Syria

I just don't really know where I stand on this issue.

Yes, I will say everyone deserves a shot at democracy over dictatorship.


However, the way the FSA is fighting is too terroristic for me. Sure, a smaller, more out-gunned force generally has to fall back to guerrilla tactics, but I find a difference between small unit warfare and car bombs. What they're doing is reminiscent, if not outright out of the book, of Al Queda and such. Plus, the Allah Ackbars don't help.    


On top of that, if there was an insurrection in the US (a la civil war) that I fully expect the government to put it down swiftly and harshly.

Linus, the reason you're seeing AQ style tactics is because that is who the FSA is having to fall back on for support. AQ has actively sought out the out-gunned, under-supplied field commanders and offered them support. Embedded AP and Reuters journalists have repeatedly reported that field commanders are in some pretty dire straits given the lack of ammo. They have repeatedly had to call off missions and give up gains simply because they don't have any bullets left. They've been pleading to NATO and individual western powers for bullets and RPG rounds, but those pleas have been falling on deaf ears, so when AQ comes in and says "fly our flag, allow some of our fighters to join you, and we'll give you ammo and logistical support" they don't even hesitate. They don't agree with AQ and don't want them in their country, but at the same time, they need the ammo to continue the fight while we stand by and watch them get slaughtered for the sake of it being 2 months away from the general election.

NATO was also afraid that a religious leadership would form in the power vacuum should we help with the ouster of Al-Assad. The reality is that our wait-and-see approach is going to do more for that than our aid would have. What's more, it would be in our interests to aid the rebels in an effort to prevent chemical weapons stockpiles from making their way onto the black market.

...They're using guerrilla tactics because they *work*. Little different, really, from the effective partisan tactics of WW2.

^^^ I can't believe you said that . . . syriaously?

brihard wrote: Linus, is your own country not the one that has constitutionally enshrined the concept of an armed populace throwing out a bad government should it come to that?

Yes, it was. But it still begs the question who decides who the bad government is, and who decides if the governments use of force has 'crossed the line'? When is it ok to go against the government?



Case in point. During Katrina, NOPD ordered the confiscation of all lawfully owned firearms in the city. This not only goes against the US Constitution, but also technically is robbery, a crime which you are allowed to use deadly force in the state of Texas to prevent. If someone shot and killed an officer (or multiple officers) would it have been ok? I truly don't know.

As a response to said unconstitutional confiscation, a federal law was passed barring all such confiscations in the future...it's already been settled that it's not allowed. However, if the order were to be given again, what recourse would be allowed? Armed resistance? Sure, it states in the bill that you can address it legally, but alas, what happens if that can't happen and takes time? Martial law gets called for mass rioting, you expect me to give up my only true defense of my life and hope the courts sort it out sometime in the future?


Having said that, who decides if force used by a government to put down an insurrection is 'too much'? Where is it inherently wrong to send tanks against armed civilians? You yourself just said not to expect the rebels to play nice, so neither should the government, should it? You don't fight fair, you fight to win.



And that, my friend, is why I stated that I truly don't know how to view this, as, taking the emotion out of it, I can play both sides of the argument. I'm against dictatorships, but I'm also against terrorist and needless killing from rebels.

Edited by Linus - 14 August 2012 at 7:21pm

Meanwhile, the Free Syrian Army has perfected time travel, at least, that's the only way I can explain this picture:



In all seriousness, they stumbled on a warehouse with 5,000 StG-44's complete with magazines, etc.

On the current US collectors market, that warehouse is worth $125-$250 MILLION just for those guns alone. Lucky bastards.....

Stumbled upon it? Lol? Like the people that have a vested interest in the stockpile have better things to do than guard that with massive fire power.

impulse418 wrote: Wow, super jealous. Who the hell had 5k stock piled? And why?

Shorty said that he's heard from others that Syria bought up what the Ruskies were ditching from their inventory of captured arms from the war. It was these, GeW-43's and Mosins. My guess is that Ivan was talking with Assad and said "Hey, buy an extra AA unit and we'll throw in this whole warehouse of automatic assault rifles!"

jmac3 wrote: If I remember correctly, weren't there people shooting at officers and rescue personnel durin Katrina? That's reason enough to order confiscation of all weapons.

Who reported that?

I like how the National Guard wasn't provided ammo.

usafpilot07 wrote: impulse418 wrote: jmac3 wrote: If I remember correctly, weren't there people shooting at officers and rescue personnel durin Katrina? That's reason enough to order confiscation of all weapons. Who reported that? I like how the National Guard wasn't provided ammo. I know cops down there that were personally under fire during the looting.

And confiscating weapons from law abiding citizens seemed justifiable?

Did anyone hear about the stories of the law abiding citizens, who tried to get their firearms back? If they did, it took years to do so.