Terrorism is a legitimate form of warfare

[MRT144]

i think terrorism is a legitimate way to fight. the means of death and destruction are irrelevant.

just because many of you disagree with terrorism and dont understand it doesnt mean other people dont see the value in it. If i were an arab who hated america and i had no means to try and destroy america other than terrorism, id go to terrorism.

the other thing i see as BS is the whole "if we fight conventional, they too must fight conventional" warfare idea. Especially against america. There is no way you can win conventionally against america, so why even try? Terrorism how the weak try to be strong.

Finally i think that the idea that all forms of warfare are acceptable, as long as the people waging the war agree with it. Do americans think nuking enemy cities is acceptable? Do arabs think terrorism is acceptable?

the demise of the innocent and defenseless people is not something one considers when waging war.

[notyoueither]

just because many of you disagree with thermal nuclear warfare and dont understand it doesnt mean other people dont see the value in it. If i were an american who hated arabs and i had no means to try and destroy arabs other than thermal nuclear warfare, id go to thermal nuclear warfare.

[notyoueither]

the other thing i see as BS is the whole "if they fight with terrorism, we must stay nice" warfare idea. Especially against arabs. There is no way you can win conventionally against terrorists, so why even try? Nuclear warfare, how we keep them in line.

[Lancer]

Nothing wrong with arabs or any other group. It's all in the actions.

[notyoueither]

the demise of the innocent and defenseless people is not something one considers when waging war.

[Lancer]

Nukes are the last resort. The 'never use' item in the inventory.

[Lancer]

We are not "one"

[MRT144]

notyoueither, the problem is you ignored the idea i had about what is acceptable to the aggressor populace. nuclear warfare isnt acceptable to americans, but terrorism is acceptable to arabs.

[notyoueither]

Relax, Lancer. My name is not Bush and I am nowhere near the button.

The drivel that gets spewed does deserve a good lampooning once in a while though.

[Frankychan]

I don't think anyone understands nuclear warfare...but I do have some knowledge on it. I'm just saying that using 'atrocity-in-a-can' is not warfare, it's something beyond it.

I also think that fighting terrorism isn't conventional warfare, I support anti-terrorism acts SO LONG as they maintain the public's rights...or at least have good justification on why some rights are being infringed upon. I understand that some rights will probably be overlooked for the sake of fighting terrorism, but to do something under the guise of fighting terrorism is something that the public should take into responsibility to protest against.

[Lancer]

MRT, you are innocent, a legit target of terrorism.

[Lancer]

not, I don't recall President Bush using that button. Far as can tell, he's a good steward of it.

[MRT144]

i know i am lancer. ive accepted that as a fact of life.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by MRT144
notyoueither, the problem is you ignored the idea i had about what is acceptable to the aggressor populace. nuclear warfare isnt acceptable to americans, but terrorism is acceptable to arabs.

Right. Good that the Yanks aren't about to pull out the nukes.

Now what are we gonna do about the lower level forms of low lifes who think that blowing up a cafe with a homicide bomber for ****s and giggles is a good idea to gain their political aims?

As Churchill said, now that we have established what you are, we are merely negotiating the price (or so it is said he said).

If targetting civvies is legitimate, then no one can trump what the US, the PRC or Russia could do. I thought we were trying to get past that.

[MRT144]

Dont give in to terrorism, thats how you beat it. Try and prevent it. I just think its ridiculous to expect everyone to play the game the same way, and then acted horrified when someone doesnt.