Use of chemical weapons

Putting aside for the moment the question of the legality of the use of chemical weapons in conflict, the war in Syria has reached a crucial stage after the attacks near Damascus last week. The US claim to have intercepted a communication from an Assad regime officer to the Commandant in charge of the chemical weapon stocks asking what was going on? The US take thy is as evidence that the regime is using these weapons.
However, from the evidence of this communique, you could say that Assad knew nothing about their deployment until after the event.
Whilst Assad had a brutal but fair reputation before the rebels tried to take over the country, his brother, Maher al-Assad's had not. Rebels, in a bomb attack, blew away one of his legs a year ago and now, so it is rumoured, Maher, the chief of one of the regime's armoured divisions still bears a grudge.
Could it be that Maher al-Assad ordered the use of chemical weapons and Bashar al-Assad, out of filial loyalty, is trying to cover it up whilst claiming ignorance of the whole thing?

Fox news report:
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/08/29/un-experts-tour-site-alleged-syrian-chemical-weapons-attack-which-may-have-been/

I'm not sure why the use of chemical weapons is outlawed. Surely, what is heinous is conflict itself. When a leader engages in war he is making the gravest decision known to mankind. However, once the decision is made it is incumbent on him or her to prosecute the war with EVERY means at his disposal, including weapons some people find distasteful. What does it matter if hundreds and thousands of mostly women and children are slaughtered by gas, napalm, blanket bombing or the use of cluster mines. What matters is winning as demonstrated by the US use of nuclear weapons against the Japanese.
I suppose what I'm saying is end all conflict now!