For a moment, I had thought that "you don't send arms into the hands of rebels so that they may do what you desire yourself", but in the perspective of gaining power, it might be more desirable for the rebels to fight the thing on their own than to let the war be won by Western powers. Second, I have used the term "mercenary" for those "jihadist extremists from more than 40 countries". But this may be a term belonging to the theory of nations whereas the sunnis (Muslim Brethren and other armed parties) who fight the state of Syria probably consider their activity rather as being part of a fight beyond national confines: They defend (war propaganda often considers the other party to be the aggressor) the "Umma", unless they more purposefully fight for the realization of a big islamic region, including the Syrian territory. Nations don't play such an important role in this concept, and the "jihadists" may not consider themselves so much as mercenaries who fight under a foreign flag. They're all sunni muslims (but not Alawites, and not Christians).
Hello user Logout | profile
You have watched of 10 articles
White House: Davutoglu's departure won't affect Turkey-U.S. cooperation against ISIS (Reuters)
from the article: UN rights chief urges global powers: Don't send arms to Syria rebels