BF2S Forums You be the judge! Trayvon Martin vs George Zimmerman

great britain and the mad king were doing other things when the colonial revolution happened. it's not the same. you have a rather blithe and general approach to history. switzerland is not america. the war of independence is not the same as the arab uprising. these things are not comparable. the insurgency in iraq/afghan had a modicum of success because they were fighting on home ground against a foreign intruder, with some outside support, and using decades-old technique. an insurgency like that wouldn't happen in america... because it's the governments home ground, already. you can't 'out-wit' them. they have your phone directories mapped. they are tracking all of your texts and communication.

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-07-15 11:05:13)

Use that big college brain of yours and get some fucking reading comprehension you douche.

EM wrote:

May sound stupid but no one knows what kind of government we may have in 100 or 200 or 300 years from now.

I'm not worried.  My great great grandchildren may have another set of circumstances.

You also seem to think for some god awfully stupid reason that it would be rednecks versus the professional army.

1.  According to you dumbasses, the army is mostly comprised of rednecks.
2.  If something so traumatic was to happen that people took up arms against the government, government members would undoubtedly be a part of it.  (Hence fucking up the ridged command structure of today's army)
3.  Because of #2, there would probably be portions of the army using the armies own equipment against it (Civil War of the 1860's ring a bell)
4. What fucking possesses you to think nuclear weapons would be involved?  That's just incredibly stupid.
5. Go read a book about military structure, methods and equipment if you want to argue this instead of Moby Dick and the Communist Manifesto.  It's laughable how generic your argument is.

I believe it would be very much like the current civil war in Syria if something were to happen.  Instead of north and south, it would be pockets of resistance in cities and just turn into a war of attrition.  However, I don't believe that there isn't the slightest chance of this happening in my or my grandchildren's lifetime.  The second amendment is an option and a right.  Get over it.  We aren't the U.K. or Europe or anyone else but ourselves and we like it that way.

Cybargs wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

great britain and the mad king were doing other things when the colonial revolution happened. it's not the same. you have a rather blithe and general approach to history. switzerland is not america. the war of independence is not the same as the arab uprising. these things are not comparable.

what aboot vietnam then. what aboot the failures of france and the UK to keep their colonies from rebelling after WW2. bunch of people with shitty rifles did a pretty good job.

how is vietnam - again, foreign territory, unusual terrain, no knowledge - the same as a home insurgency? ditto colonies? the american government know america pretty well, no? they've already been tracking american communications and 'terror networks' for some time, including basically any domestic group that are anti-washington. you wouldn't get chance; you'd be pre-empted. a better comparison would be with the nazi's rise to power in germany, or some such HOME tyranny. not foreign occupations or colonies on the other side of the world. it would literally be an overnight thing if america became a tyranny. they've been tracking all the far-right and the nutjobs for years, if not decades. they'd all get a knock on the door in the night. it would be over. you wouldn't be able to organize. this is the stupidest hypothetical 'what if' situation on bf2s in some time. yes, the jungles of vietnam, on the other side of the pacific, are really the same as the woods of pennsylvania. you would get fucking OWNED, bitches.

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

great britain and the mad king were doing other things when the colonial revolution happened. it's not the same. you have a rather blithe and general approach to history. switzerland is not america. the war of independence is not the same as the arab uprising. these things are not comparable.

what aboot vietnam then. what aboot the failures of france and the UK to keep their colonies from rebelling after WW2. bunch of people with shitty rifles did a pretty good job.

how is vietnam - again, foreign territory, unusual terrain, no knowledge - the same as a home insurgency? ditto colonies? the american government know america pretty well, no? they've already been tracking american communications and 'terror networks' for some time, including basically any domestic group that are anti-washington. you wouldn't get chance; you'd be pre-empted. a better comparison would be with the nazi's rise to power in germany, or some such HOME tyranny. not foreign occupations or colonies on the other side of the world. it would literally be an overnight thing if america became a tyranny. they've been tracking all the far-right and the nutjobs for years, if not decades. they'd all get a knock on the door in the night. it would be over. you wouldn't be able to organize. this is the stupidest hypothetical 'what if' situation on bf2s in some time. yes, the jungles of vietnam, on the other side of the pacific, are really the same as the woods of pennsylvania. you would get fucking OWNED, bitches.

yeah lets forget the fact that there was a south vietnamese military fighting as well.

lol zique, thinking that wiretapping is the end all of intelligence gathering. USA did such a good job it missed the boston bombings.

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

i don't think it's the end, i just think it would create a very different war on home-soil than the fucking vietnam war. way more technological. and the technological advantage - military and communicational - is on the government's side, overwhelmingly. they have all the power and resources. i think justifying keeping an AR so you can 'fight the gubmint' is retarded. you'd do nothing.

all that money spent napalming villages, bombing cities, killing off forests with agent orange wasnt a real technological advantage huh.

Extra Medium wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

it's NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. so why are you clinging onto this militia fantasy?

WHY DO YOU CARE?

Extra Medium wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

it's NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. so why are you clinging onto this militia fantasy?

WHY DO YOU CARE?

i don't care. people always raise the 'care' thing. you keep going on about people being 'emotionally involved' with this forum. nobody is. jesus fucking christ you can type 2 paragraphs without being all concerned and knotted-up inside. i don't give a shit. send your little kids to get shot at school. i think it's amusing. first world country. go lie in your own shit.

13/f/taiwan wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

13/f/taiwan wrote:

you do realize that iraqis got their asses handed to them during gulf war 2 and the syrian army will soon put down a 2 year civil war?

Yeah and somehow the libyan rebels toppled the military right? I'm sure you know that the insurgency in iraq was more sectarian than anti-US occupation. Same in Syria. Syrian rebels have already done a lot of damage towards the governments in a mere two years. they might win years later, they might lose. Same with the US independence, the worlds strongest military at the time could not crush a small colonial rebellion.

libya didn't have a strong military. gadaffi made nice with the west in exchange for security. they ended up turning against him and supported/funded/trained rebels(in addition to mercenaries) along with saudi arabia/qatar. if he had a half-decent military and didn't go up against the world's strongest military force i'm certain the outcome would be similar to syria.

1/3 of the syrian rebels are mercenaries being paid $1,300-2,300/month to fight. most of their arms/training/funding is coming from forgien governments. it barely constitutes a legitimate revolution. the only noticeable advantage they have going for them are a few areas of aleppo, the towns bordering iraq, jordan, lebanon, and turkey. they wouldn't last a month if a few countries pulled their support.

iraq occupation was way more anti-occupation than sectarian. it only became that way once the US started funding militias and political organizations with ethnic/sectarian identities. the sunni/shi'ite divide is overplayed by the media.

i don't know why you bother to counter the guy with actual facts or knowledge. he is clueless. he's appealing to the US war of independence to state how 'effective' an insurgency can be against a regnant power. not counting the fact at all that the UK was absolutely broke and embroiled in conflict in europe at the time of the american revolt. not even considering the social fact that most english people didn't care about the americas; they resided on the 'fringe' of the european imagination. all the power-plays that mattered were on european soil. but no, cybargs thinks this is proof that an insurgency is a david/goliath scenario. lol. read a book.

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state..."

i.e. to defend said state, not defend against it.

FUCK GEORGE ZIMMERMAN PUSSY ASS CRACKA BITCH ASS PUNK ASS NIGGA


Everyone on twitter.

what does the 'S K' stand for and why is it a different colour?

http://wreg.com/2013/07/15/man-claims-a … taliation/

>Senatobia, MS) A jogger says three men attacked him in retaliation for the verdict in the George Zimmerman trial.

>The victim told News Channel 3 and investigators the men drove up to him, asked if he knew who Trayvon Martin was, then forced him into a car.

>At some point, the man says the men told him, “This is for Trayvon.”

>The man, who is white, told police the men who attacked him are black, but couldn’t give anymore information.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL