Subject:
|
Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 24 Jan 2007 18:10:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2866 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
Sorry, but “invasion” implies the insertion of a substantial military
presence into the target country for a protracted period without that
country’s explicit invitation.
|
Only because no other scenario was imagined.
So it would be your opinion that, if a scenario of terrorist attacks like 9-11
were somehow proposed to the FF, they wouldn’t include that form of violence in
their “invasion or rebellion” assertion?
And if these attacks become more frequent, at what point would you consider it a
“rebellion”? Or is it not a rebellion because it is perped by foreigners?
Seems to me that an attack on US soil by locals is rebellion; an attack by
foreigners on US soil is an invasion.
JOHN
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
| (...) Of course not--RW radio mentions it daily, every time they blame Clinton for 9/11. (...) Okay, so two attacks in a decade constitute an invasion? Sorry, but "invasion" implies the insertion of a substantial military presence into the target (...) (17 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
115 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
