syrian fighter jet crashed/shot down/etc

[Screech]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/28/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Anyone else seeing images of afghanistan here?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Who are the "bad" guys?

 

[Jaskalas]

I see a Syrian civil war, what do you see?

 

[brandonb]

I see Rebels being armed with SAM from outside sources. Which means it's no longer civil war.

 

[halik]

Syrian civil war, what else is up? I would be shocked if that thing was shot down with equipment provided by CIA. Shocked.

 

[Juror No. 8]

I see a Syrian civil war, what do you see?

A little CIA/Pentagon assistance, perhaps?

 

[MiniDoom]

A little CIA/Pentagon assistance, perhaps?

I hope not, we need to stay the fuck away and stop being the worlds police.

 

[Jaskalas]

I see Rebels being armed with SAM from outside sources. Which means it's no longer civil war.

No one reads the article. They seized the missiles from their government.

The claims of success follow the capture of a key Syrian air force installation last week. Rebel fighters who overran the base reported finding more than 300 Soviet-era anti-aircraft missiles, along with heavy machine guns, rockets and even tanks.

 

[EagleKeeper]

I see Rebels being armed with SAM from outside sources. Which means it's no longer civil war.

Given:
Syria being armed by Russia and Iran with second generation military hardware
Syria has SAMs for "defense" against mainly Israel.
SAMS are stored at military facilities.

Now:
Rebels overrunning military outposts.

Logical conclusion:
Rebels are able to obtain SAMS. They are not difficult to learn to use.

Result:
Rebels use a SAM against Syrian aircraft.

No one reads the article. They seized the missiles from their government.

Reading is fundamental - comprehension is more critical.

Apparently those that are quick to jump have neither :thumbsdown:

 

[Juror No. 8]

I hope not, we need to stay the fuck away and stop being the worlds police.

Not gonna happen. Our State Department is essentially run by banks, and has been for nearly a hundred years. Our foreign policy is dictated by moneyed interests, and "policing" the world using every means available - assassinating foreign leaders, fomenting insurrection, arming the opposition, aiding and abetting terrorists - is integral to their desired system of profit and control.

 

[unokitty]

I don't know but it appears that what started as a civil war has become a proxy war.

And, I'm confident that western intelligence agencies are involved as is Iran and Russia.

Nonetheless, I have no trust in CNN... or in anything that they would 'report.'

Though, the situation reminds me of the strategy that one of my drill sergeants was advocating in spring of '70.

"What we ought to do, is put all the friendly’s on boats.

Take the boats out to sea.

Kill everyone left on land.

Sink the boats.

And, go home."

Uno

 

[Emos]

Looks like it was Russian SA-7s looted from a govt armory

http://brown-moses.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/videos-show-complete-complete-sa-7.html

Also a Syrian helicopter (speculation is a Mi-8) hit by a portable SAM.

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?featur...=/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kPAVv837seA

 

[piasabird]

Probably getting arms from egypt and libya where the CIA was supplying them (Terrorist groups) with weapons.

 

[ElFenix]

I see Rebels being armed with SAM from outside sources. Which means it's no longer civil war.

have there been any civil wars where one side or another hasn't received aid from outside sources?

 

[Screech]

Who are the "bad" guys?

Who will be the "bad" guys in 10 years?

 

[irishScott]

Logical Explanation: Syrian rebels captured Syrian government SAMs.

Romantic, exciting explanation: US secretly supplying Syrian Rebels with SAMs Afghanistan style. I saw Charlie Wilson's War so I know shit!

Result: Who gives a fuck? Assad needs to go, one of his jets got shot down. I'm cool with this.

 

[irishScott]

have there been any civil wars where one side or another hasn't received aid from outside sources?

This. Even in the US civil war the Confederates tried to get outside aid. And in the US Revolution we had the French on our side (at least towards the end).

 

[Darwin333]

I see Rebels being armed with SAM from outside sources. Which means it's no longer civil war.

I would think that every civil war in modern history (at least since the invention of guns) has had outside sources of arms. You don't think the Syrian government actually made those guns, planes, and bombs they are using do you?

 

[Darwin333]

This. Even in the US civil war the Confederates tried to get outside aid. And in the US Revolution we had the French on our side (at least towards the end).

The third most common musket used in the US civil war was imported by both sides from Austria.

 

[Juror No. 8]

I would think that every civil war in modern history (at least since the invention of guns) has had outside sources of arms. You don't think the Syrian government actually made those guns, planes, and bombs they are using do you?

Of course, this assumes that the conflict in Syria truly is a civil war that originated internally and not something fomented from abroad.

How do we know this is the case?

 

[irishScott]

Of course, this assumes that the conflict in Syria truly is a civil war that originated internally and not something fomented from abroad.

How do we know this is the case?

We don't, therefore it must be a conspiracy. Screw simple explanations, that's just what the man wants you to believe. Who needs critical thinking when you have the next Da Vinci Code?

 

[Juror No. 8]

We don't, therefore it must be a conspiracy. Screw simple explanations, that's just what the man wants you to believe. Who needs critical thinking when you have the next Da Vinci Code?

Why, is there some reason it can't be a conspiracy? How can it be considered "critical thinking" to reflexively default to the simplest explanations when it comes to the subject of geopolitics, which is anything but simple? If history has taught us anything at all it's that deep politics is nearly synonymous with the word 'conspiracy', as history is little more than a patchwork quilt of various interconnected conspiracies.

The far more interesting question is, who or what programmed you to have such an anti-intellectual mindset?

 

[irishScott]

Why, is there some reason it can't be a conspiracy? How can it be considered "critical thinking" to reflexively default to the simplest explanations when it comes to the subject of geopolitics, which is anything but simple? If history has taught us anything at all it's that deep politics is nearly synonymous with the word 'conspiracy', as history is little more than a patchwork quilt of various interconnected conspiracies.

The far more interesting question is, who or what programmed you to have such an anti-intellectual mindset?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

There's no reason it "can't" be a conspiracy, but there are plenty of reasons conspiracy is less likely. You want to gamble on the long odds, that's your prerogative. While you're doing that, CPUs are built by robots in the earth's core, and then beamed to a secret room in Intel's and Global Foundries's fabs. You don't know any better, so why shouldn't you believe that? Is there any reason it couldn't be true? Why do you reflexively think that it must be a simpler explanation?

You're applying the same mindset, just on a slightly less insane scale. A minor case of insanity is still insanity.

 

[Juror No. 8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

Rejected.

http://scienceblogs.com/developingintelligence/2007/05/14/why-the-simplest-theory-is-alm/

There's no reason it "can't" be a conspiracy, but there are plenty of reasons conspiracy is less likely.

Go ahead and name those reasons. Be specific.

You want to gamble on the long odds, that's your prerogative.

Why are the odds necessarily long that the events taking place in Syria are being fomented by external sources?

While you're doing that, CPUs are built by robots in the earth's core, and then beamed to a secret room in Intel's and Global Foundries's fabs. You don't know any better, so why shouldn't you believe that? Is there any reason it couldn't be true? Why do you reflexively think that it must be a simpler explanation?

How is that even remotely comparable?

You're applying the same mindset, just on a slightly less insane scale. A minor case of insanity is still insanity.

LOL. You have no more evidence for your theory than I do mine, so if I'm insane, then so are you.

 

[irishScott]

Rejected.

http://scienceblogs.com/developingintelligence/2007/05/14/why-the-simplest-theory-is-alm/



Go ahead and name those reasons. Be specific.



Why are the odds necessarily long that the events taking place in Syria are being fomented by external sources?



How is that even remotely comparable?



LOL. You have no more evidence for your theory than I do mine, so if I'm insane, then so are you.

Rejected in some contexts, not all. To apply Occam's Razor generally, all things being equal the simplest systems are more likely to exist. Which is more common in the universe? Life or big balls of dead rock? What's more common on planet earth? Various chunks of metals, clouds of gas (the atmosphere) or life?

If I throw a bunch of blocks down randomly (all things being equal) are they more likely to make a perfect stack or end up in a random pile?


What reasons? Are you serious?

Theory: Rebels captured Syrian government SAMs and used them.
Supports:
1. Fact: The Syrian government has a significant supply of of SAMs, stored in their military bases.
2. Fact: The rebels have captured multiple military bases, gaining access to any materials they might be storing.

Assumption: The rebels found a stash of SAMs and used them. This is a logical assumption based on known facts.


Theory: The US or other nation is supplying the rebels with shoulder-mounted sams.
Supports:
1. Fact: The US has conducted such operations in the past, decades before current events.

Assumption: Because the US has done it before, it is doing it again. This is a loose assumption based on out-of-context previous behavior and idle speculation.

And FYI, history isn't just a bunch of conspiracies. In fact, most of history outside of major events is pretty fucking dull. Taking a single focused (non-survey) college history course would inform you of this. The daily lives of medieval kings are interesting. Your average peasant? Not so much.