"Did I claim that I am an expert?"

You asserted that you were knowledgeable on the topic. If you didn't know jack shit about terrorism or sniping, you'd presumably have the sense not to comment on its feasibility under X circumstances.

It's bad enough that Einstein read the word "sniper" and completely missed the point. And offered us his expert opinion, because they offered him information on Syrian military hardware in mall cop training school.

My reference to intellect was referring to the fact that the Chinese people are treated like babies by a nanny government.

My reference to wealth was a reflection of the fact that the Chinese people are poor as hell. I'm sure that Chinese wages are starting to compare with other places in the world. But comparing them to Zimbabwe is nothing to brag about. The fact is that the vast majority are impoverished. That's why they offered you so much more than average to teach. And yes, that's a very low wage for teachers in the USA. It's even lower than places (mostly in the south?) that pay their teachers the least--very low, even in my Libertarianish opinion.

Yeah, you're very free in China. Unless you talk about/protest anything. Then you get locked up. Unless you tell ignorant people with their heads in the sand like you about such protests/imprisonment. Then you get locked up. Even recently China has been locking people up for protesting or reporting on protesting. It sounds like you're both unaware of this or the fact that it's suppressed by Chinese authorities.

Engaging in free speech by ridiculing morons isn't suppressing free speech. I also speak out against racists and corruption.

You're pretending that, because I engage in free speech to challenge the views of others, I'm inherently against their right to voice those views? I'm merely engaging in free speech, just as they are. You're suggesting that I must politely decline to engage in free speech in order to support the free speech of others? That's just weird.

The fact is that I can speak freely and so can they. You can't. Chinese people can't. Some people who believe human beings have rights find this very problematic. I understand that, if you believe that people are the slaves of the ruling class, they shouldn't be allowed to talk about what their government is doing or question it. But I do not believe, as you do, that slavery is just.

My reference to being "better" was a reference, again, to not being treated like an inept, idiot child by my government. I can feed and clothe myself. I don't need to be given my lunch as a privilege from government or told what I can or cannot read/say. I'm presumably more capable of taking care of myself (aka better), because my government doesn't prevent me from doing so by treating me like a baby who needs to be protected from itself. And my life is obviously way better (aka better) because being a slave is not desirable for the vast majority of the population.

I can live where I want. Do what I want. Say what I want. Read what I want. Yes, freedom is good. Freedom is "better" than slavery. I respectfully disagree with you.

"You COMPLETELY missed the point, and trying to use random information to detract from the topic at hand."

As a forum moderator, I feel that there's something you should know: He does that all the time. Most of the time, in fact.

He said that all plastic bags are biodegradable. How much more do you need to realize he's trolling or hallucinating?

Great. Now you're a terrorism expert too.

YOU HEAR THAT CHINA!? HE'S TALKING ABOUT THE FEASIBILITY OF TERRORISM TACTICS AS IF HE HAS KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE.

I use caps because I presume it helps them hear me.

Haha. You reject the free market as a concept because you hate the idea.

In that case, you're just crazy. But I still don't think Justinian I should be discouraging it!

"Security training in counter-ops."

Counter theft at your local mall? It's not helping you here.

You're overgeneralizing in response to one simple example. Where's your assessment of the situation of large crowds of already violent or nearly violent people? Or rifles used at such a distance that the shooter is long gone before any streets can be cleared, and none of the crowd can be tortured for the identity of the shooter because they don't know it?

None of this even matters. You're ignoring the bigger point that it's undeniable that many Western nations are not above such meddling and have engaged in it in the past.

With gems like this:
"A methodical operation has issues with a random target. Complexity increases with more than one person."

You're not even talking about the example I suggested. You're suggesting it would be impossible for a professional to drop a random protester and get away, covered by the very commotion of the crowd of angry protesters he's targeted. Because you vaguely say a "methodical operation" has "issues." And "complexity increases with more than one person," because a crowd of angry protesters are surely going to search for an identify a shooter. They're so organized they'll immediately identify a gunshot victim in a crowd, and then immediately seek out the shooter at a distance before he could possibly move!

Or the Assad regime will instantly identify there's been a shooting! And immediately identify the shooter's location! And immediately trample the crowd in order to apprehend him! And he'll still be there, at any distance, when they arrive! And everyone near his location will know what has happened and his/her identity!

You're making all kinds of wild assumptions. And even if your ridiculous claims were right, it was just a random suggested possible example and you've failed to even touch my actual point.

So which agency provided you with "security training" in "counter-ops"? What was the most senior position you held in that field? Do such well-trained professionals as you usually become mall-cops and truck drivers? It seems odd that you chose such low paying and demanding (in the case of driving) work with all of that education and those credentials.

Give me a break.

My reference to snipers was that they're capable of increasing the level of violence on both sides. It was a simple example offered for the type of thing the West has done repeatedly in the past, not anything to do with assassination. I was referring to regime change via using increased violence as justification for intervention.

Little Paul,

"No they don't. There is no proove or hint for this whatsoever. Especially cause there are western powers who at first didn't want the regime to fall."

What does Western support have to do with Syria blaming deaths on its opposition? You sound confused.

"thats ofcourse your opinion as your pov differs from mine."

You're not even making any sense. You're just presuming that terrorism is James Bond style or impossible. You're ignorant of what can be done to incite violence yet arrogant enough to think nothing you don't understand or know about exists.

"I ment chances are small in such environement."

It's not my opinion that you know nothing of what you're talking about. How many people who've been in Syria recently have you spoken to? My count's more than 0. Yours?

"How do you know about them then? Your brother is over there?"

This is not appropriate conversation for this forum. I outlined some basic ideas which should help you if you stop presuming you're a terrorism/international affairs expert.

"is it that hard to stick to the debate kemp?"
"this personal presumptions of you without any backup of your own argument seems pointless."

I don't need to backup my claim that you have no idea what you're talking about. The first thing I quoted you saying in this post _didn't even make any sense_. It wasn't a response to what I said. It was just confused and clueless.

You're saying "well I can't think of ways the West could incite violence/unrest or be involved in any way" as if it means anything. What do you know about about it? Nothing.

Einstein,

Whatever drugs you're using, maybe it's not such a good idea.

We're talking about primarily urban environments, in which concealment is maintained and escape secured before "tons of infantry" can do anything. Where helicopters and armored vehicles are useless, because they don't see through walls/ceilings and don't fit where a man eluding them can fit.

Where are you coming up with this stuff? Do you think the "protesters" in Syria are huddled together on some huge, barren plain where snipers would inherently be vulnerable?

"He claimed it would not be suicide.
I showed how it is."

You have no idea what you're talking about. Snipers in urban environments of chaos, unrest, protests, and civil war are immediately located and taken out with helicopters and armored vehicles and "tons" of infantry? Hahaha yeah. If only it was so easy.

The only thing you're showing is that you're cocky but not knowledgeable.

I don't know if we can call it trickery when it's obvious and only gullible douchebags believe it.

"civilians"

And, like I said, the current regime is horrible. But that doesn't necessarily make the rebels better.

Hahaha. He's a corrupt big-government wacko. His campaign finance reform was just another nail in the coffin. When he goes it'll be like Ted Kennedy: Good riddance.