We don't need no water, Let this Mother F**Ker BURN!

Did they also learn that Custer was an asshole?

Blood on the streets, town of Damascus...

And yet we keep shipping our jobs over there.

Everyone knows Custer died at Little Bighorn. What my book presupposes is - maybe he didn't?

Porous Horace: And yet we keep shipping our jobs over there.

quizzicaldog.jpg

Porous Horace: And yet we keep shipping our jobs over there.

Wat.

vernonFL: Hopefully the entire Syrian Army defects en masse against the regime.

unlikely. the population is split between the countryside, which is in rebellion, and the (wealthier) urban population, which still supports the regime.

this isn't like Egypt, which had a very professional army (by ME standards, thanks to decades of cross training with Europe and the US), or Libya, which had a unified populace once the protests started.

Syria is a nasty, bloody civil war, and I don't see the rebels winning it.

Porous Horace: And yet we keep shipping our jobs over there.

To Syria?

Porous Horace: And yet we keep shipping our jobs over there.

And our prized floppy eared goats. Don't forget the goats.

GAT_00: vernonFL: Hopefully the entire Syrian Army defects en masse against the regime.

Reports seem to indicate individual defections have occurred, but nothing on a wide scale.

Does the Syrian army pay THAT well? Or does the regime use soldiers' families as hostages, explicitly or not?

(I read that idea in John Grisham's "The Firm" and it only reinforced my idea that the family is a trap.)

vernonFL: Hopefully the entire Syrian Army defects en masse against the regime.

Yeah, but then you might have open religious warfare. The regime belongs to a small sect that isn't considered Islam by many, and they've also allied themselves with Syriac Christians. Once you take the lid off, it's could be Iraq 2006 all over again.

Then again, weekly massacres like they have right now isn't tenable either. There's no good way out of that mess.

And now, great moments in the history of the F word:

"Where the fark did all these Indians come from?!" - Gen. George A. Custer

Loud_Mouth_Soup: Porous Horace: And yet we keep shipping our jobs over there.

Wat.

Americans don't have maps. And couldn't read them if they did, therefore we have talking GPS.

Thanks to an old fantasy football team name, I read it as "Cutler's Last Stand".

Magorn: Call me a war-monger but the Magorn Doctrine would be: if any country uses its military forces to attack unarmed members of its own populace, the US response will be to send in our fighters to establish total air/dominance/ enforce a no-fly zone for military aircraft, and then send in a few squadrons of a-10's to anihilate any armor or artillery that even thinks of moving off base or firing.

If the government wants to try t ocontinue supress its people using only rifles and sidearms? Well good luck with that, at that point its up to the People of the country to go "the last mile" ad take out their government themselves*


* I might not be adverse to "losing" a few hundred crates of m-16s and ammo in countires where the government has sucessfully confiscated all civilian arms

Have fun applying that one to China.

/beside where you do draw the line between military and paramilitary SWAT style shiat

Magorn: Call me a war-monger but the Magorn Doctrine would be: if any country uses its military forces to attack unarmed members of its own populace, the US response will be to send in our fighters to establish total air/dominance/ enforce a no-fly zone for military aircraft, and then send in a few squadrons of a-10's to anihilate any armor or artillery that even thinks of moving off base or firing.

If the government wants to try t ocontinue supress its people using only rifles and sidearms? Well good luck with that, at that point its up to the People of the country to go "the last mile" ad take out their government themselves*


* I might not be adverse to "losing" a few hundred crates of m-16s and ammo in countires where the government has sucessfully confiscated all civilian arms

There's a game called "cybernations (new window)" that's just waiting for a guy like you.

/wassup Farkistan!

I have no problem with protestors arming themselves against government-sponsored violence. That is the government declaring war on its own people, and should immediately prompt the international community to intervene.

Syria, like other arab/islamic regions, is tribal. If Assad is killed/toppled/flees his people, the Alawites of Kalbiya, a tiny minority in control of the country will probably be slaughtered by an angry mob.

Assad Junior is still an armature compared to his father who slaughtered an entire city.

So which one's Major Reno? And where's the whiskey?

(The senior surviving officer drank an estimated 22 gallons of whiskey in about 11 days following the battle. A true Fark hero.)



RIP you crazy, abrasive drunk.

omnibus_necanda_sunt: Go protesters!

I think once you've killed 26 soldiers, you don't really qualify as protesters anymore.

BolloxReader: I have no problem with protestors arming themselves against government-sponsored violence. That is the government declaring war on its own people, and should immediately prompt the international community to intervene.

This.
And I extend this feeling globally, including the people in Occupy Oakland who chose the Wednesday strike to retaliate against the police with projectiles and anyone who retaliates against police tearing down a peaceful gathering.
The private vandalism, no. But as long as the cops have their tear gas and batons, the people can have their molotovs and rocks.

TappingTheVein: Syria, like other arab/islamic regions, is tribal. If Assad is killed/toppled/flees his people, the Alawites of Kalbiya, a tiny minority in control of the country will probably be slaughtered by an angry mob.

Right. But that's not exactly a bad thing and it'd be some balance to Iran's increase in regional influence via the American-led overthrow of Saddam. Not that that will assuage the Israeli ultra-nationalists bent on attacking Iran or anything.

Magorn: Call me a war-monger but the Magorn Doctrine would be: if any country uses its military forces to attack unarmed members of its own populace, the US response will be to send in our fighters to establish total air/dominance/ enforce a no-fly zone for military aircraft, and then send in a few squadrons of a-10's to anihilate any armor or artillery that even thinks of moving off base or firing.

If the government wants to try t ocontinue supress its people using only rifles and sidearms? Well good luck with that, at that point its up to the People of the country to go "the last mile" ad take out their government themselves*


* I might not be adverse to "losing" a few hundred crates of m-16s and ammo in countires where the government has sucessfully confiscated all civilian arms

Presumably you'd approve of other countries doing the same thing to the US if military force was used on unarmed civilians.

Porous Horace: And yet we keep shipping our jobs over there.

Not sure if Syria?

Rashnu: Right. But that's not exactly a bad thing and it'd be some balance to Iran's increase in regional influence via the American-led overthrow of Saddam. Not that that will assuage the Israeli ultra-nationalists bent on attacking Iran or anything.

Losing Syria in its current form will weaken Iran.

The idea of nuclear weapons in the hands of the islamic nutjobs running the show in Iran who arm fund and train terrorists fighting Israel is not very appealing however I think attacking Iran's nuclear facilities will cause more harm than good.

26 soldiers killed to take out 30 civilians.

Not a great ratio just from a practical standpoint. A professional modernish military ought to be able to do much better against a poorly organized group of civilians. Either their military is woefully inept or they have some badass civilians.

Magorn: If the US military ever did that to unarmed civilians in this country (which, BTW, I believe to be about the least likely thing possible- I know a lot of soldiers and vets and I firmly believe their response, if ever given such an order would be a unanimous "Fark you!, Sir!") I wouldn't wait for someone else's military to help before taking matters into my own hands. And I'm one of them damn-nearly a hippie-type liberals

Yeah, that would never happen.



Also gotta love the ITGism of you saying you'd take things into your own hands. So, other countries are too sissy to fight an army, so they need your help, but you'd be out there Chuck Norrising your way to the Whitehouse if the US so much as made a gun shape with their hands towards an unarmed civilian.

Arkanaut:

The regime belongs to a small sect that isn't considered Islam by many

The Alawis (new window). Who were historically oppressed by the Sunni Ottomans in a way roughly analogous to the Jews in Christian Europe, till the French took Syria over in 1920 (new window). The Alawi (and many Christians) eventually took the opportunity to become minions of the French in joining the colonial administration and the colonial military in self-preservation and "affirmative action." so they were in a good position by the time France had to let go.

This is roughly analogous to the Jews in British-occupied Palestine, except that their weren't enough Alawiyyun to rule by themselves so they had to form alliances and coalitions with other non-Sunni Syrians -- who were afraid of more and worse persecution by the Sunni majority 60 years ago and are even more afraid of it now.

I've wondered why the Syrian religious and/or ethnic minorities never took the opportunity to link up with the Israeli Jews like the Christians did in Lebanon. My hunch is that the Alawi and their allies still weren't strong enough to risk that, so the Baathist regime became so anti-Israel for the same reason they took power in the first place: fear of what would happen if they didn't do that.

If you don't like the analogy to the Jews, imagine what might happen if South Dakota became an independent country ruled by the Sioux. And after 40 year of constant repression the whites rebelled.

Incidentally, I hate the Baathist regime but have sympathy for the Alawi as people. If they could flee en masse like the Hmong most of them would jump at the chance to go someplace where they weren't so afraid.

How about North Dakota? (new window.)

m2313: BolloxReader: I have no problem with protestors arming themselves against government-sponsored violence. That is the government declaring war on its own people, and should immediately prompt the international community to intervene.

This.
And I extend this feeling globally, including the people in Occupy Oakland who chose the Wednesday strike to retaliate against the police with projectiles and anyone who retaliates against police tearing down a peaceful gathering.
The private vandalism, no. But as long as the cops have their tear gas and batons, the people can have their molotovs and rocks.

So the whole Northern Ireland/IRA bombing campaign is just okey dokey with you then?

TappingTheVein: Rashnu: Right. But that's not exactly a bad thing and it'd be some balance to Iran's increase in regional influence via the American-led overthrow of Saddam. Not that that will assuage the Israeli ultra-nationalists bent on attacking Iran or anything.

Losing Syria in its current form will weaken Iran.

The idea of nuclear weapons in the hands of the islamic nutjobs running the show in Iran who arm fund and train terrorists fighting Israel is not very appealing however I think attacking Iran's nuclear facilities will cause more harm than good.

Right. Whereas the overthrow of Iraq in its previous form strengthened them. I agree completely on the nuclear issue. The nuclear genie is out of the lamp and while we should take measured actions to delay Iran's program we should also reconcile ourselves to the likely inevitable and not needfully earth-ending reality of a nuclear Iran.

habitual_masticator: So the whole Northern Ireland/IRA bombing campaign is just okey dokey with you then?

Are the police actively repressing them and are the targets only police involved in active repression? Yes.
I'm not okay with innocent civilians being targeted but if one entity is repressing the other, no matter it be a street gang, Islamic militia, or a government sanctioned-security agency then people have the right to self-defense.

If there's a peaceful gathering of people, and someone uses local ordinances over the first amendment to justify moving a peaceful assembly out without giving any real reason they should move, and they're using the force of the government to move them, the people are justified in self-defense.
OPD specifically shot a tear gas canister, knocked a veteran into a coma, and then threw a striker grenade at the group trying to give him medical attention (which would be a crime in an international war for military soldiers), and during the GS they gave another veteran an order to disperse, didn't allow him to, and beat him with batons. And not long ago summarily executed a subdued criminal, and then the murderer didn't even serve his full sentence while our prisons are crowded with nonviolent drug offenders.
No, I wouldn't mind a retaliation in kind to those officers.

m2313: Are the police actively repressing them and are the targets only police involved in active repression?

re·press/riˈpres/Verb: 1.Subdue (someone or something) by force.
2.Restrain or prevent (the expression of a feeling).

op·press/əˈpres/Verb: 1.Keep (someone) in subservience and hardship, esp. by the unjust exercise of authority.
2.Cause (someone) to feel distressed, anxious, or uncomfortable: "he was oppressed by worry".

Just so we're being clear.

/yes, I do know I'm just being a dick

Patriot96B: There's a game called "cybernations (new window)" that's just waiting for a guy like you.

/wassup Farkistan!

Johan Vult!

/you guys need to get over on the winning side of the treaty web