Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (147259)	5/16/2002 5:51:09 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1585088

But for much of the time, they didn't fight conventionally and that ended up being an important factor in bringing us down.........and the colonists didn't fight conventionally and that was an important factor in bringing the Brits down. Guerilla fighting doesn't win the war, it keeps you from losing, while still letting you annoy someone who is more powerful then you. It allows you to keep the pressure on until you are really ready to fight and win (like in the American Revolution or the Vietnamese communists against France) and it allows you to keep from being defeated by a vastly superior force that doesn't care as much about wining as you do until they get sick of it and go away (like the Vietnamese communists against the US) Eventually you have to beat their army in order to actually win. We won at Saratoga at a series of small battles in the south like King Mountain and Cowpens, and then finally at Yorktown. The Vietnamese communists managed to avoid defeat by the Americans and their allies until America left. At that point they faced an enemy that was didn't have a tons of firepower so they could attack conventionally. They invaded the south with divisions of soldiers and with artilary and armor (no guerilla warfare here) and won the war. Guerilla tactics can and often are used by real armies, so using those tactics doesn't mean you don't have a real army although it does probably mean that your opponent has greater numbers and or more firepower (if you had the advantage you wouldn't need to attack and run away you would just attack and press the attack, manuver and attack again until you win) Nor are the Palestinians a society of terrorists. True but thier government to the extent that they have one (the PA/PLO) is a terrorist group, and the chief alternative (Hammas) is an even more uncompromising terrorist group. Its 200 hundred+ years later......of course, the terrorist activities in this time are far more sophisticated and organized than they were back in colonial times. No not just more organized and sophisticated. The distinction is that of comparing individuals or small units getting out of hand (which also happened with the US army in the twentieth century on occation for example Mai Lai) or a deliberate policy of the controling organization. George Washington didn't order his men to hunt down and kill non-violent innocent civilians. The leaders among the Palestinians do order such things. Whether you agree with them are not, the Hamas believe they are fighting the good fight just like the American colonists believed they were fighting the good fight. Even if I did agree with them I would support Israel hunting them down as long as they use their current tactics. If they want to fight a guerilla war, let them do that. Let them ambush Israeli army patrols and then run away and hide until another target presents itself. Blowing up resterauts and clubs filled with innocent civilans is not guerilla warfare its terrorism. Plus the Brits considered the colonists' fighting tactics to be rudimentary and barbaric by their own standards. American colonists showed the world a whole new way of fighting that didn't catch on fully until a hundred years had passed Not a new way just a way that was different then what Europe was used to during the 18th century. The US now shows other countries a new way of warfare too, and I bet the Taliban thinks it is unfair that they could be attacked with near impunity from the skies. Does that make the US Air Force a bunch of terrorists? No definition of terrorism, from you, me, another poster here, a dictionary definition, or any article that I have ever read, has made the defining quality of terrorism that you fight in new or unexpected ways, or that you fight savagely. The defining quality is that you target civilians, and that they are targeted diliberatly as part of a plan to incite terror. And I suspect, rightly or wrongly, that's how many of the Hamas feel today. The only reasons I would care how they feel is if that information proves useful in convincing them to stop or in defeating them. Whatever they might feel their actions speak louder then there thoughts, feelings, or words, and their actions define them as terrorists. I would be more interested in making them ex-terrorists or dead terrorists then I would be in spending a lot of time dwelling on the fact that they probably think they are using acceptable methods in a just cause. I find the justice of their cause debatable and the methods unacceptable, and if they think differently they are simply wrong. Tim

To: tejek who wrote (147259)	5/16/2002 6:03:52 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1585088

Ted, <Whether you agree with them are not, the Hamas believe they are fighting the good fight just like the American colonists believed they were fighting the good fight.> What they believe is irrelevant. What they are fighting for is not good by any measure other than their own. Hamas is indeed the scum of the Earth, and their vision of "peace" is frightening to say the least. Tenchusatsu

To: tejek who wrote (147259)	5/16/2002 10:20:34 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 1585088

"In addition, to the Brits, our forefathers, in some ways, were the terrorists of the 18th century. And they did commit terrorist acts but they, the colonists, felt it was okay because they were the underdog and it was all for the good of the cause." Maybe. The judge of whether or not terrorism, or for that matter whether it is terrorism or not, is done by history. After reading "The Wind from a Burning Woman" by Greg Bear, and examining my beliefs, I have concluded that there are circumstances under which I might engage in terrorism. Or do what it takes to oppose it. It, by no means, is a black and white issue. But terrorism is a last resort type of thing. Where, in my opinion, the Palestinians screwed up is that under Barak, they had a chance to get almost all of what they wanted. They chose to gamble and push for getting more. So far, that has proven to be a fools gambit. To gamble, lose, and then whine is the mark of a loser. In my opinion, of course.