How Muslims handle rape charges.

[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.