This guy comes on answers a question of mine about why a weak enemy would attack a powerful one and he says THE WEAKER is the one WHO Was ATTACKED??? If thats so explain 911., we were attacked here BY WEAKER enemies and we are the MORE POWERFUL one. It is not true that the ''weaker'' is the one who was attacked. correct?
2007-10-21 13:58:37 · 11 answers · asked by kf 3 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
You are correct. Ordinarily, nations size up their militaries when considering warfare action. Or, in the case of WW II and Hitler, he devised a type of warfare (Blitzkrieg) that other nations were not prepared for. But I think, in the case of the extremists/terrorists, it's not a case of strong and weak. It's a case of one oppressive idealism claiming a victory over a culture they disapprove of. Regardless of how small and inconsequential the victory, a victory just the same. In addition, these attacks further fuel their cause, which helps to unite them as a group.
2007-10-21 14:15:09 · answer #1 · answered by Derail 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that the weaker one is the one who attacks. That is the one who needs to make up for something that is lacking in their life, and the only way they feel they can do that is through force.
2007-10-21 21:02:28 · answer #2 · answered by rjallmon 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes they are weaker in manpower then us, but they obviously got a more determined motivation to do bad, then we had to protect our country because they got us. However it has nothing to do with weaker or stronger. They were a cunning enemy and who would have guessed the U.S would be attacked on it's own soil. But yes they are a weaker people then us; in terms of military and manpower.
2007-10-21 21:03:36 · answer #3 · answered by Luvon 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
This is very vague.
The complete reasoning behind the 9/11 attacks is unclear, and may never be made clear, but some suggest that the 9/11 attacks were a retaliation for a series of incursions that have occurred overseas as part of America's "Foreign Policy."
It's very hard, in this instance, to qualify who "drew first blood."
2007-10-21 21:02:58 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
if they attacked us, then wouldn't that make us weaker, and actually weaker is not the word, unprepared explains it all a little bit better.
2007-10-21 21:02:39 · answer #5 · answered by ZaQ 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
we are only more powerful because of the technology we have..if we didnt have the technology that we do we would be weak..and even with the technology we dont have as much power as everyone thinks..thats just my opinion not tryin to start any trouble or anything
2007-10-21 21:07:34 · answer #6 · answered by metal_is_forever99 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
True. There is no correlation between strength and who attacks or is attacked. It is more a case of who is more aggressive or desperate.
2007-10-21 21:22:08 · answer #7 · answered by Nothingusefullearnedinschool 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Obviously this dude meant (in his own mind) that we are "spiritually weaker", or morally weaker.
Personal opinions are a dime dozen.
Was he correct?
In my opinion...no.
2007-10-21 21:07:27 · answer #8 · answered by Chaz 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
the only way to explain nine eleven is that a group of raghead zealots crashed planes into building that were designed NOT to fall down, but did anyway.
2007-10-21 21:03:03 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
agreed if you already have power over someone why would you need to attack them
2007-10-21 21:02:03 · answer #10 · answered by michaelyodepi 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋