"I love how the man in China says he was able to apply to the CIA... not a good move imo."

Firstly, I never expressed any intention to it, but merely stated a fact. I do not engage in any activities that would even be REMOTELY suspicious, nor have I engaged in any relations with the US. Even if I were apprehended, it would be a very swift and quick "interrogation" since there would be no supporting facts apart from me saying that I COULD apply. I could go outside and scream "CHINA SUCKS!" but doesn't mean that I have previously done so, or intend to do so. At best, I would be monitored and my whereabouts tracked (Ok, my picking up Chinese girls doesn't count as a threat to national security).

As for your opinion Flint, I am with Kemp on this one (*goes and has a shower to wash off this dirty feeling*), you are making very broad generalisations about snipers. I also do not agree with Kemp insofar as a sniper would be used in this case to insight international intervention, as propaganda and insighting public unrest through releasing information would be far more effective (just look at how the internet was cut in Egypt after the protests started). It would be a very risky move to use a sniper for this kind of unrest, but your reasons why Flint, for the lack of a better word, just suck. For example:

"Kemp:
If you are talking military sniping then the tanks and aircraft, if you are talking random sniping then tattletales, if high profile then the security detail."

That sentence doesn't even make sense complete sense, and isn't very relivent to the topic at hand. The issues brought up is that it is possible, the targets do not need to be specific, and regardless of target, they would be able to pull it off (since a sniper would just wait for the conditions to be right).

Did I claim that I am an expert? I am also backing you up here? I supported what you said, insofar as it is possible, and you are trying to discredit me for it?

*throws hands up in the air, flips the table over, and walks off*

"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.

i'm going to Houm for some peace and quiet

So, you are not an expert on the situation either? Most of my claims was to do with international intellegence agencies (information is NOT wrong, go look it up on the CIA website), as well as the nature of international relations. I also used some common sense, which is where I agreed with you (omg, I still can't believe you want to pick an argument over me agreeing with you, geez) that such an action wouldn't necessarily be suicide. Don't need to be an expert to have a common sense opinion. As for the rest of the argument, do you want to ignore that with silly "are you an expert?" questions, or do we want to focus on how you are not an expert either and digress (degress?) into 10 year old kinds bickering in the playground over who is better?

I will make a long Flint-esque reply when I am off in Portland.

Enough trolling on me.

@v.kemp:
"Their leaders are already publicly calling for regime change. How could you not know this and post anyway?"
Reread the sentence. I said "at first". Yes we all know.

"I explained how what you said made no sense. Your confusion and incoherence are not my problem."
Its your problem to see the irony of that joke here, not mine.

"You didn't give an explanation. You said "NUH UH YOU'RE WRONG" without an explanation."
I explained what that sentence about western powers had to do with it literally and why I thought it was important. This is a copy paste:
me: "Especially cause there are western powers who at first didn't want the regime to fall."
You: "What does Western support have to do with Syria blaming deaths on its opposition?"
me: If you blame a western democratic country publicly, you might turn public opinion of those countries against you as well as their leaders.
You: but it isn't, western powers want the regime down
me: I said at first.

You can disagree with my pov, but where in this whole discussion did I ever talked about you? The only use of the word you was when speaking in general, not about you. You're attempts to make this personal in every sentence are quit remarkable.

"I merely pointed out that many Western powers would like regime change, especially in light of the current regime's ties to Iran."
That part was undisputed to begin with.

"You're very clear about the fact that you're a child, you're not particularly bright, and you don't know anything nor care about the situation in Syria."
The first 2 are cheap insults that have nothing to do with this debate and don't matter. My personal knowledge isn't even important when making an argument, let go my personal feelings. Neither can be proven.

"References to snipers was simply one example. The simple point is that the West wants regime change, and history shows that the West is certainly not above inciting a little unrest/violence to this end. "
Not doubting that some western regimes will use any means they can. I'm just doubting how effective it is.

"Your equivocation over snipers and how likely it is that there are X number who can be Y effective is irrelevant. It's juvenile, stupid, and pointless."
No it points out it can't be the reason why the Syrian army shoots its own civilians in the first place, and this was what this debate was all about.

maybe (if you are so much in favor of it) I will post something personal too:
Now if you re-read all your threads you'll find you posted an insult almost every second line. If you reread my threads you won't. That's why this debate is going nowhere all tough it could have. Your emotions clearly get in your way.

Why wouldn't I insult you? You're communicating like a cocky child. It's not entertaining. It's not educational. It usually doesn't even make sense. You continually comment on irrelevant details, having ignored all points:

(1) Did anyone argue that the West or any other outside influence was responsible for the uprising from the start? That Syria might have hesitated to blame conflict on outsiders months ago is irrelevant. Unless anyone is arguing a timetable of when outsiders may have gotten involved, pointing out one reason for Syria NOT to blame outsiders many months ago is irrelevant. More importantly, they can blame deaths on the rebels. This was true months ago as well. The point is that any deaths escalate the conflict, regardless of who inflicts them and who the casualties are.

You're saying "they wouldn't have wanted to blame outsiders months ago," in response to the statement that any violence is good for outsiders now (the West in particular, because it has the best means). It has nothing to do with current Western (and others in the region) motivations to get involved. It has nothing to do with the fact that any increase violence now is used by the West to try to gain support for intervention.

(2) "That part was undisputed to begin with."

Response to evidence leading up to the point. Point ignored! Good job!

(3) "No it points out it can't be the reason why the Syrian army shoots its own civilians in the first place, and this was what this debate was all about."

It is? I was arguing that this is not a clear-cut case of a democratic people's revolution fighting an oppressive government. You made it very clear in your opening post that you wanted Western intervention. THAT's what this debate is about. I argued that the West and others may be instigating increased bloodshed. I never claimed that such would be the "reason" why Syria's Assad regime is barbaric and brutal in the first place. Point missed entirely!

From the very start you've simply blown off any suggestion that the West or other outsiders have the capability to instigate further bloodshed. From post 6 you've simply made all kinds of presumptions about what would have to be done and used your expert judgement to dismiss them. Forgive me for finding your assumptions laughable and making fun of you. What else am I going to do?

You presume it's impossible for the West or other outsiders to instigate violence. You presume ever shooting anyone _in a violent riot_ would be impossible to do without getting caught, even for a professional at a range. That was just one example. Arms can be given. Funds can be given. Training can be given. Information can be given. Technology can be given. You presume that acts committed to instigate violence on one or more sides would necessarily have to be the primary cause of civilian slaughter to even be considered. That's just weird. I'm not arguing that such acts are the primary cause of anything, so arguing that they're not is pointless.

I've only argued that the West and others have the means to escalate the violence, that they have motivation to do so, and that they've never let morality or anything like that hold them back in the past. Your response: Such actions by themselves are not enough to cause civilian slaughter, so they don't count? Yeah, I'll make sure I don't insult you.

I mentioned the sniper possibility. You said:
(4)"Yeah, hundreds of them."
Because obviously it takes hundreds of snipers to kill a few people. And there are no other ways outsiders could help more Syrians get killed. My suggestion has been refuted. Clearly impossible. From the very start you've been arguing against red herrings and straw-men. Einstein doesn't care, because he uses fallacious logic all the time. He can't tell the difference. But we can't base respect and discussion on fallacies thrown out for morons to agree with. We can't discuss points you ignore. Or relatively irrelevant details focused on instead.

I'm fine agreeing to disagree--Given limited information from the area and that talking about terrorism on teh interwebs is bad mmmmkay--But I'm still going to make fun of you for completely ignoring my points and nit-picking over largely unimportant details. You're responding to supportive evidence--saying "duh, we all know"--and ignoring points.

The West has done worse in the past. Undisputed.

The West has motivation to do so now. Undisputed.

The West has the means to influence the conflict now. -- You dispute this. Because clearly there aren't 100 journalists posing as snipers and a sniper could never kill someone in a civil war without getting caught! And nobody could ever arm the rebels. Or fund them. Or give them technology. Or give them information. Or give them training. Isn't this the stuff you would have disputed, if you were legitimately disputing my claim that the West (and others in the region, to a lesser extent) have the means? Yet you haven't. You're busy giving us your expert opinion on snipers. Because clearly if there aren't 100 British soldiers sniping people, all of this other stuff couldn't happen either.

Yeah, I tend to insult people who insult everyone's intelligence. You can't discuss anything with trolls. After a while of one-sided conversation, making fun of them (so they cry and have a negative experience) is a productive way to reduce their presence.

Little Paul,

You're just insulting our intelligence.

In your opening post you said that we "let it go," which clearly implied that we should stop it. You clearly implied that the logic behind not stopping it is faulty.

Now you say "No I did not. I stated why western powers didn't."

If the English language and what you clearly stated is beyond your ability to grasp, maybe a forum in English isn't the best place for you.

Yes, my posts are 9/10 insults.

And you didn't clearly imply in your initial post that something should be done.

Of course it's your opinion. It's obvious and clearly implied strongly in your initial post. And yet, you just denied having posted the sentiment.

UN observers are standing down because of violence. Both sides blame the other for the threats to the observers. I never expected that! An IED blasted a Syrian army vehicle just after an observer's vehicle passed that point. Oh look, IEDs, another thing which can be given to the rebels or even placed w/o their involvement to further bloodshed! I never thought we'd see anything like it!

It's hard to play the devil's advocate if you're just going to ignore my arguments, ramble off-point, and pretend that 90% of my posts are insults. Sure, I've been less than kind. But to pretend it was a majority of my posts, let alone 90%, is just insulting. Not to me--I could care less--but it's insulting to anybody and everybody reading this mess. Nobody wants to hear what you've made up.

As I said, I'm half playing the devil's advocate, and I also do believe that we (I'm an Amerikan) should be far less involved in foreign conflicts which do not involve us or our allies than we are. That's my very strong belief, based on history and our continuing and current trend of corrupt leaders who are far too eager to wage wars for NWO/corporate interests (as opposed to freedom, justice, and democratic values--not the worst things to enter a conflict over) and to wage them poorly.

I'm open to evidence that the Syrian rebels would be democratic and not support barbaric actions like stoning victims of rape. But past actions in Iran and Afghanistan were abysmal failures with far worse than no results. Recent actions in Afghanistan and Libya have unclear results, but they're not shining examples of freedom and democratic principles.

I agree that the Syrian regime is bad. But what evidence do we have that the rebels will be better? They weren't in Afghanistan. The failure of our puppets in Iran only hurt the Iranian people and relations for decades, continuing to this day. It's very unclear whether much or even any progress will ultimately be made in Afghanistan or Libya. What evidence do we have that the current alternative is any better than Assad?

People argue that the inaction of foreign nations will cause Syrian rebels to turn to extremist elements, but the fact is that extremist elements will seek to gain power from any regime change. Without a clearer picture of the goal and an idea of what a new regime would look like, I cannot agree that American and allied lives should be sacrificed.