The Bashar al-Assad Betting Game

I'm thinking there are four options here.

The Hussein - Assad retains control of his powerful military assets and crushes what appears to be a successful rebellion by an oppressed religious majority town by town, massacre by massacre, as they do not have the firepower, organization, and/or international support to fight back.

The Massoud - Assad and his loyalists retreat to a stronghold, while the rebels assume control of the rest of the country. Syria is essentially split into two nations as neither side is able to defeat the other.

The Mubarak - In an attempt to preserve their power and appease the mob, the military removes Assad from power - either arresting him or expelling him from the country.

The Gaddafi - No explanation needed.

Place your bets, ladies and gentlemen - extra points for explaining your thought process.



My bet? The Hussein. The Syrian military is far more powerful than Gaddafi's was, and we saw how much NATO firepower it took to defeat. And despite the reports of defections, it has remained mostly loyal. Without international assistance, the rebels simply do not have the firepower to oust them. The only question in my mind is the level of secret international assistance, coming from Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, specifically. If they are getting sufficient amounts of anti-air and anti-armor weaponry plus small arms and ammunition, that paradigm may not hold. Also critical will be the rebels ability to retreat, regroup, and plan operations from the safety of friendly nations, which appears to be the case.

That being said, I still think Assad will eventually reassert power over Syria. The fighting in Damascus almost seems like a trap.

Without odds I can't make a fully informed betting decision.

However, I say Hussein but with the caveat of lip service recessions due to a rather pokey RussiaChina at his back

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Without odds I can't make a fully informed betting decision.

---

Well yeah, you don't really win anything either. It's really more of a guessing game. :shrug:

I don't think anyone would be surprised if we'd find out Saudi-Arabia (in particular) and possibly some other states would be supporting the rebels. Furthermore, I would be kind of careful in drawing comparisons with previous uprisings, particularly that of Saddam Hussein, but the problem lies more in the phrasing: the uprising against Assad is not a religious one.

As of writing this, I'm in Beirut, and we're being continually updated on the latest events in Syria. The current developments point towards a critical stage. The next events will probably be crucial in determining the conflict, but it's very hard to make a real educated guess right now.

please bring me women, a cedar tree, and shisha

God I suck at foreign affairs, but because no one else has said it, I will guess the Gaddafi. Only because I would like another crazy dictator that comedians can easily make fun of.

Whatever Russia wants

I was going to go with the Gadaffi.

Syria's armed forces are strong in terms of weaponry, but consripts are often more similar to the rebels than the officers - and some of the officers are defecting as well. This erosion of capability would be what mitigates the strength on paper, and I think will snowball. Losses also often strengthen the rebels.

The suicide bomber killing three at the head of the chain took a lot of experience out at a crucial time.

Saudi Arabia et al are giving and will probably continue to give weaponry and I imagine this will increase - hand portable are a threat to modern tanks, let alone the Armour Syria has. Syria has already refused to dig out rebels in cities as the army's morale is too low. At then end of the day, rebels can survive just holding the countryside but the supposed regime can't.

Russia wants to retain their geopolitical ally. But there will come a point where it is better to belatedly back the winner you don't want rather than the looser you do. China is probably against setting the precident of the UN sticking their nose into matters so is less likely to relent. They might end up abstaining in the vote.

If Assad were to turtle, I think the rebels would expend the resources to dig him out, lest he return. Also I imagine he and his enclave would rather flee for a life of riches in exile rather than a life of poverty and possible execution. The Alawyte locals might side with him, but by that point they'd more likely give him up lest the victorious rebels engage in some post-match religious cleansing.

The Armed Forces are Assad's creation and have little if any more cudos and I doubt the populace or rebels would view this as satisfactory. In Egypt the armed forces had a lot more respect and they have shown that once a power base gets power it is reluctant to give it up.

~:smoking:

The rebellion seems to be too entrenched for it to be possible for Assad to survive. One guess would be that the war ends with most of the senior military officials fleeing, leaving the army without a proper chain of command and so it collapses.

Mubarak seems to be a ship that has already sailed. The Massoud and Ghadaffi scenarios are possible if the rebels increase their momentum. The Massoud seems the less likely of the two because if the regime permanently loses, say, half of its territory it will be seen as having lost its legitimacy - I don't see Assad surviving long in that position, allthough it's possible that some military bloke will off him and take his place. Right now my gut says a Hussein scenario: by and large, Syria slowly comes back under Assad's control except for some minor enclaves that will defy his authority for many years, but which are no existential threat.

I'm off to divine the entrails of a goat, will get back to you after that.

The Gaddafi, Modified Version

I do not believe that Assad can defeat the rebels. He's fighting a guerrilla war in his own country and in heavily urbanized areas. Without the support of the local people in those areas, it's pretty much impossible to control them without overwhelming force. At the same time, he clearly does not have overwhelming force. Regardless of the size of the Syrian military, it is clearly insufficient to deal with the size of the rebellion. They seem to win whenever they concentrate forces on a certain area, but the rebels simply withdraw and go elsewhere. The rebels strike wherever the Syrian military is weak, and usually win there. The Syrian military is not large enough to be everywhere at once, and this is well demonstrated with the current situation in Damascus. They drew forces back to the capital to deal with the fighting there, and lost control of many border areas.

At the same time, Assad is getting weaker while the rebels are getting stronger. Funding and weapons to the rebels will continue to increase (from Western and other Middle Eastern nations), while Assad will not be getting resources from any more sources than he is currently (Iran, Hezbollah, Russia). If you look at the daily casualty figures, the Syrian military is also taking very high numbers of casualties. If you remove civilian casualties from the picture, Syrian military losses regularly exceed FSA losses every single day, and usually by a significant margin. Add in defections, which continue to occur and only go in one direction, and the Syrian military is bleeding out.

The reason I say it will be a 'Modified' version of the Gaddafi scenario is that it has the potential to be a lot bloodier after Assad finally falls. Libya still has some tribal conflict issues, but it has managed to avoid much bloodshed and appears to be coming together as a cohesive nation. Depending on how long the Syrian situation goes on, that might not occur there. It could turn into sectarian warfare, which would be very bloody and do extensive harm to the nation. The best comparison for that scenario would be, IMHO, the Lebanese Civil War.

Just a few days ago, I would've gone with either Gadaffi or Massoud.

After the high officials were murdered, however, I'm introducing a fifth option; the semi-Stalin.

It seems likely that such murders can only be carried out without the support of someone on the inside. Whether it's true or not is actually irrelevant, the important thing is the ammount of paranoia it generates. I believe we'll see a moscow trial show soon, with plenty of executions, defections and general mayhem. Stalin did this when there was no real threat to his position, unlike Assad, and so I expect this will lead to Assad's downfall.

As said before, the Mubarak is unlikely. There has been too much bloodshed for simply removing the president and blame him for everything. Too many soldiers and militiamen have been involved. I think we will see a continuing civil war in which the rebels get prolonged support with weapons, ammonition and training from outside. Eventually they will take over most of the country and kill or expell Assad, but this won't end the bloodshed as there still will be too many wishes for revenge. Fearing them, many members of the security forces will continue fighting, alongside the minorities.
So after all, my guess is the Gaddafi followed by an ongoing civil war.

I don't think the comparison with the Lebanese Civil War works, for two main reasons.

Firstly, the sectarian divide in Lebanon was emphasised by the political organisation of the country. Much of the policy-making was created by political bosses who often got their way through bribery, extortion or physical violence. The difference between (pseudo-)democratic elements present in Lebanon before the Civil War and the authoritarian situation in Syria since the coup d'êtat in 1970 by Hafez al-Assad is very important.

Secondly, in my opinion, Syrian politics are a lot less defined by sectarian discourse than in Lebanon. As was the case with Libya, the roots of the conflict are, as far as I'm aware, in essence not religious. This doesn't necessarily mean that religion has played no role in this conflict as we've seen numerous examples of Shi'ites being harassed, assaulted or killed. Be that as it may, I don't think sectarian divides define this uprising/civil war, and I don't expect a post-wartime reconstruction of the state to be characterised by religious or sectarian discourse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

I don't think sectarian divides define this uprising/civil war, and I don't expect a post-wartime reconstruction of the state to be characterised by religious or sectarian discourse.

---

I very much hope you are correct.

I believe it's gonna be Hussein. It seems like Assad hasn't really tried to fight - he seemed more content to just respond to threats rather than to seek rebels out actively.

As PJ said, he's got a rather powerful and loyal military at his back and it's not gonna be pretty when he unleashes it.

That scenario depends on Syrian Army units following their orders and attacking civilians. The 60,000 (according to Turkey) who've deserted rather than follow such orders makes that unlikely.

Quote:

---

I very much hope you are correct.

---

Me too. It could very well just be my hope speaking here, but I re-read the history of Hafiz al-Assad's rise to power and the uprising back in the 1980s, and it occured to me that it appeared to be much more defined along Islamic lines.

Modified Mubarak

Russia will convince him to step down; military takes control=>Assad "disappears" in resulting confusion=>hand-picked successor over-sees a "regime of reconciliation" which then rules indefinitely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

I'm thinking there are four options here.

The Hussein - Assad retains control of his powerful military assets and crushes what appears to be a successful rebellion by an oppressed religious majority town by town, massacre by massacre, as they do not have the firepower, organization, and/or international support to fight back.

The Massoud - Assad and his loyalists retreat to a stronghold, while the rebels assume control of the rest of the country. Syria is essentially split into two nations as neither side is able to defeat the other.

The Mubarak - In an attempt to preserve their power and appease the mob, the military removes Assad from power - either arresting him or expelling him from the country.

The Gaddafi - No explanation needed.

---

Well, to be honest, the Gaddafi would actually be the Hussein. Before the NATO airstrikes, Gaddafi's army was calmly strolling towards Benghazi. Even Saif was saying "This will be over by tomorrow" Only once NATO started bombing the :daisy: out of every metal thing going East did things start to go sour for Gaddafi.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny

Modified Mubarak

Russia will convince him to step down; military takes control=>Assad "disappears" in resulting confusion=>hand-picked successor over-sees a "regime of reconciliation" which then rules indefinitely.

---

I'm going to go along with this one.

I think there's enough international uproar that Assad will have to step down at some point, but it'll be just another face to front the same power base. Short of a major external military intervention I don't think there's going to be any real changes to the political situation. A bit more guesswork says that the regime is trying to use as "little" force as "necessary" to put things down, as they're hoping to avoid real, serious international intervention. If they do have to ratchet up the brutality a few or lot more notches, Assad will keep the reigns as long as they need to get things done and associate the blame with him, at which point he'll step down, or more likely aside.

The Hussein seems more likely at the moment, and in the grand scheme of things it's the best feasible solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

I'm thinking there are four options here.

The Hussein - Assad retains control of his powerful military assets and crushes what appears to be a successful rebellion by an oppressed religious majority town by town, massacre by massacre, as they do not have the firepower, organization, and/or international support to fight back.

The Massoud - Assad and his loyalists retreat to a stronghold, while the rebels assume control of the rest of the country. Syria is essentially split into two nations as neither side is able to defeat the other.

The Mubarak - In an attempt to preserve their power and appease the mob, the military removes Assad from power - either arresting him or expelling him from the country.

The Gaddafi - No explanation needed.

---

OT: You almost listed the components of the American president's name: Mubarak Hussein Osama, oops I mean Barack Hussein Obama. Is it true that that is only a fake identity and his real name is Barry Satoro?

@Topic: I think Assad will try to win the information war and make people realize the rebels are false flag operations, so they will lose sympathy in the west and they will leave having lost both militarily and information-wise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truth1337

OT: You almost listed the components of the American president's name: Mubarak Hussein Osama, oops I mean Barack Hussein Obama. Is it true that that is only a fake identity and his real name is Barry Satoro?

---

https://i.imgur.com/SNZcY.jpg

Was wondering when someone would catch that one.

Here is interesting report from inside Aleppo. Warning: brief clips of deceased Syrian soldiers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hU4C...0&feature=plcp

I have been very interested in how the old Soviet AFVs have performed in Libya and now Syria. One would expect the Syrian ones to perform better due to better crew training and maintenance, but it seems that they, too, are being ordered/lured into cities and destroyed. Can any of you military guys identify what killed the T-72 shown in this clip? RPGs would be the most obvious guess, but they would have to be fairly well placed/lucky hits.

double post

It does seem a "classic" ploy: the rebels / freedom fighter / whatever wail they've no RPGs or anti-air. They hole up in a nice important city. They await the Army to come in with armour, confident they can root out the rebels who appear to have decided to commit suicide.

Lo and behold, they've got RPGs and IEDs they unsportingly didn't tell the Army about. Assad looses tanks which are going to be tough to replace in terrain that is ideal for light infantry with AT to kill them.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Can any of you military guys identify what killed the T-72 shown in this clip? RPGs would be the most obvious guess, but they would have to be fairly well placed/lucky hits.

---

Not military, but to me it looks like it's almost completely burned out. Could have been anything from powerful IEDs to RPGs to a bunch of molotov cocktails tossed into the right areas.

The Syrians may not be Aryan brothers, but they are Christian brothers. Same goes for Iran - they may not be our Christian brothers, but they are our Aryan brothers.

Who except anti-white Jewish neocons and anti-Christian communists would want to see a war between Christian brothers, or Aryan brothers?

The "rebels" in Syria are extremist muslims like in all the other countries that have experienced CIA and Mossad sponsored rebel groups taking over well-working regimes and turning them into extremist Islamist states. We don't need to see our Christian brothers in Syria get destroyed by an invasion orchestrated by Israel through AIPAC.

We all love strong views in the backroom, and I am no bleeding heart. But this is approaching White Supremacy rhetoric / just bonkers.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

We all love strong views in the backroom, and I am no bleeding heart. But this is approaching White Supremacy rhetoric / just bonkers.

~:smoking:

---

I'm sad if I made you feel that way. I'm merely against Israel being "always ready to fight to the last American soldier".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truth1337

I'm sad if I made you feel that way. I'm merely against Israel being "always ready to fight to the last American soldier".

---

Backwards logic if I ever heard it. America uses Israel to fight its battles by proxy.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Backwards logic if I ever heard it. America uses Israel to fight its battles by proxy.

~:smoking:

---

Yeah, because muslims were such a huuuuge problem to America before the false flag attack 9/11.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Backwards logic if I ever heard it. America uses Israel to fight its battles by proxy.

~:smoking:

---

Wat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truth1337

Yeah, because muslims were such a huuuuge problem to America before the false flag attack 9/11.

---

Double wat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truth1337

Yeah, because muslims were such a huuuuge problem to America before the false flag attack 9/11.

---

Invading America's earstwhile ally in the Middle East might have had a teeny weeny effect on this.

~:smoking:

The problem with 9/11 conspiracy theories that it fully denies and delegitimises the very much legitimate anger experienced in the Middle-East against the United States. Keep that in mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Invading America's earstwhile ally in the Middle East might have had a teeny weeny effect on this.

~:smoking:

---

What has the wonderful "ally" Israel ever given America, except casualties and debt? They even shot American navy men to death in a ruthless attack on USS Liberty in an attempt to blame the Egyptians so America would go to war with Egypt. Or the Lavon affair, where God intervened and made the bomb explode in the pocket of one of the Israeli terrorists, who wanted to blow up white people then blame the Palestinians. But now this discussion is turning into an all-out Israel bashing, which I'm not willing to take part in.

I dont mind Israel bashing, but the fact that you are so against it when compared to your otherwise nutty views is interesting. Please, tell me more why you would allow homosexuality but ban bisexuality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

I dont mind Israel bashing, but the fact that you are so against it when compared to your otherwise nutty views is interesting. Please, tell me more why you would allow homosexuality but ban bisexuality.

---

I'd be happy to discuss that subject in a separate thread.

I'm no real fan of how Israel acts, but truth1337 may be singly responsible for keeping Alcoa in business. As a shareholder, :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truth1337

I'd be happy to discuss that subject in a separate thread.

---

You got it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

I'm no real fan of how Israel acts, but truth1337 may be singly responsible for keeping Alcoa in business. As a shareholder, :2thumbsup:

---

Alcoa = aliminium producer? Now you need to explain!

Tinfoil hats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Tinfoil hats.

---

What is a tinfoil hat for?

It's to stop the evil government rays, man. That's how they turn you into a slave! The NWO is everywhere, duuuuude.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truth1337

What is a tinfoil hat for?

---

From Wikipedia.

Quote:

---

The concept of wearing a tin foil hat for protection from such threats has become a popular stereotype and term of derision; the phrase serves as a byword for paranoia and persecutory delusions, and is associated with conspiracy theorists.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

It's to stop the evil government rays, man. That's how they turn you into a slave! The NWO is everywhere, duuuuude.

---

I'm quite confident Christ is sufficient protection against becoming a mind slave to any false ideals, lies, government, satanic ideology (such as communism) or other organization that tries to deceive people by ridicule or lies, without providing arguments for their standpoints.

Yeah. I'm wearing a Hezbollah shirt right now. That doesn't really work for me, do you have any other options?

I like the new guy. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truth1337

I'm quite confident Christ is sufficient protection against becoming a mind slave to any false ideals, lies, government, satanic ideology (such as communism) or other organization that tries to deceive people by ridicule or lies, without providing arguments for their standpoints.

---

I don't see how an an imaginary character from a a book of mythology is going to stop anything.


And what's the spread on "the lion" these days?

Also, since when is Syria a Christian state? Did I miss anything during my flight back from Beirut?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truth1337

What is a tinfoil hat for?

---

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...infoil-hat.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Also, since when is Syria a Christian state? Did I miss anything during my flight back from Beirut?

---

Like many Muslim nations there's a Christian minority in Syria. Even after the French broke off Lebanon they still make up about 10% of the population. Syrian Orthodox church and the like. So for this guy pretending to be a religious nut bag that's enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Also, since when is Syria a Christian state? Did I miss anything during my flight back from Beirut?

---

The west of it, not many but also alvert356::(€€:

Quote:

---

Like many Muslim nations there's a Christian minority in Syria. Even after the French broke off Lebanon they still make up about 10% of the population. Syrian Orthodox church and the like.

---

Hahah, yeah, I know. That's still a very, very long way from being a Christian state.

joo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truth1337

I'm quite confident Christ is sufficient protection against becoming a mind slave to any false ideals, lies, government, satanic ideology (such as communism) or other organization that tries to deceive people by ridicule or lies, without providing arguments for their standpoints.

---

Since the US is becoming more and more fundie Christian, then why do we need to worry about the Fed, the Rothschilds, or Zionist commies? It's either one or the other. :inquisitive:

You have to consider there are quite a few here not "Aryan" or "Christian" either.

"Anti-white jewish neocon" - What is that even meant to be, especially since neocons are the stereotyped of crummy old christian whites male? it just seems a little rhetorically obsolete.

As for Israel being pro-extremist, this isn't the case, as the status quo is working far better for them as governments are keeping the peace, opposed to a new government who might try their luck, especially if they are more inflammatory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Hahah, yeah, I know. That's still a very, very long way from being a Christian state.

---

It's even better that the Ba'ath party is at least rhetorically Socialist.

And essentially nationalist socialist. And pretty a- to anti-religious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

Since the US is becoming more and more fundie Christian, then why do we need to worry about the Fed, the Rothschilds, or Zionist commies? It's either one or the other. :inquisitive:

---

Apparently, the government isn't. Two examples:

- David Axelrod, (one of Obama's 2 closest advisors) grandson of Lev Bronstein aka Trotsky, leader of the phalanx within communism that wanted a "world revolution", i.e. no part of the world would be left out from the communist system, i.e. there would be nowhere on earth where people would be tolerated to have another system, than bolshevism, Gulags, and all the rest.

- John Holdren (Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology - informally known as the United States' Science Czar). This cozy guy co-authored a book in 1977, where he says that:
* Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not
* The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food
* Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise
* People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized
* A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force.

Then we may check, who is Mubarak Hussein Osama's biggest campaign contributor - Goldman-Sachs, cute little Lloyd Blankfein-boy. By the way, Goldman-Sachs also are the biggest campaign contributors of the other side too.

"When we are successful, and we will be muahahaha"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a9Syi12RJo

trolololololol

Always loved the works of Thomas Hobbes. The Leviathan, really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truth1337

"When we are successful, and we will be muahahaha"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a9Syi12RJo

---

I prefer this version myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

trolololololol

---

I'll just quote one of my favorite poems in response to that. Basically, please look it up and show me that it is not true - I'd welcome it!

You may not like it but it's true. Yeah, the truth is an unfortunate thing. The truth is a pain in the ***. The truth is uncomfortable and downright unpleasant. The truth is not welcome in the house. The truth can sleep under the bridge abutment. The truth can take a hike. **** the truth. I don't want no part of the truth. The truth is dangerous. The truth can get me in trouble. The truth can mess up my life. The truth can get in the way of my appetites and desires because I live for the commands of my stomach and my ****. Crucify the truth! Crucify the truth! Such is the cry of outrage and anger from those whom the truth convicts. Such is the nature of those who live and profit from misery and lies.
[...]
I don't want to say these things. I don't want to get up out of my warm bed and apply myself to the kind of thing that has never granted a warm bed or a welcome hearth. I don't want to do it but I have no choice. I will not look back on my life and say in the shamed confinement of my imprisoned heart that I was a coward and a traitor to every good and decent quality that I did not have the courage to seek after and possess. I will not turn my eyes away from the terror, the harm, the suffering and abuse of my fellows at the hands of conscienceless beasts. They are not human, whatever else they may be. They are not human and I will call what I see. They do not rule over me.

Yeah, what about it? Prove me wrong. [...] Show me where all of this is not true. I hunger for it not to be. Shall it go on and on forever? Shall it never end? So long as the much, much vaster numbers of humanity submit, it will continue. On that you may depend. What is it that spellbinds the minds of so many of you? What is this force that makes you doubt what is right before your eyes? What is this power that can hypnotize?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

I prefer this version myself.

---

You sir, have good taste!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truth1337

I'll just quote one of my favorite poems in response to that. Basically, please look it up and show me that it is not true - I'd welcome it!

You may not like it but it's true. Yeah, the truth is an unfortunate thing. The truth is a pain in the ***. The truth is uncomfortable and downright unpleasant. The truth is not welcome in the house. The truth can sleep under the bridge abutment. The truth can take a hike. **** the truth. I don't want no part of the truth. The truth is dangerous. The truth can get me in trouble. The truth can mess up my life. The truth can get in the way of my appetites and desires because I live for the commands of my stomach and my ****. Crucify the truth! Crucify the truth! Such is the cry of outrage and anger from those whom the truth convicts. Such is the nature of those who live and profit from misery and lies.
[...]
I don't want to say these things. I don't want to get up out of my warm bed and apply myself to the kind of thing that has never granted a warm bed or a welcome hearth. I don't want to do it but I have no choice. I will not look back on my life and say in the shamed confinement of my imprisoned heart that I was a coward and a traitor to every good and decent quality that I did not have the courage to seek after and possess. I will not turn my eyes away from the terror, the harm, the suffering and abuse of my fellows at the hands of conscienceless beasts. They are not human, whatever else they may be. They are not human and I will call what I see. They do not rule over me.

Yeah, what about it? Prove me wrong. [...] Show me where all of this is not true. I hunger for it not to be. Shall it go on and on forever? Shall it never end? So long as the much, much vaster numbers of humanity submit, it will continue. On that you may depend. What is it that spellbinds the minds of so many of you? What is this force that makes you doubt what is right before your eyes? What is this power that can hypnotize?

---

Another sex starved social retard joins the ranks.

Vuk will be along shortly with your gift bag and T-shirt

First they came for the liberal communist zionist feministas.

And I did not speak....because I am not a liberal communist zionist feminista.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

First they came for the liberal communist zionist feministas.

And I did not speak....because I am not a liberal communist zionist feminista.

---

Then they came for the Paultards and the 9/11 Truthers.

And I did not speak ... for I was not a Paultard or a Truther ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Then they came for the Paultards and the 9/11 Truthers.

And I did not speak ... for I was not a Paultard or a Truther ...

---

There needs to be an option for a "double thanks" with two thumbs up instead of one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truth1337

Apparently, the government isn't. Two examples:

- David Axelrod, (one of Obama's 2 closest advisors) grandson of Lev Bronstein aka Trotsky, leader of the phalanx within communism that wanted a "world revolution", i.e. no part of the world would be left out from the communist system, i.e. there would be nowhere on earth where people would be tolerated to have another system, than bolshevism, Gulags, and all the rest.

---

Oh man. First, the US is far, far from going commie.

Second, condemning people because of their ancestors without anything else is a quite dubious methods. Children are not their parents parrots, no matter how much some wants them to be.

Third and most damning. That fact checking sucks. There exist more than one David Axelrod in the world. Obama's advisor was born 1955 and the descendant of Trotsky was born in 1961.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truth1337

- John Holdren (Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology - informally known as the United States' Science Czar). This cozy guy co-authored a book in 1977, where he says that:
* Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not
* The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food
* Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise
* People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized
* A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force.

---

It was a big scare of overpopulation in the seventies and the book is pretty much if worst comes to worst, then these are possible messurements that could be taken in countries without normal control. It's simular to a defense plan against an invasion from the Fourth Realm of the Democratic Republic of United Europe on US soil, even if John Holdren probably thought that severe overpopulation was a more realistic scenario at the time. The issue is looking to resolve itself longterm, thanks to those evil feminists and their focus on giving women the abillity to choose the family size by themselves btw, even if higher food yield is the big reason on why starvation is dropping and the predicted crisis never came.

The single mothers thing has to do with unwanted children, not a general policy.
The contribution to social deterioration that's made is having a lot of children. Nothing else.
The planetary regime is supposed to control the birth population on a global scale. Since the bedroom is intimate, you can misquote like that if you want to.

It's still not exactly the best 1000 pages book written (quite radical and dubious), and I would not give a 30 year old John Holdren ultimate power. 35 years later, with control on what he's doing and if he's been quite competent after that? Yes, he can be considered.

Dead apparantly, it was the Ghadaffi

What?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

What?

---

Well that, I don't know anything more than you do but he's probably dead

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

What?

---

http://www.businessinsider.com/a-bun...medium=twitter

Fake.

Never mind.

You know how reliable Fragony's news sources are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

You know how reliable Fragony's news sources are.

---

Has the word 'apparently' suddenly become an aquired taste, I never realised it lost it's original meaning

@Montmorency, I noticed you always vote on every post that's directed against me, you aren't very good with words yourself are you, do you stutter

Quote:

---

@Montmorency, I noticed you always vote on every post that's directed against me, you aren't very good with words yourself are you, do you stutter

---

I've handed out 86 thanks, in total.

You are, apparently, a narcissist in addition to a paranoiac with persecutory delusions.

Perhaps you wouldn't mind completing an MMPI form?

In other news, the Syrian prime minister has defected to Jordan.