The sniper comment is funny.

A lone white male is walking... where?... anywhere... in Syria. In his hand is a beat up musicians guitar carrier.

He stands out from the crowd. Security notes his lean, muscular, build and his watchful eyes. They approach him to question him. Using an old canard one asks to hear the man play. When he nervously says no... the Libertarian expects they will let him go...

Sadly the world does not work the way Libertarians think, the man is apprehended, the 50cal sniper rifle found in a broken down state in the case, and he is hauled away to a building where his body is removed five days later.

If only his skin was the color of an Arab and if his height matched theirs and if he was able to speak like a commoner.

Flint,

You are confused. You do not understand libertarianism, nor do you understand Kemp. Instead, you are attacking a strawman.

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.

Yeah see my guitar case scenario.

Little Paul,

"If you blame a western democratic country publicly, you might turn public opinion of those countries against you as well as their leaders."

Their leaders are already publicly calling for regime change. How could you not know this and post anyway?

"I admit my English is bad but in this case, consider the option, painfull as it might be, where you simply don't understand."

I explained how what you said made no sense. Your confusion and incoherence are not my problem.

"The explenation is above."

You didn't give an explanation. You said "NUH UH YOU'RE WRONG" without an explanation.

"I still await your arguments or ideas how they can incite violence this way as you are claiming a lot of western agent activity. Not telling it because terrorist would use it sounds like a poor excuse to me."

I merely pointed out that many Western powers would like regime change, especially in light of the current regime's ties to Iran. I merely pointed out that inciting more bloodshed to serve as justification for intervention is certainly not beyond what Western powers have done in the past. I merely pointed out reports of "reporters" with special ops backrounds. (Reporters don't have to be native citizens to get around without a fuss. What a coincidence.) No, I'm not going to dig up news stories for you. 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.

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. For this reason, I cautioned against believing every story you're spoon-fed and rushing to support Western military intervention. 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.

Einstein,

"Remember I am the only one here trained to think in real terms of infil and such."

No, you haven't. You're a cocky, juvenile man who thinks he's far more capable than his pay grade reveals he really is. Did you ever work in intel or counter intel? No. I don't have to wait for your answer. It's extremely obvious that you haven't. When you confirm that you haven't, you're supporting my claim that it's obvious that you haven't.

"A US soldier, even a US Cover Op stands out unless he is of native birth.
Pulling this off in Syrial... not possible."

Like the aptly named Little Paul, you're equivocating over one example I offered. It was not the entirety of my point. If there's not a single sniper which isn't regime/rebels, that's not a refutation of my point. And regarding whether all personnel would have to be native, I already referenced reports of "reporters" with special ops backrounds.

Again, I made no claim that there's an army of Western snipers set out to cause violence. It was a singular example because you have no response to my simple argument that we do not have a clear picture of what's going on on the ground. And we certainly don't have any reason to believe the rebels are peace-loving, democracy-loving angels who are better than the current regime. And our governments are certainly not above meddling in the name of regime change when they judge it beneficial to their corporate/NWO interests.

These are my simple points, clearly stated. Keep pretending I based any of it on my simple suggestion of snipers which each side blames on the other as an example of an act which can further violence capable of being performed by outside forces. That was not my point. The feasibility of more than a few such snipers (or any) is irrelevant.

But you're claiming expertise over an equivocation while ignoring the actual points I made. Aren't you supposed to be in school?

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.

"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.

The first nation to figure out how to drop rocks from space onto a target, wins

Chris:

The first nation that can buy crowbars from a nation, launch them to space, then expedite return of said crowbars to the nation that built them wins.

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.

Is that easy enough to understand? Or must I resort to baby language with you?

You mean the future parking lot of Planet Walmart?

Sure thing and Santa is your father, the Easter Bunny your mother, the Lepercaun your brother, and yeti is your sister.