Angstspawn's page

200 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

DAESH is something special, I'm tempted to say: new in modern history (maybe some knowledgeable people here will precise that point).

By new I mean gathering several specific characteristics. They're relying to terrorism warfare, but also established on a territorial area they control more or less; they have access to large ressources; they try to structure themselves as a state. And, last but not least, DAESH tries to establish a fascist regime that has no other purpose but the extermination of all humans not supporting their believes, and the destruction of all material constructions and crafts they don't support. They negate almost all (if not all) forms of art and, consider some humans have no rights, no integrity, and can therefore be owned indefinitely by someone they consider rightful (which means they legitimate slavery).

It's this I name DAESH and this that should be eradicated.

Will survivors try to reform another group, I've no doubt some will try. But if we act smartly, dont bomb and shoot blindly, it'll be much more difficult for them to restart something.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

DAESH isn't that strong it mainly thrived because it wasn't considered a priority nor a a significant threat. All this changed now.

The alliance that France tries to built would be very hard to oppose for DAESH, not only France, the US, Russia and some others countries will bomb them, but the strikes will be coordinated and linked to attacks on the ground by Russian, Kurds and Iranian troops (not to mention Western special forces).
All together, all in coordination and toward a for a common objective.

They'll loose their strongholds one by one and, if you look at a map they don't have any way out.
On the north Turkey that for a while was closing at least one eye but, since the market bombing and with NATO's pressure, will fight them (or at least not let them out that way).
On the east: Iran and Russia allies. The first will be very happy to kill them both for political and religious reasons. The second didn't appreciate much the Russian plane bombing and will be eager to explain them attacking Russia was a dire mistake.
On the south Jordan and Iraq. The last is under US and Iran influence, therefore no option that way. Jordan has still in mind they were burning alive in a cage one of their pilot (that was bombing them).
Lebanon seems the weak point but its borders are under international scrutiny and therefore (discret but efficient) protection.

The best option would be to go to Afghanistan but it means having access to some teleportation technology...
More seriously DAESH is not strong enough to attack and has no road to retreat. They're cornered and given enough will from the EU, US and Russia, they'll be eradicated.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

War is matter of money, propaganda and alliances.
I wonder how DAESH will manage in the close future.

France was increasing its attacks against DAESH over the last few months, and this terrorist attack will only enforce the airstrikes (and probably also the assassination program France is conducting for the past few years).

DAESH propaganda will also be more difficult in France as their blind terror act killed several muslims. So even those who didn't like the caricatures understand they are targets.

Last but not least, France wasn't seeing (that) positively the games of Russia and Iran. Now most probably we'll consider we've to chose the least of two evil. It means DAESH is now facing NATO + Russia + Iran and their respective allies. Knowing DAESH is also fighting with Al-Qaida they'll start feeling a bit lonely...

Anyway, I think it's time to get rid of them definitely.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Otherwhere wrote:
Sadly, to be true to their faith, at least 1 paladin would have to remain behind as he cannot kill himself after he has helped kill his brother/sister paladins. Makes kind of a cool "tragic hero" to be forced to make that ultimate sacrifice, and perhaps remain in Hell despite having been the most faithful of all his order.

You're definitely right.

Some say Judas was the most faithful and trustworthy of all the disciples of Jesus and was therefore chosen to make the most dirty of all jobs!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Even considering that it was a terrible mistake, why not firing the officer from police forces?

If it's possible to fire a firewoman posing topless it should be possible to consider shooting dead unarmed people as an inappropriate (or excessive) behavior too, no?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

They all know the recipe:
a good scenario + good actors (acting) + a good director to manage it all the best way

It's quite easy to do but if you try to have a war without victim or blood it gonna be complicated...

I only expect a good (real) villain; I'm not even asking him (or "the tall one her") to be as good as Vader, just good enough to be impressive.

I also dream to see an Ewok and Gungan extermination camp but I'm afraid I'm asking too much... still...

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Over the last 2,000 years France fought a lot of battles against a lot of countries and even more armies. Among the very few countries France was never at war with are the USA (which we supported from its earliest years).
Against Russia? First Russia is not as old as France, second until Peter the Great, Russia was the most undeveloped country of Europe. Then it happened (mainly in the 19th century) that France was at war with Russia and, without really winning any war lets remind our Russian friends Napoleon was able to conquer Moscow and claim Kremlin for his own. It was not for long, he lost the war, but still, Napoleon did it.
In 20th century, France "loved" to experience a world war because of an unreliable Russia. Russia entered the war and we backed it up (as it was France ally). But if Russia was eager to start the war it pitifully surrendered in 1917. Luckily the US backed up France and we won the war. That day we understood one thing: the USA are reliable, Russia is unreliable.

And this is the problem of Russia for the last hundred years: to keep its word. Since Soviet Revolution, Russia is either lying or unreliable...

Yes, French are speaking a lot and avoid war. I think many people would understand that after 2,000 years of fights we start looking at other options. Russians are proud, but what are they? A 1,000 years old country experiencing (a flawed) democracy for barely 20 years. A country with a GDP 30% lower than the one of France, this with double population and natural ressources...

Now, my dear Vlad Koroboff, I think Russia will be able to mock French army when it will count as many victories as we collected over our 2,000 years of "international wars", and maybe also when it'll be able to produce by itself its own military equipment, including ships.

Like for individuals, a country which doesn't keep its word is nothing. Russia signed a treaty swearing it'll protect Ukraine territorial integrity and 20 years later it invades and steals Crimea. Russian word worth less than the paper it's written on.
I've no doubt many people in Russia think it's smart but by the time it'll take Russia to become a mature country they'll understand how big that mistake was.

Now, to end about EU speaking it's quite simple, the EU (and NATO) answered a simple question: do you want a nuclear war?
The EU answer is No. Those in Russia who think it's being weak to say so should understand what it means: we don't want to die just to have the satisfaction or erasing Russia from the map.
Now, Russia has also a question to answer: does Russia want a nuclear war? The EU won't accept a new Russian expansionism, at least not with a non-democratic and unreliable Russia.

If Russia enters war with Ukraine the consequences will be so unpredictable that Russia can't be sure it'll come out of it alive.
Yes, yes: "Russia is the best of the Universe!". Being proud is one thing, being delusional is another one...

1 person marked this as a favorite.
houstonderek wrote:

So, European drug trafficker is looking at cupcake time in a cupcake jail, plenty of furlough time, and not much of it at all, really.

Gee, I wonder why criminals in America are different. :-)

I don't know if European prisons are "cupcake", I never went to any of them but it seems to me Europeans criminals still prefer to be free...

What I see is that European system is just working better. Why so much arrogance? Simply because while a killer is executed or sentenced to life in prison in the US, the American society is still producing more murderers than European society.

Texas (pop. 25 millions) has capital punishment and around 1,200 murders in 2010; France (pop. 65 millions) with no capital punishment and longest possible prison sentence of 30 years had around 660 murders in 2012.
Now, the question is: is it possible to execute a criminal more than once or to revive people to be sentenced longer than lifetime? If not, maybe Texas should think about "cupcake jails" as it could drop the number of murders under 300...

In Europe whatever your crime you can keep hope of a better future, you still have a chance to come out and to find a sense for your life.

Why criminals in America are different?
Maybe European justice keeps criminals alive but kills criminal intent while the US justice kills criminals but keeps criminal intent alive.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the problem is again linked to the relationship Americans have with weapons and their use.
In Europe we also have riots, madmen, criminals (ranging from street thugs, drug dealers to mafia) and terrorists. Still we don't need to provide police forces with such firepower and immunity like in the US.
At the end without death penalty, with limited prison sentences, with police forces equipped with light weapons we've a significant lower amount of homicides and safer streets and districts. According to the US logic it should be the opposite, so I start thinking that violence breeds only more violence.

1 person marked this as a favorite.


This squirrel wasn't AT ALL what it seemed!
This deadly animal (yes, deadly) was tracked by French secret services (DGSE) as it was an attempt by Al-Qaida to develop a new kind of terrorist biological attack on American soil.

You should know that squirrel was contaminated by a variant of Ebola virus (after being bitten by a flying squirrel contaminated by a bat), then brainwashed and converted to a radical eco-islam movement (a.k.a. EcoQaida).
The French secret services who infiltrated a veterinary terrorist cell of Al-Qaida in Mali were working under the supervision of CIA.
Unfortunately, because of the bad phone connection in Grand Canyon, the French agent was unable to contact the Delta Force team operating nearby. Considering the urgency of the situation and the risk of an escape of the contaminated furry; unarmed in front of the beast, he courageously used his martial arts mastery to battle and terminate the creature!

CIA website has a forum, anyone cast ask, even if to be honest I hardly believe The Agency will say anything about an international covert operation, especially one involving Alliance Base.
The war on terror is much more terrible than ever, so please don't support terrorists... even if they are squirrels!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Sweetman wrote:

Freehold - wiki has an incredibly extensive and detailed list of the rocket fire:

In 2013 for example there were only 52 rockets in the entire year.

So, so far this year one Israeli victim should explain the slaughter of Palestinians!?!...

How many relatives of the 1,850 Palestinians killed will remain? How many of them will want to get some revenge?
So much confidence from Israel to believe they'll always be able to contain and erase that hate with their military might.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Doug's Workshop wrote:

What liberal bias would that be? That jihadis like to kill civilians? Liberals seem to think that Hamas is a purely humanitarian group that gives children puppies while making sure their people are safe from the Jews.

It seems Israel is much much better than Hamas at killing civilians. When you take figures around 80% of victims of Hamas are Israeli soldiers while 70% of victims of IDF are civilians. Besides Syrian army no other conventional force is killing as many babies as IDF.

Doug's Workshop wrote:

That Israel, the only functional democracy in the area, has a right and duty to defend itself from murderous thugs who hide behind women and children?

If over 1000 civilian victims is the best a functional democracy can offer, I think we should review our definition of a functional democracy.

About hiding behind women and children, you don't have much choice in asymmetrical warfare.
"Murderous thugs", still the title is held by IDF with very few chance for Hamas to get it back as no other country is using assassination at the level Israel does.

Doug's Workshop wrote:

Because the "liberal bias" seems to indicate that Hamas is not filled with murderous thugs that set up shop in hospitals and store rockets in schools run by the UN.

Thugs would fill hospitals and schools with rockets, scums would bomb them with nasty weapons. So IDF has hardly better moral values than Hamas.

Doug's Workshop wrote:

Maybe that Hamas is a theocratic and demonstrably racist group who's stated goal is to destroy Israel?

Israel is slowly becoming theocratic (more and more non Jewish regret it) and, if not racist yet it's a discriminating country.

Unstated Israel goal is not to give Palestinians their own country according to signed treaties. Moreso, it seems to me it's Israel destroying Palestine right now!

Doug's Workshop wrote:

[...] Israel is to blame for everything and poor Hamas is just acting the only way it can when it tries to blow up civilians.

I agree with you on that point.

Doug's Workshop wrote:

I've seen lots of liberal bias, but reality doesn't seem to support it.

Don't force yourself, you might understand you're on the wrong side of history otherwise!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

2007: Estonia cyber attack
2008: Georgia occupation
2014: Ukraine occupation

Of course, it's never Russia's fault...
But the scenario is all too close to what happened in Czechoslovakia in 1968:
- a pro-Russian non-democratic leader at the head of the state
- a civilian insurgency
- riots
- help demand by the kicked out pro-Russian leader
- invasion by Russian army "to protect the people"
- occupation of the country by Russia

By 1922 Soviet Union territory was mostly today's Russian territory, but over the next 70 years over a dozen countries had been invaded and integrated (directly or indirectly) to Soviet Union.

Someway Putin wants to recreate Soviet Union, now it's up to you to know on which side of History you want to stand.
Obviously tovarich Quandary shares Putin's nostalgy...

1 person marked this as a favorite.

US have the most powerful military forces and weapons in the world, how can any of you think you even have a chance if government is turning against you??
Some of you were in the army, you know probably much better than I what special units are able to. How can you believe you'd survive a direct confrontation?
How your guns will protect you against the M230 chain gun of an Apache or, a few Hellfire missiles?

Stop the nonsense argue of being able to oppose government, you never were, you're not and never will. At least not with your guns.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DarkLightHitomi wrote:

Hitler for example is something very unlikely to occcur again, but if it did, how would we stop him? Throwing rocks? Oh, will the other nations bail us out when the second Hitler comes after the UN becomes the single Nation of the planet?

Hitler came once, he can come again, be prepared.

Hitler had the support of most of population including institutions like the police and the army.

If there was an equivalent in the US, Hitler had just sent police to arrest you, if not enough the army. Then they had killed you (despite your super-soldiers skills) and had turned your family to ashes is some death camp (not without keeping the hair of your wife to make pillows and the fat of your children to make soap).

You're like militia thinking they can oppose a Government. If Saddam army was lasting only a few days in front of US Army how many tenth of second a bunch of clowns with big guns and super-ego would last?
I know you want to keep it brand new for WWIII but use your brain!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DarkLightHitomi wrote:

Voting isn't power or authority, it is merely informing others of your opinion on a subject for the purpose of determining which option has the greater support.

Authority comes from the ability to force others, (the ability, and its use are two different things). There is legitimate authority, and illegitimate authority. Being legitimate doesn't make an authority a good thing.

Our ability to have weapons, secures our authority. Without weapons, we cannot enforce our votes. Without authority the government could act regardless of our votes, and do so without suffering any major consequences.

You should stop studying psychology and sociology, you're wasting both your time and money, you don't even have the meanest understanding of democracy, so trying to get a glimpse at how societies and psyche work is hopeless.

There is a country where many people think like you, it's Afghanistan. You've a tribal logic!
What if the government will decide to take-off your guns? You'll get a plane and crash it on a tower??

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Guy Humual wrote:
Notice anything about that list? Like how stabbing sprees don't seem to leave as many dead as shooting sprees?

I'm sure most if not all those supporting guns know how much the lethality of firearms improved over time and how much more dangerous than any kind of blade they are.

Most of them just feel powerful with a gun and powerless without, they're afraid they won't be able to confront the world without a firearm. They're so much afraid of agression that it took shape inside their mind, in their mind their agressors are always stronger so they need a gun to get a higher ground. They need a huge firepower to compensate their powerlessness.
They're always ready because they never feel safe.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Swashbuckler wrote:
Exactly 10,000? Wow, where'd you get that number?

I took a number that represent more or less the average number of victims according to National Institute of Justice.

Is it that important they were much more victims in 2009?? I think it's just too much.

Swashbuckler wrote:
Your other comment regarding what countries have "given back" weapons after WWII is so far out of context that I won't bother addressing it.

Only because you don't know enough about post-war life, firearms availability and how those countries fought it over several decades.

Swashbuckler wrote:
So ... maybe we should just ban people. That'd be easier to 'control', right?

Not including China (because I don't have any reliable figures about it) all the country you named are less violent than the USA, all have a lower crime rate. All have in common very restrictive firearms legislation, is it what you wanted to demonstrate? That the US should ban guns to see its crime rate reducing to the level observed in other civilized countries.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Besides I think society (the structure and general views and mores) has the largest effect on the consequences of a minimalist government. And that society would be the determinate factor in what kind of place it would become, the US society would quicky deteriorate, but something similar to japan wouldn't be as likely to do so (their society is more community driven which has HUGE advantages in a minimalist government) other factors are present of course, isolating them and learning how they interact is a challenge but is also very interesting.

Obviously Achileus-Riddick, the supreme US-supersoldier, wasn't going far enough in elementary school to understand the basic of a society.

In a society you give-up you capacity to use violence and, only the institutions, can use violence.

Why? Because if everyone interprete or enforce his/her own ways his/her own laws, it's anarchy and chaos. A world where might is right, just the opposite of a society.

That people need (or think they might need) gun for their safety is the sign of a failure of your institutions. So, find the way to correct it with both coercitive and social answers.
Will it be perfect, definitely not, but it will be better.

You think being armed is a protection against robbers? Then you forget one thing, they are also human and the main characteristic of humans is to adapt and overcome the menace. Arm everyone and civilians will be even more victims of criminals.

I'm from a European country where most of robbers gave themselves 10 min to enter and take anything valuable. Why aren't they armed (for most of them)? Because there's almost no chance they can get shot and, on the other hand, if they even threat someone with a weapon the potential consequence is a significantly longer prison term.
People lazy enough to steal to live are also lazy to struggle.
So believe it or not, they're not armed.

Which criminals are armed then? Drug dealers (to protect their stock from others drug dealers), mafia-like criminals to attack money transfer convoy, gang-style teenagers who are mainly killing each others (most often to control "their territory").

The more common people will be armed, the more criminals will be armed, the more everyone around will be a potential threat.
And a place where you've to potentially fight everyone is not a society anymore.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
DarkLightHitomi wrote:

Now that I think about it.

What do all you anti-gun people think I should do to defend myself? How would you act if a gunmen came to kill you and your friends while enjoying a day at the mall?

If the only choice is to be killed by a criminal or live in a world where everyone is thinking like you I definitely prefer to be dead!!

Your mind is more corrupted than any US government might ever be! You shouldn't even be given the right to carry a pop-up gun.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

What's strange over here is that most people agree that the available firepower is much higher than what any civilian might need, nonetheless just because you've "the right to" you don't want to redefine the level of an acceptable firepower even just to see if it can solve the problem.

You can't even give away what you don't use only to see if it will save some lives!

When you collect the explanations offered to support strictly the 2nd amendment it gives a strange picture of the US: a country where you can't trust the government, urban jungles filled of rapists and criminals, surrounded by a wilderness full a savage beasts and outlaws...

Some say there're not scarred but they picture a society that's frightening?
If it's so, why do you want to export your model beyond your borders?

All countries older than 236 years know that if you can't control human violence you've to control the tools that make that violence effective.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord Snow wrote:
I am guessing you are a white American male.

You're wrong, I'm from western Europe, don't think Nazi were only killing Jews, don't think Christians were not suffering. Don't forget people were risking their lives to protect Jewish families. Don't forget German disabled were the first to experience Nazi monstrosity.

You studied Holocaust so you know this.
If you know a bit about European history you know that war is never a long term positive issue. The problem is not that you're stronger than Palestinians, the problem is that you humiliate them and humiliated people are dangerous. Can you be sure you'll be forever the strongest?

Hamas will not survive a peace with Israel.
Without a war to hide its incompetence Hamas will loose all support from Palestinians very quickly.
If Israel makes peace (a real one), Hamas will make its best to end it and, if Israel is able to handle this bloody provocations Hamas will "disappear".

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Killer_GM wrote:
But how many people are asking questions about the direction of the culture of the USA, the breakdown of the American family and the effects of divorce on children and adolescents, the replacement of a religious based morality with that of a secular-progressive “morality” where overt religious life is ridiculed and belittled, the unbelievable rates of illegitimacy across all demographic groups & the problems of drug use & irresponsible sexual behaviors, the role of 1st person shooter video games on adolescents (or adults), the effects on individuals and the culture at large of music, television and movies that glorify and promote not only extreme violent behavior, but glorify it and remove any notion of consequences or responsibility from ones actions or choices.

We have all the same in Europe: divorce, religious morality ridiculed, etc... still we have four times less victims of gun violence!

Killer_GM wrote:
I am not inclined to fault ‘mental health’ on this. I perform psychological evaluations (for my job) on adolescents and adults who are incarcerated. I can show you thousands of clients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorders who don’t perform these type of attrocities. Evil people do them.

There is not such concept as evil in psychology and psychiatry. To name the murderer evil is just an excuse not to do anything to prevent another upcoming massacre. Be less a priest and more a scientist.

Killer_GM wrote:
He stole the guns he used from another law abiding citizen, (his mother, who had obtained those firearms legally and lawfully), whom he subsequently murdered with those very guns. How would more gun control laws have thwarted that? Unless you (or others) are talking about denying the shooter’s mother from obtaining/owning firearms in the first place. And that would clearly infringe on the law abiding citizens Right to use/own firearms under the 2nd amendment.

Then explain the parents (and those of the 10,000+ victims of guns every year) that those deaths are the rightful and acceptable price to pay to enjoy the 2nd amendment.

Even the best medicine has a killing ratio but it's acceptable for the benefits 99,9% enjoy. I can say so about (most) of medicine: "sorry for the victims but it's the price to pay".
Would you say the same concerning firearms ownership in the US??

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The 8th Dwarf wrote:
The French are happy because it annoys the US and the UK to be stuck anything that annoys the English and the Americans is a good thing.

I'm not sure French are happy as they lost soldiers in Afghanistan too.

France supported the US war against Talibans, considering it legitimate as Afghanistan was the training ground and HQ of Ben Laden. They provided the military support they could but after 10 years of war they decided to call back their troops.
Why? Because the US can't explain anymore what's the purpose of this war. The main part of the money is spend in military operations and very few for civilians. The coalition local allies are corrupted politicians and drug producers (more than 95% of the opium sold in the world comes from Afghanistan). All this is not going on the right track to achieve anything positive.
The result after 10 years of war is that the population is more and more considering the coalition troops as invaders making it easy for Talibans to recruit or get support.
As it's going nowhere France decided it's pointless to continue (and even the US think so).

Now, concerning the lack of back-up from France to the US, this wrong feeling started with the Iraq war (the second as France was taking part in the first). France opposed the US plan to attack Iraq for two main reasons:
1. There was no evidence Saddam Husein regime was linked to al-Qaida nor that they had an active weapons of mass destruction development program;
2. There was a risk to unbalance the geopolitical balance in the region, making it worse;

C.I.A. (not that much under french control) declared officially over the last years that Saddam Husein had no link with Ben Laden (dictators don't like to share power) and that he wasn't developping any program of WMD.
Moreso, without the threat of Iraq and the US completly busy with the war, Iran became the major power in the area and is, now, on the way to complete its nuclear program. This makes the region globally worse than before the war.

Most Americans prefer to consider France, who was telling them "don't go there" (for good reasons) was betraying them while considering people who told them "we've to go there" (for wrong reasons) are trustworthy...

If France was successful preventing the US to attack Iraq the world wouldn't be worse: all the efforts has been concentrated on Afghanistan (maybe solving the problems there), Iran had no free hands to develop its nuclear program and, more than 3,000 American soldiers had not lost their life there.

It's a point of view but I prefer friends trying to stop me before I make mistakes rather than people supporting me going farther in my mistakes.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Werthead wrote:
You've hit the nail on the head. And of course Mark Sweetman is right, al-Qaeda and Hamas are listed as terrorist organisations internationally, so you can see where the descriptor comes from.

I'd make a difference between al-Qaeda and Hamas even if both use terrorism.

Al-Qaeda as an international claim, using terror acts to oppose all muslims against all non-muslims (or the opposite whatever is faster) to end ruling over all muslims. Their political project is naive and not realistic (most probably real al-Qaida leaders know it) but like a sect the promise of an heavenly future helps the leaders to benefit of strong advantages on the behalf of the adepts.

Hamas on the other hand is a nationalist extremist organisation, using terrorism for territorial claim someway closer to what IRA or ETA was/is. It's a political force with a radical armed part.
Even if corrupted and not efficient, it's not to forget Hamas was elected by population of Gaza. For sure there was a bit of frauds but the main reason is that when Fatah was in charge, "negotiating" with Israel they were also under the bombs.

I think, considering the Hamas, the question terrorist/not terrorist is a detail as to make peace you've to deal with your enemy, whoever it is, and it's very very rare that you love your enemy and have no reasons to blame him.
Two major U.N. players (France and Russia) already made one step toward the recognition of Palestinia as a country. I think it's one step toward a solution. For sure the path is long and there'll be the border problems to solve but at least the identity claim will be solve. And maybe solving problems one by one a real and definitive solution will come out one day.

Is there any other option for Israel? If the IDF was the solution, the problem had been solved long time ago, isn't it??

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pendagast wrote:

I was one of the first people to say (and very unpopularly I might add) that 911 was no big deal, because people in Israel see that kind of devastation, attacks and deaths every year on their way to the grocery store.

When was the last time Israel got more than 3,000 victims (military or civilian) in a single year? Never?!?!...

Pendagast wrote:

That's what terrorism always is, and angry little child that can't get it's way, so It breaks something, or holds it's breath til it turns blue.

I think it's a little bit too simple way to look at asymetric war.

For sure terrorists are most often on the wrong side of history but when a stronger military force oppose a much weaker one, with a ground occupation, there's not many other solutions to resist but asymetric war.
The concept of terrorism is to keep pressure on occupation forces and make it more costly than beneficial.
Most of the time it's not working, making life only worse for occupied civilians...

Now about "the little child" if a much stronger country was occupying yours and refusing you even your own citizenship how would you react?? If that invading military force was killing members of your family because your neighbor was making something stupid (even criminal), how woud you react??

A significant part of terrorists are criminals or mentally insane but you can't resume asymetric combat to this.
After eradicating all resistance in Warsaw ghetto nazi found (among others) that sentence written on a wall:
"When you crush a bee in your hand it stings you. It stings you not because it expect to survive but if it wasn't stinging you all bees had disappeared a long time ago."

Israel is too strong to ever win against Palestinians because if you can win a war you can never win a slaughter.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Which country in the world would stand by when that happens? Just today, Tel Aviv was threatened by missiles [...]. I want you to imagine the U.S, for example, allowing a terrorist organization that can threaten New York (and even directly shoots at it) to exist."

I can understand your point of view being part of it but whatever is HAMAS you have to deal with them. You never have to make peace with your friends but with your enemies!
Your enemies means people you were fighting against, people you might still hate and wish dead but people you've to speak with... if you want to make peace.

Israel considers itself an exception on Earth, that's a pity...
French and Germans made peace. The German who burned a church where they gathered an entire village, the French who killed a million German soldiers during the first World War. Nonetheless they manage to make peace.

The USA dropped two atomic bombs over large cities in Japan, the same Japanese who spilled more Americans blood than HAMAS will ever toward Israel.
Nonetheless they managed to make peace.

In former Yougoslavia, Serbs and Bosnians slaughtered each others going as far as collecting the ears of the fallen as trophy or selling to each other the bodies of dead soldiers to be buried (speaking only of what I witnessed there).
Nonetheless they managed to make peace.

So why it's so different for Israel?? Why it's the only place on Earth where it's not possible?
The answer is very simple, because Israel is not interested in making peace.
Stupid?? I invite all of you to check carefully how many dead this "war" will make on each side, carefully.
I can already predict the final count between a hundred and a thousand for the Palestinians and between five and ten for Israelians.
Now ask yourself a question, even if Israel is a small country how many wars it can handle loosing ten to twenty soldiers in each of them?? Yes, a lot!
On the other hand Israel is getting a lot of support for being "at war", money and technology but also a strong advantage over its neighbors. Not to mention the guaranty of keeping its hands on all the settlements and Jerusalem.

So Israel will not make peace. Not as long as it'll be much more powerful than its adversaries. Not as long as "war" will cost Israel a few and bring a lot!
If you believe in God, just be thankful you were not born a Palestinian...