Also, as with anything in politics, it's easy to justify truly horrific things using noble-sounding arguments. For example, who wouldn't want to protect civilians? No-one, which is why when Clinton's State Department and the UK government used it to justify catastrophic military intervention in Libya few questioned it. Yet according to recent committee report, the threat was questionable and the groups we supported dangerous: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/14/mps-deliver-da... It wouldn't take much of a slide down the slippery slope at all for Google to back those groups, or their Syrian equivalent, in the name of stopping murder - or for them to discredit claims that the groups we're backing are killing civilians.