What would you do to get an invader enemy off of your country, if no one in your country can match the weapons power and the overwhelming capacity of this enemy? One can not fight them in the traditional way, and every time your country men try to mount a guerrilla operation more of your own die than those in the enemy ranks. I have some ideas, but I would like to know what would you do... For those who think that they are all powerful, and will never be in this situation, just let me remind you that history goes in a circle, today you are up, tomorrow you are down!

Well I live in Ireland,check our history.

Obviously you're referring to Iraq and trying to justify suicide bombings.

I would not kill myself for any reason - I think it's stupid and defeats any point that it had by you not being able to realise the effects of your death (since your dead, and since I'm an atheist).

I would do all the dirty tricks and use every form of warfare at my disposal if they were trying to kill me. Life is the most valuable asset a person can have. If they wanted to change my government and then leave, I wouldn't have nearly as big an issue with them.

I would not kill myself for any reason - I think it's stupid and defeats any point that it had by you not being able to realise the effects of your death (since your dead, and since I'm an atheist). Thats what theists are for...and just becauase you can't see the effects does not mean it "defeats the point" unless your doing it for purely egotistical rather then tactical/'greater cause' reasons.

While I think suicide bombers/Kamikazis are crazy you cannot deny that they are sacrifincing themselves for the greater good(barring, of course, the ones that kill innocent civlians). It's a compltetly selfless act based on a definate outcome.
I would do all the dirty tricks and use every form of warfare at my disposal if they were trying to kill me. Life is the most valuable asset a person can have. If they wanted to change my government and then leave, I wouldn't have nearly as big an issue with them.And you are obviously trying to justify the War in Iraq. US troops have murdered, raped, totured and noting has gotten any better. The earliest estimates of cutting and running are 2010.

And changing your government is quite a issue. Obviously not if you had a dick-tator but what if they wanted a Zoroatrian based government? A national socialist government (killing not you but dark skinned people) .

You seem to have a very selfish viewpoint. But I guess thats what is fostered in the US.

Thats what theists are for...and just becauase you can't see the effects does not mean it "defeats the point" unless your doing it for purely egotistical rather then tactical/'greater cause' reasons.

Doesn't matter what the reason is that you're doing it. If you're dead, you won't be around to appreciate whatever happened because of your death. If I kill myself to save your life, I don't get to appreciate your company because I'm dead. There is no incentive large enough to kill yourself over, unless you believe in something after death or if you just don't understand what happens when you die.

While I think suicide bombers/Kamikazis are crazy you cannot deny that they are sacrifincing themselves for the greater good(barring, of course, the ones that kill innocent civlians). It's a compltetly selfless act based on a definate outcome.
Completely selfless??? Come on now, we already debated that one. There is no such thing as a completely selfless act. I do deny that they are sacrificing themselves for the greater good. For the most part, I think those suicide bombers are doing more harm than good for the world as a whole. Also, it is an act that is neither self-less, nor has a definite result.

And you are obviously trying to justify the War in Iraq. US troops have murdered, raped, totured and noting has gotten any better. The earliest estimates of cutting and running are 2010.
I am not trying to justify the war. I never have justified the war. I think the war was based on lies, is currently an economic disaster, and is a humanitarian nightmare. Read what I wrote. I simply said that I would not be as incencsed if they were trying to kill me, than if they were trying to change the government.

And changing your government is quite a issue. Obviously not if you had a dick-tator but what if they wanted a Zoroatrian based government? A national socialist government (killing not you but dark skinned people) .
I did not condone the acts of invading Iraq and creating a new government. I never said that changing one's government is not 'quite an issue'.

You seem to have a very selfish viewpoint.
You have so far completely misinterpreted my post and have made huge errors in your assumption of me. Call self-survival selfish if you want. I could just as easily call you selfish for eating your own dinner, for sleeping, for doing something for someone else that makes you feel good.

All of those are more valid reasons for being called selfish than preserving your own life.


But I guess thats what is fostered in the US.
And what heavenly country are you from?

You will find in a lot of cases that suicide bombers have had their lives so effected by the occupier that they have only their bodies left as weapons to fight their enemy with,theyve got nothing to loose.

You seem to have a very selfish viewpoint. But I guess thats what is fostered in the US.
You seem to have a very narrow viewpoint, I guess that is what is fostered in the "autonomous republic of me,' eh?

Live to fight again I say.

Well, I would think of how Mahatma Gandhichanged the course of history.

Great man.Was able to remove the British without firing a shot.

Obviously you're referring to Iraq and trying to justify suicide bombings. I would not kill myself for any reason - I think it's stupid and defeats any point that it had by you not being able to realize the effects of your death (since your dead, and since I'm an atheist).

No, not just about Irak. Suicide bombings?. No, I wouldn't either.

I would do all the dirty tricks and use every form of warfare at my disposal if they were trying to kill me.

Exactly, that is what I would do. But I would also extend my attacks worldwide to any one belonging to that country, until the pressure is so huge that the citizens will force the dictatorship that has taking over the invading country to withdraw from all occupied territories not belonging to them, in other words stay inside your fucking country and leave mine, and everyone else's, alone.

Well boys, now that you have had the opportunity to talk with the enemy, what do you think?

No, not just about Irak. Suicide bombings?. No, I wouldn't either.
Ah, well I just assumed you were referring to Iraq since your question can apply directly to Iraq.

Exactly, that is what I would do. But I would also extend my attacks worldwide to any one belonging to that country, until the pressure is so huge that the citizens will force the dictatorship that has taking over the invading country to withdraw from all occupied territories not belonging to them, in other words stay inside your fucking country and leave mine, and everyone else's, alone.
It all depends on what the quality of the life is under the occupier. A dictator is a similar issue, though any other form of government could occupy another country. If the occupying government managed to keep peace and raise the standard of living, I would welcome them with open arms.

What if China ever invades the USA (and for some reason USA has lost its "Weapons of Mass Destruction"), with ground military forces other than with products as it happens now?, I guess all of you would fight them with every trick that there is, wouldn't matter how dirty they are, right? You'd fight a guerrilla warfare in the mountains, in the swamps, in the hot, in the cold, in the cities, in the country, anywhere, until every damn Red Chinese is out of the USA. (Note: I'd fight the Chinese too..., wouldn't go back to be safe in my country).

Fighting whatever invading enemy is the right of every citizen in any part of the world. So I agree to fight with any trick if diplomacy does nothing.

What if China ever invades the USA (and for some reason USA has lost its "Weapons of Mass Destruction"), with ground military forces other than with products as it happens now?, I guess all of you would fight them with every trick that there is, wouldn't matter how dirty they are, right? You'd fight a guerrilla warfare in the mountains, in the swamps, in the hot, in the cold, in the cities, in the country, anywhere, until every damn Red Chinese is out of the USA. (Note: I'd fight the Chinese too..., wouldn't go back to be safe in my country).

Fighting whatever invading enemy is the right of every citizen in any part of the world. So I agree to fight with any trick if diplomacy does nothing.
Depends on how well we were treated by the Chinese. If we had already lost the war, and they set up a wonderful system which made the society very peaceful (unlikely), and made the standard of living much better (very unlikely) I would be fine with it. If not, I would fight taking into account how bad life would be under the Chinese. If they were going to treat us like they treat their own civilians (or worse) I would be making explosives, planting mines, using my potato cannon to launch m. coctails and other things, probably get one of the 500 guns my uncle has. I doubt China would be able to subdue the US.

Theres no chance of China ever invading America or Europe,theyve more sense than to take control of a market that sell all that 'made in China' shit.

Theres no chance of China ever invading America or Europe,theyve more sense than to take control of a market that sell all that 'made in China' shit.

We were arguing about theoretical situations

OK.You being a Californian [I presume],how do you feel about someone based 3000 miles away in America telling you what to do.

Doesn't matter what the reason is that you're doing it. If you're dead, you won't be around to appreciate whatever happened because of your death. If I kill myself to save your life, I don't get to appreciate your company because I'm dead. There is no incentive large enough to kill yourself over, unless you believe in something after death or if you just don't understand what happens when you die. Id does if you care more about the people around you then you do about yourself. If you care more about others having freedom then all living in oppression.
Completely selfless??? Come on now, we already debated that one. There is no such thing as a completely selfless act. I do deny that they are sacrificing themselves for the greater good. For the most part, I think those suicide bombers are doing more harm than good for the world as a whole. Also, it is an act that is neither self-less, nor has a definite result. I already used the qualifier "not killing innocent civilians". Suicede bombing has always been one of the most powerful tactics. Is scares the shit out of the enemies. It is able to destroys large targets that would otherwise cost many more lives to defeat.

And because ou are not able to continue on to see the effects of blowing yourself up does make it a completely selfless act. Funny how you argue that it makes no sense for athiests because they can't see the results then simultainiously claim that it isn't self-less. Thats contradictory. It either makes you happy to blow yourself up (in which case athism would be no hinderence) or you gain no joy from it but see no alternative (in which case its a self-less act)

Sure you can argue that no act is selfless because ultimatly you only do what you want to do. Fine. But that has absolutly nothig to do with the real world and how you act within it.

To claim that you are selfish whether you feed the homeless or hunt them for sport is a self-defeating arguement that egotists use. One case is an extreme benefit to the community at the voluntary exspense of an individual (no matter how much joy it may bring them). The other is violence and terrorism excercised on the unwilling community by an individual for their satisfaction alone.

Fact is the word and idea of selflessness exists. Whether or not it is true is a theoretical/philosphical discussion without real world applications.

We were arguing about theoretical situations Doesn't matter no one could ever invade the US. Thats the whole point of the second amendment and why I argue against the US even having a military. Look at how well the Iraqis are kicking the ass of the most technological/powerful/well funded military in history with little more then AKs and RPGs.

Well theres a few points Id like to make 500:
The US Armed Forces arent trained for 'policeing operations',which is how it turned out in Iraq.
A change of tactics.Look at illegal immigration from Mexico,thats an invasion,without arms.

A change of tactics.Look at illegal immigration from Mexico,thats an invasion,without arms.
which was spawned by the US's economic invasion of Mexico, again done without arms.

The biggests thefts in the world are done in suits with contracts, not thugs with guns.

Yep,its all down to tactics.

What would you do to get an invader enemy off of your country, if no one in your country can match the weapons power and the overwhelming capacity of this enemy? In your premise am I:
A. Acting on behalf of the majority of my countrymen who want the enemy off my soil.
or
B. Acting on behalf of a non-majority group within America, receiving weapons and comrades from Canada and willing to kill other Americans because they don't agree with my stand.

What would you do to get an invader enemy off of your country, if no one in your country can match the weapons power and the overwhelming capacity of this enemy? One can not fight them in the traditional way, and every time your country men try to mount a guerrilla operation more of your own die than those in the enemy ranks. I have some ideas, but I would like to know what would you do... For those who think that they are all powerful, and will never be in this situation, just let me remind you that history goes in a circle, today you are up, tomorrow you are down!




IF you wish to define an "enemy invader" liebitz, why don't you define the true "invader" which isn't the U.S. but the taliban, the Islamists, the Bin Laden types.

Take Afghanistan, for instance. Why don't you go and ask the Russians just how the Afghanis act when a foreign power tries to step in and take them down roads they don't wish to go. Those Afghani fighters fought like hell to oust the Soviet Union. Yet the U.S. took that country in weeks. Ever wonder why? It's because the Afghanis could NOT stand the Taliban. They HATED the Taliban. So when the U.S. went in with the express purpose of ridding Afghanistan of the Taliban and giving Afghanistan back to the Afghanis, the Afghan natives decided to step aside and let the U.S. go about its work. The greatest fear the Afghanis have right now is that the U.S. is going to leave! Does that sound like the U.S. is an "enemy invader" of Afghanistan, liebitz? Does it? HMMMMMMMMM?

The situation is much the same in Iraq. The true enemy is the "insurgents." This is a collection of Saddam loyalists, various sunni and jihadists funded by Iran. They're LOSING, liebitz. Captured documents from "insurgent" top dogs state that they're not winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqis. They're not getting a lot of support from the local Iraqis. They're NOT convincing the Iraqis to reject the U.S. "occupation." The only hope for the "insurgents" is for the Sunni, the Shia and the Kurds to start fighting each other and, by default, make Iraq too difficult for the U.S. to hold on to, dammit.

The real question, Liebitz, the true question is if the Iraqis and the Afghanis have the strength to resist the Islamists, who will kill as many as they have to get their way? The question for Iraq is whether or not various Iraqis sects can forget their differences long enough to stand together and oust the true "enemy invaders" which are the Islamists, dammit.


Well, I would think of how Mahatma Gandhichanged the course of history.


Don't get too enamored with Ghandi. He used British morality against the British, that is the ONLY reason his strategy of passive resistance worked. There was an Indian high school teacher who stated that had Hitler been ruling India, Ghandi would've been a lampshade, dammit.

Don't get too enamored with Ghandi. He used British morality against the British, that is the ONLY reason his strategy of passive resistance worked. There was an Indian high school teacher who stated that had Hitler been ruling India, Ghandi would've been a lampshade, dammit.If anyone's interested there's an alternative history short story by Harry Turtledove called "The Last Article" that explores this "What if?" question. A lot of what he writes is crap but this one is very good. Oh, and there's a reason it's a short story.

Don't get too enamored with Ghandi. He used British morality against the British, that is the ONLY reason his strategy of passive resistance worked. There was an Indian high school teacher who stated that had Hitler been ruling India, Ghandi would've been a lampshade, dammit.

True, he exploited their major weakness. He also succeeded where many others had failed. First rule of warfare, "know thine enemy'. Therefore, given that some country has occupied the USA, first find and then exploit the weaknesses. What is successful against say Europe, would probably not be successful against China.

OK.You being a Californian [I presume],how do you feel about someone based 3000 miles away in America telling you what to do.

Doesn't matter to me as long as I can still live the life that I enjoy and keep the personal freedoms that I value.

Id does if you care more about the people around you then you do about yourself. If you care more about others having freedom then all living in oppression.
If you value another life more than your own then you misunderstand the value of life. If you save someone else you will feel nothing and you will rot in the ground. You will have no future and nothing more you can experience. You cannot even appreciate the fact that they are alive.

I already used the qualifier "not killing innocent civilians". Suicede bombing has always been one of the most powerful tactics. Is scares the shit out of the enemies. It is able to destroys large targets that would otherwise cost many more lives to defeat.

Suicide bombing is not one of the most powerful tactics. Not anywhere near. It is only useful when you can get close enough to use it, which has primarily been on civilians. You may have some romantic idea of dying for a cause, but that is one of the most stupid things you can do for a military cause. A person has a lot more value, and can do a lot more when they are alive than when they are dead. A smarter move would be to throw a fucking grenade, or leave a bomb somewhere so that you don't die.

And because ou are not able to continue on to see the effects of blowing yourself up does make it a completely selfless act.
They tell these suicide bombers that they will get 70ish virgins when they go to heaven. They are not being selfless, they think that they are getting something out of it.

Funny how you argue that it makes no sense for athiests because they can't see the results then simultainiously claim that it isn't self-less. Thats contradictory. It either makes you happy to blow yourself up (in which case athism would be no hinderence) or you gain no joy from it but see no alternative (in which case its a self-less act)
You really managed to use some twisted logic to come to that point.

It makes no sense for an atheist to kill themself because they do not believe in an afterlife and they cannot see the effects of their deeds. . These suicide bombers ARE NOT ATHEISTS! It DOES make sense if after you blow yourself up you go straight to heaven.

Because there is no alternative does not make something a selfless act.

To claim that you are selfish whether you feed the homeless or hunt them for sport is a self-defeating arguement that egotists use. One case is an extreme benefit to the community at the voluntary exspense of an individual (no matter how much joy it may bring them). The other is violence and terrorism excercised on the unwilling community by an individual for their satisfaction alone.
So.... The results are much different, yet each has an element of satisfaction. One may be more self centered than the other, yet neither is self-less.

Fact is the word and idea of selflessness exists. Whether or not it is true is a theoretical/philosphical discussion without real world applications.
Arguing over the definition of selfless acts is stupid, but suicide bombers are not selfless in any way. They do that so they get to screw 70 virgins. That is COMPLETELY self centered.

Darth.I may be wrong here,but when the Russkies invaded Afghanistan werent the locals armed by the US,the Mujahadeen.As a result of the invasion,Muslims from the entire region went there to take up the fight,among these fighters was one Osama bin Laden,thus The US armed and financed asQaeda in its early days.

Exactly, that is what I would do. But I would also extend my attacks worldwide to any one belonging to that country, until the pressure is so huge that the citizens will force the dictatorship that has taking over the invading country to withdraw from all occupied territories not belonging to them, in other words stay inside your fucking country and leave mine, and everyone else's, alone.Anyone belonging to that country? Does that include civilians? Would you attacks hotels and schoolbuses too? If that's what you meant then you're quite a despicable human being.

Don't get too enamored with Ghandi. He used British morality against the British, that is the ONLY reason his strategy of passive resistance worked. His strategy was the only one that would have worked. When the Indians tried violent rebellion, they were soundly defeated and ended up with even more control by the British than they had before. It's all about adopting the right strategy based on the nature of your opponent. Gandhi, along with other successful revolutionaries in the world, had the right strategy and deserves to be commended for it.

Look at how well the Iraqis are kicking the ass of the most technological/powerful/well funded military in history with little more then AKs and RPGs.
================================================

First of all, we are not in a declared war with the country of Iraq.
If we were, we could have went in and leveled the country, in a relatively short time, without the loss of so many American soldiers.
The air power of the United States would have been far superior to AKs and RPGs.

Second, the methods used in the Middle East are not military actions; the actions appear to be directed by bumbling politicians.

The way this action is being directed, we should not even be there.

If the US were to declare war on Iraq it wouldnt make the slightest difference,the US armed forces are trained to engage another regular army,not get embroilled in a 'guerilla' campaign.A good example of this in Iraq was when 'cant remember the name of the town'held out against the US for a couple of weeks,but were eventually destroyed by superior American firepower.The insurgents fought the US in the way yhe US is trained to fight.

His strategy was the only one that would have worked. When the Indians tried violent rebellion, they were soundly defeated and ended up with even more control by the British than they had before. It's all about adopting the right strategy based on the nature of your opponent. Gandhi, along with other successful revolutionaries in the world, had the right strategy and deserves to be commended for it.Of course he does, and I've no doubt he'd have altered his tactics if he'd been faced by a German occupation. But aside from taking a 'water on stone' generational approach or martyring himself it's hard to see what options might have worked. Absent the fulcrum of conscience, the lever of non-violent resistance moves little.

no one could subdue america without utterly destroying it. since we can and do have the right to own guns. i can see some country's soldiers wandering the hills of appalachia getting shot at at every turn of the "hollar". america can only be subdued politically, and socially.

If open revolt failed, then they lacked military expertice, numbers and/or equipment (guns). Just because it was tried and it failed doesn't mean that the tactic wouldn't work.

Don't get too enamored with Ghandi. He used British morality against the British, that is the ONLY reason his strategy of passive resistance worked. There was an Indian high school teacher who stated that had Hitler been ruling India, Ghandi would've been a lampshade, dammit. Yup. That and the British had been dealt many major set backs by the armed resistance. Ghandi just allowed the British to maintain their dignity by "stepping out" rather then their asses being kicked out.

Passive resistance only works if there is a threat of armed resistance. The British knew that sooner or later they would have a massive passive resistance who would actively sheild a decent sized armed resistance.

Passive resistance only works if those being resisted have a sense of decency.
Would Martin Luther King's sit-ins have been as successful in Tianamen Square?
As Darth said, you have to use their morality against them.

Youve got a point there,I remember peaceful protests here,when I was very young,and the protesters were beat off the streets,very badly at times.Which resulted in 35 years of bloodshed.

Doesn't matter no one could ever invade the US.
Sure they could - they're doing it right now.

Sure they could - they're doing it right now.
Yes,I was making the point earlier,call it 'Passive Invasion'.

Yes,I was making the point earlier,call it 'Passive Invasion'.
Exactly.

The point was made about Gandhi earlier; these people are defeating us because they know they can walk right in if they leave the guns and knives behind. They're here "to look for work", but they're doing it illegally, and because they don't pose a "direct" threat to the American people - they're getting away with murder (and in some cases, quite literally).