Is the US of A a legitimate target?

[Indofred]

I'd see it as attacking the enemy's lines of supply, just as Nazi Germany did.

As i have told you.... you are very easy to see though. Everything you say has the same base line.


islam... good.... everything else.... bad, enemy, must destroy.

it must be true... islam tells you so.

maybe you should take these "arguments" to the israel/palestine board. they really do not belong here.

Not really. I want actual, logical debate on the subject, not a slanging match.
Question is, are you able to provide a valid reason why the invader's lines of supply should not be attacked.
It would be considered a normal course in any war.

 

[Indofred]

You do realize that in order to have "legitimate" targets you have to be on a firing range or at war with your targets, right?
Palestine and the USA were not at war the last time I checked.
The term "terrorists" and legitimate don't even belong in the same sentence unless you are saying terrorists are legitimate targets for any nation because they attack the people of all nations - even their own.

the part you are not getting is...

to a muslim terrorist.....the US is of course... a legitimate target. islam tell them so.

There are no legitimate targets! Terrorists target the emotions of civilians not the might of a military. There are no legitimate targets of terrorists because there is no war. They do things that frighten populations - they are extortionists, not soldiers. They have no legitamate targets - YOU are not getting it.

I think there is a war. That or loads of Palestinians died of unknown causes and Israel doesn't exist.
Of course there's a war....unless you have another name for aircraft bombing towns.

 

[zakdavis]

I think what he is trying to say with the 'no war' comment is that this is a low intensity conflict that flares up every ten years or so.
Anyway, why not bomb France, or GB, or Germany? Didn't they put a target on their back when they supported Israel extensively during its first thirty years of existence?

 

[Missourian]

I think what he is trying to say with the 'no war' comment is that this is a low intensity conflict that flares up every ten years or so.
Anyway, why not bomb France, or GB, or Germany? Didn't they put a target on their back when they supported Israel extensively during its first thirty years of existence?

^^^ All out of bubble gum?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp_K8prLfso&feature=youtube_gdata_player]I'm here to chew bubblegum... - YouTube[/ame]

 

[sealadaigh]

As i have told you.... you are very easy to see though. Everything you say has the same base line.


islam... good.... everything else.... bad, enemy, must destroy.

it must be true... islam tells you so.

maybe you should take these "arguments" to the israel/palestine board. they really do not belong here.

Not really. I want actual, logical debate on the subject, not a slanging match.
Question is, are you able to provide a valid reason why the invader's lines of supply should not be attacked.
It would be considered a normal course in any war.

it already is a "slanging" match and if you thinik syrenn insulting not only you and your religion, but the religion of over a billion people, is logical debate, then you are sadly mistaken. this is the CDZ and it was put here for a reason. that reason is so that posters would not have to be inundated with a bunch of petty and impertinent personal attacks.

if you want a logical debate, perhaps you should reword the question in the title of your thread to perhaps "what are legitimate targets in an armed conflict?" and worik from there instead of making the ridiculously alluding that an entire nation, which includes schools, hospitals, places of worship, and any number of things that are not legitimate targets.

as for an invader's line of supply, you will have to be more specific (and please, eactly what country had we invaded?). if you are suggesting that the twin trade towers were legitimate targets for al qaida, then i would say without any equivocation, "NO!!!"

i have been arguing against people, people not unlike your antagonists on this thread, that the USA is not, and should not be, in armed conflict with the entiire muslim world and i am not about to change my position now. that was more so a little over 11 years ago when we were attacked.

if you want to think of yourself aws an enemy of this country, my country, then i will consider yourself as my enemy as well.

now, use this thread for what it was intended for, and the same goes for those other posters, or get out of here. "muslims are all evil" is not an argument. it is "slanging".

 

[sealadaigh]

You do realize that in order to have "legitimate" targets you have to be on a firing range or at war with your targets, right?
Palestine and the USA were not at war the last time I checked.
The term "terrorists" and legitimate don't even belong in the same sentence unless you are saying terrorists are legitimate targets for any nation because they attack the people of all nations - even their own.

the part you are not getting is...

to a muslim terrorist.....the US is of course... a legitimate target. islam tell them so.

There are no legitimate targets! Terrorists target the emotions of civilians not the might of a military. There are no legitimate targets of terrorists because there is no war. They do things that frighten populations - they are extortionists, not soldiers. They have no legitamate targets - YOU are not getting it.

perhaps you can make your statement in more clear terms other than "terrorists" and soldiers" and use specific examples from history.

i think perhaps using our own american war of independence would make your point more clear and talk about things like the sons of liberty, lexington and concord, redcoats and hessians, the unconventional guerilla and insurrectionary warfare at the time of hiding behind trees to fight an enemy, civilian tories being targeted by those insurrectionaries who were not soldiers.

personally, i do not have any idea why you living in this country if you are so opposed to the circumstances of its founding.

 

[Colin]

the part you are not getting is...

to a muslim terrorist.....the US is of course... a legitimate target. islam tell them so.

There are no legitimate targets! Terrorists target the emotions of civilians not the might of a military. There are no legitimate targets of terrorists because there is no war. They do things that frighten populations - they are extortionists, not soldiers. They have no legitamate targets - YOU are not getting it.

perhaps you can make your statement in more clear terms other than "terrorists" and soldiers" and use specific examples from history.

i think perhaps using our own american war of independence would make your point more clear and talk about things like the sons of liberty, lexington and concord, redcoats and hessians, the unconventional guerilla and insurrectionary warfare at the time of hiding behind trees to fight an enemy, civilian tories being targeted by those insurrectionaries who were not soldiers.

personally, i do not have any idea why you living in this country if you are so opposed to the circumstances of its founding.

What was that you were preaching about personal attacks in the CDZ? Ah yes, here it is. Oh the irony!

it already is a "slanging" match and if you thinik syrenn insulting not only you and your religion, but the religion of over a billion people, is logical debate, then you are sadly mistaken. this is the CDZ and it was put here for a reason. that reason is so that posters would not have to be inundated with a bunch of petty and impertinent personal attacks.

 

[GHook93]

America supports and arms Israel.
Israel commits mass murder and is at war with at least one pretty much unarmed state that is totally unable to defend itself against attacks.

Given the US supplies most of Israeli's arms and financially supports that government, would future attacks against the US be legitimate?

Personally, I believe attacks on the states are acceptable but I would prefer there be be economic damage and disruption only, not deaths.

Opinion?

I hope you guys do soon rather than later! That way it will speed up the West exterminating the Muslims pigs from the face of the earth. That day will come and it will be in our lifetimes!

 

[sealadaigh]

There are no legitimate targets! Terrorists target the emotions of civilians not the might of a military. There are no legitimate targets of terrorists because there is no war. They do things that frighten populations - they are extortionists, not soldiers. They have no legitamate targets - YOU are not getting it.

perhaps you can make your statement in more clear terms other than "terrorists" and soldiers" and use specific examples from history.

i think perhaps using our own american war of independence would make your point more clear and talk about things like the sons of liberty, lexington and concord, redcoats and hessians, the unconventional guerilla and insurrectionary warfare at the time of hiding behind trees to fight an enemy, civilian tories being targeted by those insurrectionaries who were not soldiers.

personally, i do not have any idea why you living in this country if you are so opposed to the circumstances of its founding.

What was that you were preaching about personal attacks in the CDZ? Ah yes, here it is. Oh the irony!

it already is a "slanging" match and if you thinik syrenn insulting not only you and your religion, but the religion of over a billion people, is logical debate, then you are sadly mistaken. this is the CDZ and it was put here for a reason. that reason is so that posters would not have to be inundated with a bunch of petty and impertinent personal attacks.

it was more of a question in the form of a statement. it certainly wasn't a personal attack.

for instance, you have recently taken to stalking me, which is why i have come to this forum, to avoid such things.

i do not think this forum's purpose is for people to be called an "ignorant ass" as opposed to being called and "ignorant fucking ass".

at any rate, this forum, or at least this thread, has failed to live up the my very broad definition of a "clean debate zone" so i think i will depart. the aggro forums are at least honest about their insults.

 

[Indofred]

it already is a "slanging" match and if you thinik syrenn insulting not only you and your religion, but the religion of over a billion people, is logical debate, then you are sadly mistaken. this is the CDZ and it was put here for a reason. that reason is so that posters would not have to be inundated with a bunch of petty and impertinent personal attacks.

if you want a logical debate, perhaps you should reword the question in the title of your thread to perhaps "what are legitimate targets in an armed conflict?" and worik from there instead of making the ridiculously alluding that an entire nation, which includes schools, hospitals, places of worship, and any number of things that are not legitimate targets.

as for an invader's line of supply, you will have to be more specific (and please, eactly what country had we invaded?). if you are suggesting that the twin trade towers were legitimate targets for al qaida, then i would say without any equivocation, "NO!!!"

i have been arguing against people, people not unlike your antagonists on this thread, that the USA is not, and should not be, in armed conflict with the entiire muslim world and i am not about to change my position now. that was more so a little over 11 years ago when we were attacked.

if you want to think of yourself aws an enemy of this country, my country, then i will consider yourself as my enemy as well.

now, use this thread for what it was intended for, and the same goes for those other posters, or get out of here. "muslims are all evil" is not an argument. it is "slanging".

My main suggestion was regarding the Israeli attacks in Palestine, their illegal occupation of much of the region and the fact the US arms the Israeli government.
However, Iran (if it happens), Iraq and Afghanistan all play a part in the argument.

The US wrongly invaded two countries and supports a pretty evil government in a third.
Given I would like to see the occupying forces out of Palestine ('67 borders will do for me), and the US is the prime supporter of Israel, I would argue attacks on the US mainland and US military are valid and justified as attacks on an invading country's troops and the disruption of the supply line.

As for 9/11, I strongly disagree with mass murder, regardless of who commits such vile acts. That goes for any Muslim suicide attacks as much as US drone strikes. Both are equally abhorrent.

Personally, if I were ever to be a terrorist leader (leader of a group of freedom fighters), I would go for disruption with damage only and no deliberate loss of life.
Apart from my view of murder not being justified for any reason, I believe it would be counter productive.
Not that I'm ever likely to do so because I like people too much but be thankful I would not because I would make your lives a bloody misery.
Small bombs, not much more than fireworks all over the place, model aircraft with explosive warheads saying bye bye to the odd parked car and other such stuff that would use American paranoia against you.
You'd be scared to go out to the bar or a restaurant because there would be loads of bomb scares backed up by the odd real one.
Loads of warning so no one gets hurt but loads of disruption until you just couldn't function as a country or even go for a drink with friends.
I'm not inclined that way but I'll bet someone will come up with the idea sooner or later and, if they're really clever, the instigators will use as many American citizens as they can so the US has no one to invade in retaliation.

A few months of that and I'm pretty sure TV debate and opinion will want you out of Israeli politics for ever.

Will someone do it? no idea but.............maybe?

As for me hating America and me being an enemy of America - no, I really dislike US foreign policy but I don't hate anyone.
No, not even Israel but their government stinks and should be put down for their war crimes.
As for Jews in general, why should I hate them? As with Muslims, they have their idiot extremists who murder and torture but that doesn't make all Jews guilty of anything.

 

[Indofred]

Islamic terrorists like to kill people.

i don't think hate sites really add to the conversation and probably aren't supposed to be in the CDZ anyway.

we get it, you hate muslims. nazis hated jews, the KKK hates people of african descent.

Telling the truth about radical Islam is not "hate.

And I don't hate Muslims. There is nothing I've ever posted anywhere that could justify your claim.

It is not so I'll tell you the truth about Islamic extremists.
They're a bunch of hate filled, bigoted idiots who want nothing more than to murder and cause as much trouble as they can.
They're bloody terrible Muslims and probably more my enemy that they are yours.

Stuff the extremist end of Islam to hell, we don't want you, need you or support your evil.

 

[syrenn]

maybe you should take these "arguments" to the israel/palestine board. they really do not belong here.

Not really. I want actual, logical debate on the subject, not a slanging match.
Question is, are you able to provide a valid reason why the invader's lines of supply should not be attacked.
It would be considered a normal course in any war.

it already is a "slanging" match and if you thinik syrenn insulting not only you and your religion, but the religion of over a billion people, is logical debate, then you are sadly mistaken. this is the CDZ and it was put here for a reason. that reason is so that posters would not have to be inundated with a bunch of petty and impertinent personal attacks.

if you want a logical debate, perhaps you should reword the question in the title of your thread to perhaps "what are legitimate targets in an armed conflict?" and worik from there instead of making the ridiculously alluding that an entire nation, which includes schools, hospitals, places of worship, and any number of things that are not legitimate targets.

as for an invader's line of supply, you will have to be more specific (and please, eactly what country had we invaded?). if you are suggesting that the twin trade towers were legitimate targets for al qaida, then i would say without any equivocation, "NO!!!"

i have been arguing against people, people not unlike your antagonists on this thread, that the USA is not, and should not be, in armed conflict with the entiire muslim world and i am not about to change my position now. that was more so a little over 11 years ago when we were attacked.

if you want to think of yourself aws an enemy of this country, my country, then i will consider yourself as my enemy as well.

now, use this thread for what it was intended for, and the same goes for those other posters, or get out of here. "muslims are all evil" is not an argument. it is "slanging".

just and FYI.

it is not a personal attack.... or insult....since it is a FACT that the religion of islam... does preach death and destruction to anything .... not muslim.


The cdz is no protection for the truth being used.

 

[syrenn]

i don't think hate sites really add to the conversation and probably aren't supposed to be in the CDZ anyway.

we get it, you hate muslims. nazis hated jews, the KKK hates people of african descent.

Telling the truth about radical Islam is not "hate.

And I don't hate Muslims. There is nothing I've ever posted anywhere that could justify your claim.

It is not so I'll tell you the truth about Islamic extremists.
They're a bunch of hate filled, bigoted idiots who want nothing more than to murder and cause as much trouble as they can.
They're bloody terrible Muslims and probably more my enemy that they are yours.

Stuff the extremist end of Islam to hell, we don't want you, need you or support your evil.

funny that...

then why aren't you peaceful muslims.... doing your thing and killing ....said extremists?