“We are selling weapons to Syria for its national defense, national security,” Lavrov told lawmakers in the lower house of Russian parliament. “We aren’t providing Syria with any weapons that could be used against protesters, against peaceful citizens, helping fuel the conflict. We aren't doing that, we are only helping Syria to protect its security against external threats.” 

The above quote is from the Russian Foreign Minister as it relates to the Russian government selling weapons to the Syrian government. So, in addition to the fact that the Russians (along with the Chinese government) have blocked any serious action from the UN taking place (ok, yeah, it's funny to think that the UN can do anything even if the Russians and Chinese aren't deliberately blocking them), they're also selling them weapons and then thinking the rest of the world is stupid enough to believe that they're selling them weapons that can only be used against "external" enemies. Or perhaps their definition of "external enemies" refers to anyone who opposes the government? Frankly, I'm curious to know exactly what kind of weapons can only be used against external enemies but can't be used against protesters and peaceful citizens? Tanks? Fighter jets? Oh, wait, no, those have been used against protesters and peaceful citizens.

Now, to be fair, do I think that Western or other Arab nations haven't been selling weapons to those opposition forces in Syria? Heck no, I'm certain they have - though probably not to the same degree or dollars as the Russians. But at least they're not trying to use logic (or the obvious lack thereof) to justify that it's ok to do so and watch the tragedy currently unfolding in Syria. Or maybe the rest of the world really is just that stupid or uncaring. I probably shouldn't be surprised...

NOW he's illegitimate?!

Syria's Bashir Al-Assad has lost the legitimacy to rule according to Hillary Clinton. Of course, the previous several months when he was shooting, beating and otherwise terrorizing his subjects (yes, I am using that term deliberately) he was still a legitimate ruler and someone that the US was trying to find ways to cajole into behaving better. However, now that he's unleashed his supporters to rampage through the US embassy in Damascus, NOW he's no longer a legitimate ruler.

Ignoring the fact that the US is assuming the role of sole arbiter of who is the legitimate ruler of any nation (other than the US), I'm sure that those who have been sacrificing themselves to promote a better form of government in Syria are now thrilled to know that the US actually agrees with them - months after the fact and only after the US government itself has been the target. Sort of reminds me of Afghanistan which the US essentially ignored (when the Taliban was abusing its citizenry in the late 90's) until the 9/11 attacks and then it was the first target of US revenge.

Yep, I guess if you want to help topple your government and you live in a nation where the leader is cozy with the US, ratchet up the pressure and get the tyrant to personally offend the US if you want any assistance (or even pro-forma support).