If America was occupied by a foreign army, would you resort to terrorism to take it back?

Question

Here's the scenario: The international community decides America is a threat to world peace, and is in major need of a regime change. America is defeated militarily and occupied. The occupiers seek to change our government into a more "safer" one.

Would you resist the occupation? Would you resort to "terrorism" (In the eyes of the occupiers)to take it back?? Would beheadings, suicide bombings, attacking civilians, be out of the question for you??? How much do you love your country?

Or....would you trust the occupiers and adopt their government system?

Don't waste your time assuming and attacking my position on this issue. I am interested in YOUR opinion; without the spin, of course.......

Please remember: what you may consider guerrilla or resistance activities, will most likely be considered "terrorism" by the occupiers.....

After 22 questions, it seems some of us are incapable of answering this without some spin. You hear that, turboweegie!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 1

I would join the Partisans and fight the Army of Occupation

Answer 2

I believe that all men and women are capable of determining right and wrong, good and evil. If the US was defeated, and since the US has generally good and right policies, I would have to assume it was defeated by a power who had the opposite attributes of wrong and evil.

As such, I don't think it would be correct to consider anything done to defeat this enemy as "terrorism".

I am certain there are many who would jump on this assertion as "the same thing that's going on in Iraq" or name several other current hot spots. The VAST difference if what I stated in the opening. You can not judge a rouge group of individuals, or even a rouge country who cares not of it's people and not for the general health and welfare of it's citizens in the same light you would judge the United states, GB, Australia, or dozens of other countries.

If the object of desire for a country is to rule it's people, impose it's ideology, deny personal liberty and crush all resistance---then by that very definition, it is they who would be the terrorists.

Answer 3

Depends.

If the Dems finally got control back and took us down their path to Socialist/Nazi/Stalinist hell, oppressing people with their dictatorial rule, then I'd have welcomed an invasion to overthrow them and return us to a Constitutional republic with limited government.

If you're trying to make some moral equivalence type thing with Iraq, then you need to also include that our government was dictatorial and tyrannical, was responsible for rape, torture and murder of innocent civilians, had used WMD against citizens, had invaded other countries for no reason, backed terrorism, etc.

You see, your scenario is flawed. It is based on an impossible hypothetical. And omits key assumptions that would make it comparable to Iraq.

But, no, I would not indiscriminately blow up people, behead innocent people, or engage in terrorism. Only gay goatfuckers would do that - just like in the real world.

If I had a problem, I would attack the invaders using guerilla tactics. But terrorism - that's for scumbags.

Answer 4

Of course I would resist the occupation. That being said, I think that your stated scenario is a little closer to the truth than most Americans are willing to admit. I love my country, just not the current administration. I do not think that changing our style of government is the answer however, especially under the thumb of outside forces.

Answer 5

yes, I would fight til death. I would kill to protect my America. If I were a Bush supporter I would also be in Iraq now. Fighting for Bush. Some like to talk the talk but do not walk the walk.
After all America is what it is because of the choice between liberty or death. To me that choice is simple, I will not serve blindly. I will not follow blindly. If say China were to invade from say Mexico, I would fight. BTW, did you know China has 20 times more tanks then the USA and China has a one million man Army. They could invade with half that number.

Answer 6

IT is simple to say what one would do .
YES i would resist the occupation .
This also means killing the supporters and people who aide the invaders .
IF you are not actively fighting them you are complicate in the occupation and part of the problem .
THIS means people who serve them food .
IF the captian of a unit got his coffe at McDonalds in the morning you can bet blowing him up at the drive thru window makes a better statement then waiting for him to clear the building and all so called civillians .
EVERYONES life is at stake and those who do not resist are part of the problem .
YOU can only conquer the willing .

Answer 7

the genuine question is , what might each and all of the those that say we could continually ban weapons or do no longer own weapons might do. they might die or connect with the invaders. that's a shame, yet that's certainty. As for me and mine.... compliment tha Lord and bypass the Ammunition.....I surely have been inventory piling what My family individuals will could final for a on an identical time as till we are able to commence raiding the shops for what we run out of. that's the way it is going to go, each and each to his own. The cities stands out as the 1st to fall, however the agricultural aspects will carry out and repel the invaders. The police would be no help, in basic terms seem what handed off in N.O. after Katrina. The law enforcement officials the place the biggest concern down there. discover ways to stay off the land as that's the only thank you to make by using.

Answer 8

Here's the difference. I'd be out there attacking the occupiers. I'd not be blowing up American citizens just for the heck of it. I would be doing everything possible to not put neighbors and innocence at risk due to my activities. I can't guarantee that innocent civilians might not get hurt in the process, but I WOULD NOT BE TARGETING THEM! That is the difference between a terrorist and a rebel/patriot.

Answer 9

I wouldn't if this "force" tried to reinstate a democratic republic, which is pretty much a great form of government. We need to go back to what our founding fathers wanted...there is too much corruption and bureaucracy in the current government. However, if the "force" began to "re-governise" America into something other than democracy, I would be mad. I would fight for the only beacon of democracy and hope on this planet!!!

Answer 10

Your question leaves out the question of who are the good guys and who are the bad guys. America is a force for good in the world, and that's an undeniable fact of life. So, any action we citizens undertake to defend our country would not be "terrorism" by definition.

Answer 11

Remember, there's a very big difference between guerilla warfare and terrorism. Would I fight as a guerilla, attacking rear areas and not waging set-piece battles? You bet. Would I hide in crowds of women and children and set bombs in crowded market places or mass transportation? Absolutely not.

Psyops against enemy forces? Yes. Televised beheadings of random "collaborators"? No.

That's what separates us from the bad guys.