it all depends on what agenda is being pushed by the very suppliers of many of the 'unconventional' weapons... Prop them up one year to deny their local rivals ascendancy which also gleans some measure of political/economic advantage for the supplier country... Turn the tables/reverse the favour the next time to reflect sudden changes in 'political realities'... If the despots turn the WMD on their own populace, well hey that's all acceptable as it's a 'means to an end' Albright's infamous 'collateral damage' comment comes immediately to mind in support of the 'capriciousness' of both alliance and policy... The USA has sponsored/created just how many 'rebel groups' in order to further US interests??? Israel will always be the elephant in the room when it comes to any discussion vaguely related to human rights abuses, indiscriminate targeting of civilians, use of banned weapons, disproportionate use of use... The effect of having so many Zionists in the US administration has only guaranteed the USA's certain downfall on the international stage...
Western-backed Syrian rebels say kill foreign Islamic State (Reuters)
from the article: Ambassador Oren: Israel is very concerned about Syrian WMDs