How Muslims handle rape charges.

[Sinfix_15]

Again I think you are oversimplifying. Not giving the Syrian rebels support is more of a gamble than giving them some level of support. Global politics is not a game you can abstain from. It affects us whether we like it or not. It is in the US's interest to have democratic governments in the Middle East. That is why we are getting involved, not because we want to protect Syrian rights. We can and do try to vet the groups we give money to but it is impossible to ensure that none of it will end up in the hands of people we don't want it to. Sometimes people are your enemy in one arena and your ally in another and you shouldn't cut off your nose to spite your face.

PS. Thanks for bringing up american gun owners as if that is at all relevant.

So its in our best interest to support a group of rebels mixed in with terrorists who are attempting to overthrow a government?

Can you please explain to me how this benefits me or secures our safety? are Syria's weapons more stable in the hands of a terrorists mixed group of rebels or their own government?

Does our government extend this same ideology to its own citizens? should american citizens be equip to overthrow their own government in the event of tyranny?

should we also be sending weapons to Egypt so they can topple the muslim brotherhood?

[bu villain]

So its in our best interest to support a group of rebels mixed in with terrorists who are attempting to overthrow a government?

Can you please explain to me how this benefits me or secures our safety? are Syria's weapons more stable in the hands of a terrorists mixed group of rebels or their own government?

Sure. Syria is no friend to the US. The Assad regime is strong allies with Iran who as you know has an adversarial relationship with us. Getting Assad out, weakens Iran. I wouldn't consider weapons in the hands of Assad "stable" as they are known weapons trading partners with places like Iran, North Korea, and Russia. As more democracies are established in the middle east, we put more pressure on the autocratic regimes in places like Iran and diminish the power of the anti US zealots.

Does our government extend this same ideology to its own citizens? should american citizens being equip to overthrow their own government in the event of tyranny?

This is not an ideology, it is a practical issue. There is no reason our domestic policies should be the same as our foreign ones but last I checked, the vast majority of the government believes citizens should be able to own guns so that's not really an issue anyways.

should we also be sending weapons to Egypt so they can topple the muslim brotherhood?

I see no reason to.

[Sinfix_15]

Sure. Syria is no friend to the US. The Assad regime is strong allies with Iran who as you know has an adversarial relationship with us. Getting Assad out, weakens Iran. I wouldn't consider weapons in the hands of Assad "stable" as they are known weapons trading partners with places like Iran, North Korea, and Russia. As more democracies are established in the middle east, we put more pressure on the autocratic regimes in places like Iran and diminish the power of the anti US zealots.

When was the last time a foreign government launched a strike on american soil?

When was the last time a terrorist launched an attack on american soil?

We have volatile relationships with a number of countries.... when was the last time any of them attacked us?



I ask again, are weapons ****more**** stable in the hands of syrian rebels mixed with terrorists than they are the syrian government???

[bu villain]

When was the last time a foreign government launched a strike on american soil?

When was the last time a terrorist launched an attack on american soil?

We have volatile relationships with a number of countries.... when was the last time any of them attacked us?

Terrorists often plan and operate in countries that are sympathetic to them. Just because a governments name isn't on the attacking group, doesn't mean they don't enable them.

I ask again, are weapons ****more**** stable in the hands of syrian rebels mixed with terrorists than they are the syrian government???

I honestly don't know the answer to that question. I wouldn't consider either situation stable and that's not the only relevant question when it comes to whether or not we should aid the Syrian rebels anyways. That's just one piece of the pie.

[Sinfix_15]

Terrorists often plan and operate in countries that are sympathetic to them. Just because a governments name isn't on the attacking group, doesn't mean they don't enable them.

So you assume that some portion of terrorists are acting on behalf of a government?

Based on this assumption, you still feel it's in our best interest to aid a group of rebels who are attempting to overthrow their government? Please help me understand the benefit of this. Are we just trying to cut out the middle man and arm the terrorists ourselves? If a government attacks us, we have a legal course of action to hold them accountable, seeing as how the government is subject to laws. Is it not better to maintain that structure than it is to strengthen the nameless, faceless, "terrorism" in the "war on terrorism"? If nothing else, at least we know who are enemy is with the syrian government standing. Also, isnt our purpose to install democracy and follow the democratic process? how does arming rebels and promoting anarchy accomplish this?

[bu villain]

So you assume that some portion of terrorists are acting on behalf of a government?

No I am not saying this. I am saying some governments try to fight terrorists in their own country, others do not.

Based on this assumption, you still feel it's in our best interest to aid a group of rebels who are attempting to overthrow their government? Please help me understand the benefit of this. Are we just trying to cut out the middle man and arm the terrorists ourselves? If a government attacks us, we have a legal course of action to hold them accountable, seeing as how the government is subject to laws. Is it not better to maintain that structure than it is to strengthen the nameless, faceless, "terrorism" in the "war on terrorism"? If nothing else, at least we know who are enemy is with the syrian government standing. Also, isnt our purpose to install democracy and follow the democratic process? how does arming rebels and promoting anarchy accomplish this?

You are under the mistaken assumption that I believe we need to support the rebels. I'm actually far too ignorant of all the complexities to say for sure. I was merely presenting some of the reasons why many people, both democrat and republican, think we should. You already seem to have a handle on the reasons we shouldn't so there was no need for me to present those arguments. What I do feel informed enough to say, is that what happens will have consequences for the US and there are risks no matter what we do.