making noises about arming "the rebels"?

Obviously, the goal of the Russians is to both put Assad in a stronger position and to try to prevent a major Western effort to actually step into the conflict rather than just arm the rebels.

that these missiles will not be used to kill more Syrians and are a gift of the peace loving Russian government.

These missiles are intended for US and Israeli planes. Sending them is a warning to both governments (along with a message to the Turks) to stay out of the Syrian conflict. Syria is NOT Libya, Syria has something called "Cover". "Cover" is a military term for the ability set up effective defensive position that are hard for anyone attacking to detect. Libya was an easy target for the Air Force, any defensive position had to be in the open (Libya has little or no trees or anything else to hide defensive positions under) and thus easy to detect and hit with air power. Syria has something called "Mountains" and "Trees", both are excellent when it comes to "Cover" (and this has been known for Centuries, Artillery was the leading source of injuries to soldiers in open areas till Air Power started to take over that role after WWII, on the other hand in areas with "Cover" and "Concealment" i.e, Forests, Jungles, Cities, Mountains, the primary source of injuries to soldiers are other foot soldiers, that was the case in the 1600s and is still true today).

Cities are unique, prior to about 1860 cities were small and thus quick to take (Most people lived in rural areas prior to about 2005, in the US prior to 1920 and Western Europe about 1860). Military policy is to by pass cities, if possible due to Cities being like Forests, places enemy forces can hide. If a city is bypassed supply lines to enemy forces in the city are also cut off and they tend to surrender or just fade into the general population of the City. When a City is NOT bypass it can become a bloody battle field, this is what happen in Stalingrad during WWII and Hue during the Tet Offensive of 1968 in Vietnam.

More on the Battle of Hue:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hu%E1%BA%BF

Thus Syria is a different battle field then Libya.

Side note: Greece did NOT support NATO attack on Libya, thus all the fighter-bombers AND the aerial tankers that supported those fighter-bombers came out of Italy. Greece, while in turmoil right now, will NOT do anything that Strengthens Turkey. For example a main source of support for the Kurdish rebels in Turkey has been Greece. Thus Greeks bases are out for any attacks in Syria. Cyprus has NATO bases, but given the division of that Island, using those bases will just inflame the non-Turkish held side of the Island. That leaves Turkey. The Turks have some problem, mostly with how to deal with any Iranian moves along their common border. The Rest of NATO may NOT want to use Turkish bases, given that most support Cyprus in the matter of the division of that island (And this is complicated by the fact, that while the Turkish military may want to support Israeli and get rid of Assad, it appears the Turkish people do not, given the support the Government had to give to those Turks that tried to get supplies directly to Gaza instead of through Israel). Thus there is an internal Turkish split, best avoided by the Turks doing NOTHING.

Any use of Israeli bases by US forces will just radicalize most of the Mid East, i.e. raise support for Iran and against out other allies in the area, Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf Kingdoms. Thus you have much higher costs for any US or NATO intervention into Syria, and both the Russians and Syrians know this. Thus sending in these Missiles raises those costs even more.

and fired randomly into rebel lines or the high explosives used in other IEDs.

Its a small warhead designed to take down fragile aircraft, it would have problems destroying even a small house. Its just not a feasible use to use on ground targets unless you just drop them on top of someone and then you would be as well using toilet seats.

Your statement is like someone saying, any Horses Assad buys will be used to drop bombs on Israel. Assad may have a military need for Horses, but it is NOT to drop bombs on Israel.

The same with these missiles, these are radar guided missiles. They are designed to get close to an aircraft and explode and do enough damage to knock it out of the sky. Given the nature of planes (i.e. little armor due to armor means increase weight, which means less performance or less payload or less range, or a combination of all three) you do NOT need that big a bomb to knock one down, a near miss is often fatal.

Troops on the ground have things to protect them from such explosions, including concrete buildings, trees and even fox homes and trenches. In fact just laying on the ground can give an infantrymen enough protection from the blast of such missiles. Thus larger bombs are used against ground targets, bombs with little or no guidance systems for they are MORE EFFECTIVE then these missiles as to ground targets.

Please note, Assad seems to have plenty of such "Dumb" bombs, thus he does NOT resort to using these missile on the insurgents. Could Assad convert these missiles to IED?, yes, but t he could order a Cavalry Charge into Israel also. Both make NO SENSE given the military situation in Syria and that is why I pointed out these missiles are NOT aimed at the insurgents, but Israel and the US (and anyone else who wants to intervene with air power).

It depends on how Israel reacts. These missles are pretty useless against Syrian rebels, but they could be pretty dangerous for Israel regardless of what happens.

Russia wants to maintain the status quo of the Syrian government
killing off their own folks. Anyone outside attempting to help the
rebels with air power can be shot down.

Stay classy, Russia.

Obama seems to understand this. I wish Putin did.

Both sides can see the short term benefit of supplying anti-aircraft missiles to "their" side. The danger comes in the long run when those missiles fall into the wrong hands.

Putin understands that. I wonder if Cameron and Hollande do.

would make Assad's bombing missions "more dangerous" and eliminate one of his big advantages in heavy weapons. Both sides would benefit from the acquisition of anti-aircraft missiles. That does not make it the right thing to do.

I am sure that Cameron and Hollande understand the military importance of these missiles as well as Putin does. I do hope they keep the long run danger of them falling into the wrong hands in mind and do not follow Putin's lead on this one.

'think twice' about his 'quick and clean' "bomb the rebels into submission" pipe dream, as well.

That does not mean we should be supplying missiles to either side since the potential damage from these missiles will be around long after both sides wake up from their 'pipe dream'.

Israel quickly issued a thinly veiled warning that it would bomb the Russian S-300 missiles if they were sent to Syria, as such a move would bring the advanced guided missiles within range of civilian and military planes over Israel. Israel has conducted three sets of air strikes on Syria this year, aimed at preventing missiles being brought close to its border by the Lebanese Shia group Hezbollah.

"The shipments haven't set out yet and I hope they won't," Moshe Ya'alon, the Israeli defence minister, said. "If they do arrive in Syria, God forbid, we'll know what to do."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/28/israel-warns-russia-against-arming-syrian-rebels