I disagree. It's justified in some ways and we are all potential terrorists. Yes it's a desperate measure, but no more cowardly than hi-tech bombers dropping a nuke or thousands of bombs on civilians (Japan, Germany, Iraq)
I disagree. It's justified in some ways and we are all potential terrorists. Yes it's a desperate measure, but no more cowardly than hi-tech bombers dropping a nuke or thousands of bombs on civilians (Japan, Germany, Iraq)
Last edited by Butterfly; 19-10-2006 at 09:41 PM.
Question to the Anti-Terrorist crowd:
what if the US was invaded by China and half your country surrendered ? what would you do ? cooperate with the Chinese ? or go underground ?
Collateral damages happens in war. But to use women and children as human shields and/or to kill them by terriorist activities with no regard for their life is evil and wrong.
^ your a fukin idiot buttfly-- yes Israel attacked first on the 7 day war but who has been the aggressor as of late???
They all become human shields when some troops are deliberately targetting civilians. How about lifting the embargo on the Palestinian importation of weapons and let them sort military with Israel ?Originally Posted by ceburat
It will never happen-- TO MANY ARMED CITIZENS HERE IN THE STATESwould the Chinese be bringing along their wife and kids so we could suicide bomb them??? didn't think so-- so any aggression toward the invaders would be strictly MILITARY TARGETS and would be normal acts of warfare
Last edited by KID; 19-10-2006 at 09:49 PM.
Israel ? why you ask such a silly question ?Originally Posted by KID
and that would stop them from surrendering ? what if the Chinese nuke a city as an example of not surrendering your weapons ?Originally Posted by KID
and you failed to answer the original question ? what would you be ? collaborator or terrorist freedom fighter ?
Is an Israeli pilot who drops defective US Vietnam era cluster bombs on Southern Lebanon in the last 24 hours of conflict trying to kill Hesbollah fighters or Lebanese women and children? The idea that if a sovereign state commits politcal violence it is always legitmate and if a people that don't have a sovereign state commit poltical violence it is always illigitimate is ridiculous. People have a right to defend themselves.
They champion falsehood, support the butcher against the victim, the oppressor against the innocent child. May God mete them the punishment they deserve
ok you answered partially, so let's see what happens next. So you go underground, you are losing battles, the invaders is getting stronger, and you are running out of options. In terms of military assets, you can't compete, your military actions have no effect, because too small. What's the next step ?Originally Posted by ceburat
you are dodging the questions like keruxOriginally Posted by ceburat
![]()
Be a man, answer it![]()
That's a fair question.Originally Posted by Butterfly
Answers please.
In the recent Lebanon-Israel conflict around 1200 Lebanese were killed, mainly civilians. 150 Israelis were killed, mainly soldiers. In the last 6 months over 200 Gazans have been killed compared to two Israeli soldiers.
If the bias of the United Nations, the international media and your own ignorance can make you believe that the Israelis are the innocent victims then you will believe anything.
Actually, technically I agree with you here. But you are not fighting for your personal "principles" or morals, but for a greater cause, the liberation of the USA. The American public, what is left of it, depends on you. Are you just going to give up on them and die ?Originally Posted by ceburat

The fact is, is that terrorism works. The master of a democracy at war is public opinion. Eventually, the voting public get tired of the bloodshed and the body-bags coming home, they see no progress being made, and in the end, they force their government to find another solution by showing disapproval in the ratings (usually taken before an election). This is the stage that the USA is just entering.
The IRA, ETA and the Vietnamese all used this strategem successfully.
The jews used it against the British too, also successfully.
There is a small book written in 1965 by a Robert Taber called War of the Flea which is still taught at military academies around the world.
The description below is what it is about. Sound familiar?
"Analogically, the guerrilla fights the war of the flea, and his military enemy suffers the dog's disadvantages. too much to defend, too small, ubiquitous, and agile an enemy to come to grips with. If the war continues long enough--this is the theory--the dog succumbs to exhaustion and anemia without ever having found anything on which to close its jaws or to rake with its claws".
Phuket - Veni Vidi Veni
Have you been watching too much Faux news again KID ? put down that remote and learn something, go outside, look at the trees and watch the birds sing.Originally Posted by KID
well, that's very noble of you, and that probably makes you a better person for not doing it, but a greater cause is at stake here, it goes beyond your personal choice. So what would it be ? survive with maximum casualties for the cause, or just a slow and quiet death with no success ?Originally Posted by ceburat
Last edited by Butterfly; 19-10-2006 at 10:02 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)