Should we arm the Syrian rebels?

I think it sounds very dangerous and would require a lot of investigation and thought.

No…actually, better make that NO!!

No! We don’t know, and never can, which rebel group (if any) is friendly to the U.S. and whether more arms there will even do any good.

No.

Yes. Why not? It has worked in the past. The Viet Minh, Taliban and Saddam Hussein regime all got support from the US and other western countries and there was barely any problems with those groups later on.

@Lightlyseared Love the sarcasm :)

Bill Hicks on arming the world.

Since more guns means less gun violence—the American Right swears it is so—I think the only reason there is any violence in Syria is that there aren’t enough guns there yet. Maybe if we flew over and dropped enough weapons to collapse every building and bunker there, peace would break out in Syria. ~

But really, arming a bunch of people whose religious beliefs commit them to either convert us to their ways of kill us all—a bunch of religious nuts who all believe in the same imaginary friend but have to kill each other with car bombs because this or that faction of them doesn’t believe in that imaginary friend in exactly the right way—what could possibly go wrong in arming them?

We should definitely arm the syrian hamsters though, they’d enjoy that, aggressive bastards that they are.

I feel like the EU’s main reason for lifting this embargo must have been economic. Russia is already making sweet lucre arming Al-Assad, and I’m sure Western Europe would like to get a piece of the action.
The “Syrian opposition” can’t agree on any political program, and is taking no steps to distinguish itself from Islamist groups including the Muslim Brotherhood.

No. The Islamist rebels will get their hands on them. It would be like arming Stalin to fight Hitler. When Islamists rule Syria they will use Western weapons against the West.