It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: putnam6
Again the Battle of Britain was a brilliant DEFENSE.
Lets try you with this one.
The Battle Of Narvik. Half of Hitlers naval destroyers eliminated in the first few months of the war. Meaningful ?
originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MisguidedAngel
So how does hitting a strategic target, aka a bridge that allows resupply, in occupied territory, amount to a terror attack?
originally posted by: MisguidedAngel
originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MisguidedAngel
So how does hitting a strategic target, aka a bridge that allows resupply, in occupied territory, amount to a terror attack?
Because it's civilian infrastructure. Regardless of what occasionally gets transported over the bridge, civilians (Crimeans), supposed Ukrainian citizens, are traveling over this bridge at all hours of the day and night.
Ukraine should not be attacking civilian infrastructure when their supposed own citizens are travelling on it.
originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: nickyw
Respectfully if we had been beaten during the Battle of Britain, and without the RAF to defend our skies, and protect our sea lanes, what was to stop the German Luftwaffe from indiscriminately bombing the nation from one end of the isle to the other?
Germany did not need to invade if they gained air superiority, combined with the U-boat fleets they had, they could have starved the nation to death and brought her to her knees within a few months.