When only one of the sides have weapons, there can not be a civil war, only a genocide. I am convinced that there is a limit on the violations of Human Rights that Europe will be able to tolerate from a state member.
Yes, the spanish government was quite brutal in its attempt to stymie the referendum (probably unnecessarily so) but we're not on the verge of a catalan genocide in any way, shape or form. If you keep abusing words they end up losing their meaning.
That's wrong. There were a handful of injured, don't believe the propaganda. Most international media that were fooled by that lies have acknowledged this much.
If the referendum is illegitimate, why suppress it? ;- )
If their crime is misappropriating funds for the referendum, then surely the police should be arresting the politicians, not harassing the public at large.
If murder is illegitimate, why suppress it? Brilliant.
Even though the referendum was illegal it didn't create any imminent danger. Therefore I think the use of force by Madrid was disproportionate. It also effectively backfired by making the independentists look more sympathetic even though their motive is for the most part rather selfish at the core.
This particular argument -- "fake news, it didn't happen" -- is outside of Spain the most ridiculous Trumpish nonsense imaginable. "Lies"? I saw it with my own eyes in real time. Looking us right in the eye and insisting that black is white is offensive.
Because that may be what Spain has to do to force Catalonia to comply.
While secession will be troublesome, there are not many attempts at preventing secession that have not turned ugly violent in recent years because of attempts to prevent it.
I lived through a non-violent federation split and certainly hope for this outcome elsewhere. In the case of my country majority of the people didn't want the split either. Despite that it was possible to happen without violence.
Certainly an argument in support of the second amendment of the United States.
What good is a semi-automatic against a supersonic jet that just fired an air-to-ground missile in your direction? Plenty of AK-47s in Afghanistan, they don’t even take on subsonic drones effectively.
The point is that no matter how much "power" the federal government has granted to civilians via the 2nd amendment, the federal government will ALWAYS have more.
In Vietnam and Afghanistan they had weapons being sent to them including stuff like artillery and mortars.
A bunch of militia with store bought guns(many pistols or hunting rifles) doesn't really compare to guys supplied with full automatics and RPGs.
This is not the way things would play out. The federal government would twiddle their thumbs and say that they are very cross with the separatists, and we'd all get on with our lives.
“Disappeared” isn’t just destroying, it’s capturing, too.
> ...the closest one can get to open arms when you’re wearing heavy body armour.
Ironically, heavy body armour (depending on the width of the chest plate near the breast) is likely to force you to have open arms, not the opposite.
So there's usually a violent group of government supporters who don't have any special arms or training. eg, Hitler's brown shirts.
The second amendment is very affective against them.
If you do care about civilians (and I assume the US armed forces would be forced to care) a jet is probably not worth much against an AK-47, as long as that AK-47 is in the hands of a guy who is willing to hang out close to a bunch of civilians.
Again you can win a counter insurgency either by winning over the local population or by utterly destroying it (see manda, the Island of Melos).
The argument that “the government is too strong they’d beat you with your puny guns” is so incredibly short sighted. You’re discounting the power the rifle gives the people not only as a weapon but a symbol of freedom and revolution. An armed society is a deterrent at the very least.
Mozambique’s flag has an AK47 on it for a reason.
I am in the process of doing so now, as it happens — leaving the UK because of the Investigatory Powers Act, because the Home Secretary wants to ban unbreakable encryption without understanding it, and because Brexit removes one of the major obligations to follow international human rights laws which would allow me to sue the government to fix that law.
I’d rather pick my battles and live somewhere new, than die an unknown and unnamed victim of a remote death machine.