SLIPPERY ROCK — Slippery Rock University faculty and students seemed to find no easy solution to the conflict in Syria during a roundtable discussion Wednesday night.

Nearly 100 students filled the auditorium of the Strain Behavioral Science Building to listen to a panel of seven SRU professors weigh in on the crisis.

There has been worldwide debate after the Syrian government allegedly used chemical weapons on Aug. 21 to attack civilians in two rebel-controlled suburbs of Damascus, the nation’s capital.

The attack killed as many as 1,429 people, including 426 children, according to George Brown, the chair of the political science department at the university.

The conversation was heavily focused on whether there was enough evidence to warrant military action in the country.

Brown said it was probable that the Syrian government was responsible for the action, but said there is not concrete evidence to prove it.

“The evidence is not very good,” Brown said. “There are two assertions with no real evidence.”

An alternative theory is that rebel forces staged it themselves to draw in U.S. force against the nation’s government.

Brown, who organized the discussion to encourage the campus to engage in the national debate, referenced U.S. intelligence incorrectly concluding there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq more than a decade ago as a basis for caution.

Daniel McIntosh, also a political science professor, agreed with the similarities to the previous situation in Iraq.

McIntosh said there are numerous reasons why the U.S. should avoid military conflict at the moment.

“Just because they are violating international laws doesn’t mean we can just deal with it how we want,” he said.

McIntosh said the U.S. would violate United Nations law by using military force, as the U.N. Security Council has not approved military intervention by any nation.

“When you start talking about breaking laws to enforce the law, things get tricky,” he said.

McIntosh also disapproved of military force due to the risk to innocent lives in Syria.

President Barack Obama said after the attacks that the U.S. might have to explore striking military targets in the country.

“These are not zero cost options,” McIntosh said. “There would still be civilian casualties, with many of which being innocent people.”

The faculty panel, which consisted of seven professors, all agreed a more diplomatic solution was a better alternative to any military strike.

But Brown said something must be done.

“I think it’s a good idea for the U.S. not to engage in conflict, he said. “But I’m very troubled by the civil war going on and that we can’t come up with some kind of action plan.”

“We shouldn’t just turn our back to this terrible situation.”

Some of the professors disapproved of the way the U.S. has handled the crisis.

“I think Obama bungled the whole thing,” said Heather Frederick, a political science professor. “I think his inexperience in politics is showing.”

Ahmad Khalili, a sociology professor, said the most important thing right now is the U.S. is not going to war.

“The consequence that war won’t happen is a good thing,” he said.