of financial and military suffocation. So the answer to 'why doesnt USA attack isis with nukes' or even 'why doesnt anyone attack ISIS with all they have' is that either they want isis to continue their game in syria, or they are too weak strategically to carry out such an operation.let me try and list relevant countries and classify them according to 'cant attack' and 'dont want to destroy ISIS' or bothcant attack-India, Iran, Africa, Australia, Assad, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraqi regimedont want to destroy ISIS- USA, Russia, NATOBoth-Pakistan, Saudi, TurkeyTo conclude, ISIS is still fooling around because nobody is really serious about the threat, it is just news channels that constantly keep scaring people with dirty tricks. The people who are really affected belong to syria and iraq, and Russia, USA, and NATO are willing to let them get butchered as long as USA is selling arms, NATO is getting cheapass oil and unskilled labour in form of refugees and russia is able to project itself as a mighty security provider. The more tactical aspect of this ridiculous game of thrones is that isis has grown out of USA's pathetic attempt to do a gaddafi all over again, which russia successfully countered. this led to a deadly stale mate. so its not really about islam or muslims or syrians. nobody gives a shit about them.

Why does the Assad regime keep bombing and killing civilians when it leads to more people fighting against the Syrian government?

I think we need to know, Assad is a Modern secular regim. And USA is supporting organizations(FSA+HTS) they want a religious countries ruled by Islam(like ISIS).We must first understand the all forces in this war.Assad—Government Assad forces (undemocratic and secular; supported by Russia and Iran)FSA—Free Syrian Army (not very democratic, and less and less secular; gradually reduced to Turkish, supported by European, American, and Sunni Middle Eastern countries)HTS—Hayat Tahrir al-Sham ( no undemocratic, no secular; supported by the Middle East Sunni countries)DFNS—The Democratic Federation of Northern Syria (democratic, secular; supported by Europe and the United States, is also a cooperative state with Russia, and also has contacts with China)ISISNow in the Syria:Assad vs FSA + HTSDFNS vs FSA + HTS + TurkeyAssad + DFNS vs ISISI don’t think Assad is the best choice, if I can choose, I will vote DFNS. And I think choose FSA is a not good choice, HTS is suck.So, my preference is : DFNS > Assad > FSA > HTSWhen USA attack Syria, people come to square to support the Assad(you really think they are attacked by Assad?).The USA, France and UK are trying to overthrow theire goverment.Those who are supported by the USA, France and the UK.