Bro. The reason I didn't answer your question is because I already answered it in my first statement. If you actually read it, I said, "tanks etc are very effective against groups out in the open". Then you proceed to ask me, "yeah but how effective were the taliban in a group out in the open?" obviously not very effective because I already just said that. That's why I say you are walking around with your eyes closed because you completely ignored everything I said and asked me about the point I already conceded.

Also my argument is not inconsistent. It does not matter if there is 92 different governments with different believes or anything like that. Vietnam, the french during world war 2, the taliban, Cuba, the list goes on. Small arms is devastating to an "accompanying army". Even a ww2 german soldier was quoted saying that things would've been different if the citizens they went to secret arrest had waited in ambush for them with fire pokers, and that's not even guns, which are far more effective.

You are right that if the government knows where an attack is going to come from it can stop that attack, because they have soldiers and tanks and all that. But when it does not know when or where an attack is going to come, there is very little that it can do and it will take significant damage.

You say my position is fragile and yet you attempted to attack the one point I already agreed on and completely ignored every single other point that I made that completely destroys your argument. This is the typical tactic of someone with a weak argument is to try and find 1 singular weak point to try and attack and ignore all the rest because you know you can't win.

I don't quite get what point you are expecting to make with the argument "they did not launch any big scale attack" ?

They won the war, why would the scale of their attacks matter ?