West’s perpetual cycle of arming ‘terrorists’

It is unlawful to supply a weapon to another person. The supplier can even be complicit in murder if the gun kills. Why, then, should these laws not apply to governments supplying arms to terrorists?

We’re encouraged to believe that ISIS [the Islamic State] is the most extreme and so this justifies the West’s arming of other terrorists. Does this mean that if an even more extremist militant group is identified by the West, the West is justified in arming ISIS? Nonsense. Please explain to me how ISIS can be more extreme than groups that fly aeroplanes into buildings (al Qaeda), or that throw postal workers to their deaths off buildings (Free Syrian Army), or that plant car bombs in crowded areas in false-flag operations (SAS and their US counterparts), or that bomb cities into rubble (Nato’s destruction of Sirte)?

But because of this deception, the West is now arming the Kurds — the very same people the West abandoned in 1991, after encouraging them to revolt, the very same people that Turkey was attempting to annihilate throughout the 1990s, with western arms and western complicity, in a campaign that killed tens of thousands of Kurds.