ok, so syria says it will aim for mutually assured destruction if it is targeted for regime change, and the author considers this "terrorism", since it involves planning for the murder of large numbers of civilians. i can certainly understand the point of view. but please tell me where, exactly, does strategic doctrine in israel suggest that its nuclear bombs will be dropped if the country is threatened with total defeat? into the sea of galilee, or on top of damascus or teheran, killing millions of civilians? syria's strategic doctrine is in this regard absolutely identical to israel's, even if the types of WMD are different, and this article is a sham. sure one should worry about syrian missile capacities, but to try to dress syria's gas warhead deterrent up as being somehow morally different from israel's nuclear deterrent is nonsense.
from the article: Syria is no different from Hamas or Hezbollah