I gave up arguing with this fool a long time ago, and I now prefer to humour him rather than become embroiled in arguing with him. He still trots out the line whenever there is a discussion about terrorism, that these acts are committed by people with a cause who have no means to compete in war with the superpowers of this world... am I right AtW?
So without breaking my vow to not bother engaging him in debate I am going to agree with him because he is actually right. These alleged "terrorists" are targeting civilians (soft targets) because they do not have the weapons or power to engage their enemies in straightforward military confrontations.
My question then to my esteemed friend is: So what? Are you pointing out a simple logistical fact or are you trying to legitimise the actions of these "freedom fighters"? If you are saying that they have a legitimate cause then I would like to invite you to explain their cause rather than imply that they have one.
So without breaking my vow to not bother engaging him in debate I am going to agree with him because he is actually right. These alleged "terrorists" are targeting civilians (soft targets) because they do not have the weapons or power to engage their enemies in straightforward military confrontations.
My question then to my esteemed friend is: So what? Are you pointing out a simple logistical fact or are you trying to legitimise the actions of these "freedom fighters"? If you are saying that they have a legitimate cause then I would like to invite you to explain their cause rather than imply that they have one.
Comment