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.
