• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Do you agree with the statement?

  • Yes

    Votes: 23 57.5%
  • No

    Votes: 17 42.5%

  • Total voters
    40
You really want me to define the difference between a few Muslim women wearing extra cloth and attempting to wipe out a group of people? REALLY?
Yes. That is exactly what I want.

I want you to tell me the difference between the murdering oppressors that 'cannot speak about freedom', and the murdering oppressors that CAN 'speak about freedom'.
 
Last edited:
**** that, if you really want me to define the difference between ethnic cleansing and a few extra cloths this discussion is not worth continuing.
 
Because it is a red herring.

No, it is absolutely pertinent. There was a similar movement previously to overthrow the tyranny of the Shah of Iran's regime. That led to the Ayatollah Khomeini and his version of Iran.

We may not like it but millions of Iranians chose their style of govt.
 
Agreed, there were atrocities on both sides during the early 20th Century - both by the IRA and by the British soldiers there.

I'm not as familiar with IRA brutality in the early 20th century. From all my readings on it, it appears that they mostly targeted the RIC and British magistrates, while typically avoiding civilian casualties, mostly using a guerilla campaign.

Admittedly, my studies on this subject have pretty much come from Irish sources, so I'm not denying that IRA attrocities occured, I'm just not very familiar with them.

Do you have any links or sources I could see describing the IRA attrocities in the early part of the 20th century?





BBC News | History | 1968-69: The troops are sent in


Yes, I've watched some of the "truth and reconciliation" hearings which Archbishop Desmond Tutu chaired. What you have to recognise is the IRA and that includes Sinn Fein had to apologise to legitimise their quest for parliamentary power. I'm glad they did - they had a bad history involving brutality within the catholic community - they controlled the drugs trade etc.

The IRA-drug stuff is pretty damned complicated. They had the Direct Action Against Drugs front that went around killing drug dealers and scared people away form dealing drugs. Some studies have claimed that the pIRA was a primary deterrent for drug use in Northern Ireland, and that their decreased activities after the ceasefire have been a contributing factor in Ireland's overall increase in drug use.

Groups like INLA were well known drug smugglers etc.

At the same time, it is well know that IRA operatives like Thomas "slab" Murphy were engaged in illegal smuggling and money Laundering operations.



However, you will find very few ex servicemen (myself included) who will talk of their call of service in Northern Ireland - we are still targets even though the IRA is no more involved in an up front campaign.

If you did a stint up in NI, my hat is off to you.



That's a rose tinted review of history I'm afraid. Of course the political leadership and others of nearly every terrorist group is kept away from the frontline atrocities and plans - that's the job of splinter cells and the way modern terror groups are organised.

I'm not saying that the pIRA was not a terrorist group overall. Any leaders that were involved with sanctioning terrorist acts would still be terrorists. The fact is that not every individual who was on the ground was engaging in terrorism.

I was talking about individuals who may have engaged in violence without ever targetting civilians.



I'm guessing your point is the British Army in Northern Ireland?

If you are guessing that I' saying that teh British Army was "the worst terrorist organization in Northern Ireland", I must say of course not. They are pretty much the only combatant group that didn't engage in terrorism as a tactic.

The British forces hold the very best civilian to combatant ratio of all the combatant groups in NI. Far better than the IRA. In this case, I was actually thinking of the UVF and the various Loyalist paramilitary groups as the "worst" of all the terrorist organizations in NI.(1019 total killings, 712 classified as civilians)



Now if you are guessing that I am calling the British army "combatants" and not civilians, I would say that yes they were. But I wasn't just calling the British Army the "combatants". The RUC and various paramilitary orginazations are all combatants as well.





Finally, I'm not saying that the pIRA was not a terrorist group as a whole. There is far too much evidence of civilian targeting to even try to play that game.

What I've been saying is that an individual's membership in the IRA alone is not enough to label that individual as a "terroist". It is true that some individual who were IRA members and did engage in violence, do not qualify as terrorists themselves because they would not target civilians.

One thing I'm not doing is trying to glorify the pIRA as a group of "freedom fighters". There were some members who actually were "freedom fighters" that did not engage in terroism, but the over-all group as a whole was still a terrorist organization because it did engage in terrorism.


The only "organization" that was involved in the whole thing that I would not lable as a terrorist group would be the British Army.
 
**** that, if you really want me to define the difference between ethnic cleansing and a few extra cloths this discussion is not worth continuing.
That's what I thought you' eventually do -- run away.

Your failure to carry your own water illustrates that even YOU understand your position that murderous theocratic oppressors, when fighting for the power to impose that murderous theocratic oppression upon others, can indeed be 'freedom fighters' is a sad, pathetic joke.

Tell me:
If the Taliban were Christians, would you hold the same position?
Or does your position cover only murderous, theocratic oppression in the name of Allah?
 
Last edited:
That's what I thought you' eventually do -- run away.

Your failure to carry your own water illustrates that even YOU understand your position that murderous theocratic oppressors, when fighting for the power to impose that murderous theocratic oppression upon others, can indeed be 'freedom fighters' is a sad, pathetic joke.

Tell me:
If the Taliban were Christians, would you hold the same position?
Or does your position cover only murderous, theocratic oppression in the name of Allah?

20 or 30 years ago, when they were fighting against "commies" (and armed by the USA), the Taliban were considered as "freedom fighters". The answer of the poll is yes.

+ http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...-man-s-freedom-fighter-33.html#post1057918633
 
If you're going to try to make a point, try to get your facts straight.
The Taliban came into being around 1993.

And then, at least TRY to address what I actually said.

...says the one who believed that there was a German resistance after the WWII :doh

1) you don't answer the second post
2) "n June 2001, one article mentions that “bin Laden worked closely with Saudi, Pakistani, and US intelligence services to recruit mujaheddin from many Muslim countries.” Context of '1986: Bin Laden Works Indirectly with CIA'
 
...says the one who believed that there was a German resistance after the WWII
I'm sorry -- you don't understand fully the nature of the example for the purposes of the discussion. There doesnt NEED to have actually been a Nazi resistance for the purpose it was used in this duscussion.

But, I will make you feel better and ask you a question you can better answer:
If there WERE such a thing, then would they be considered 'freedom fighters'?
If not, why not?

1) you don't answer the second post
2) "n June 2001, one article mentions that “bin Laden worked closely with Saudi, Pakistani, and US intelligence services to recruit mujaheddin from many Muslim countries.” Context of '1986: Bin Laden Works Indirectly with CIA'
What does this have to do with the Taliban not existing 20-30 years ago, and your therefore irrelevant statement referring to them as 'freedom fighters'?
 
20 or 30 years ago, when they were fighting against "commies" (and armed by the USA), the Taliban were considered as "freedom fighters"

Sorry bub, I think you may be wrong there - the mujahideen are not the same as the Taleban (AFAIK) - some mujahideen from the 1970's campaign against the Soviets probably did join the Taleban but they're not (IIRC) a direct translation of one group into a govt.
 
I'm sorry -- you don't understand fully the nature of the example for the purposes of the discussion. There doesnt NEED to have actually been a Nazi resistance for the purpose it was used in this duscussion.

:roll: there are hundreds of terrorist groups, why did you need to invent an example?

But, I will make you feel better and ask you a question you can better answer:
If there WERE such a thing, then would they be considered 'freedom fighters'?
If not, why not?

Maybe "freedom fighter" is not the most adequate term, but yes, because terrorism is not an ideology, it is simply a mode of warfare and political pressure used by people who don't have the army/influence to reach their political goal. Those who oppose it call them "terrorists" while those who support them call them "martyrs", "freedom fighter", "resistants"...

What does this have to do with the Taliban not existing 20-30 years ago, and your therefore irrelevant statement referring to them as 'freedom fighters'?

that doesn't affect the validity of my argument: the USA supported Islamic extremists against the Soviets, and now they call them "terrorists".

It was the same people (islamists, led by Bin Laden) doing the same thing. The big difference is that before it was against Communists, so it was good and the USA helped these "resistants", while now it is against Westerners, so it is bad and they are "terrorists"

Sorry bub, I think you may be wrong there - the mujahideen are not the same as the Taleban (AFAIK) - some mujahideen from the 1970's campaign against the Soviets probably did join the Taleban but they're not (IIRC) a direct translation of one group into a govt.

Indeed, it seems that you are right. But that doesn't affect the validity of my argument: the USA supported Islamic extremists against the Soviets, and now they call them "terrorists"
 
Last edited:
:roll: there are hundreds of terrorist groups, why did you need to invent an example?
Irrelevant.

Maybe "freedom fighter" is not the most adequate term, but yes, because terrorism is not an ideology, it is simply a mode of warfare and political pressure used by people who don't have the army/influence to reach their political goal. Those who oppose it call them "terrorists" while those who support them call them "martyrs", "freedom fighter", "resistants"...
I believe I already made the comment that terrorist could be fighting for freedom, but that a freedom fighter" MUST be fighting for freedom - actual freedom, not some purpose-built construction of the term.

that doesn't affect the validity of my argument: the USA supported Islamic extremists against the Soviets, and now they call them "terrorists"
As already noted, there's no direct corrolation or lineage between the two groups. Your argument isnt valid.
 
Irrelevant.

:roll:


I believe I already made the comment that terrorist could be fighting for freedom, but that a freedom fighter" MUST be fighting for freedom - actual freedom, not some purpose-built construction of the term.

It depends on what you call "freedom". If it is "freedom not to wear a Burqa", then no they are not freedom fighters, but it it is "freedom to chose our form of government", the answer is yes.


As already noted, there's no direct corrolation or lineage between the two groups. Your argument isnt valid.

Indeed, except that in both cases it was about islamists (including bin laden) fighting against a foreign army in afghanistan, there is no correlation or lineage between the two groups.
 
It depends on what you call "freedom". If it is "freedom not to wear a Burqa", then no they are not freedom fighters, but it it is "freedom to chose our form of government", the answer is yes.
You are confusing 'freedom' with 'power'. Figting for the power to oppress others is not fighting for freedom.

But, because I am a great guy, I will let YOU define it as whatever conditions must be in place for me to call yourself 'free'.

Would you be 'free' under, say, the Taliban?
 
:roll:

Right. Because Jefferson was all about time-bombing restaurants, and what he had in mind when he wrote that was maximizing civilian casualties.

This is patently absurd. There are rebels who use terrorist tactics. But not all rebels do. Our Founding Fathers did not. They were traitors to the Crown. But they were not terrorists.
Not in our eyes. Do you think that the Crown did not see them as terrorists?
 
Not in our eyes. Do you think that the Crown did not see them as terrorists?
Terrorism is a set of actions that meet a given critera.

That criteria usually involves deliberately attacking non-combatants in order to use fear as a means to a political end.

Unless someones' action meet that criteria, it doesnt matter who -calls- them a terrorist -- they are not.
 
Terrorism is a set of actions that meet a given critera.

That criteria usually involves deliberately attacking non-combatants in order to use fear as a means to a political end.

Unless someones' action meet that criteria, it doesnt matter who -calls- them a terrorist -- they are not.

The U.S. definition of Terrorism is:

(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;

That qualifies America. Go figure. :doh
 
Yeah. Right.
:roll:

Here, knowledge is a gift:

The Bay of Pigs Invasion (known as La Batalla de Girón in Cuba), was an unsuccessful attempt by a U.S.-trained force of American immigrants exiled from Cuba to invade southwest Cuba with support from U.S. government armed forces and overthrow the Cuban government of Fidel Castro.
The invasion—planned and funded by the United States government. John F. Kennedy assumed the presidency in the United States. The Cuban armed forces, trained and equipped by Eastern Bloc nations, defeated the invading force in a matter of days and the event accelerated a rapid deterioration in Cuban-American relations. This was exacerbated the following year by the Cuban Missile Crisis.
 
Here, knowledge is a gift:
One cannot give what one does not possess... unless one is a liberal creating a social program. :mrgreen:

The Bay of Pigs Invasion
And this is an example of US terrorism.... how?
 
And this is an example of US terrorism.... how?
Come on man, stop playing the fool. They funded and trained a group of subnationals for a covert invasion into Cuba... :doh

Nevertheless, days before the invasion, multiple acts of sabotage were carried out, such as the bombing of the El Encanto department store in Havana, desultory explosions, and arson. The Cuban government also had been warned by senior KGB agents Osvaldo Sánchez Cabrera and "Aragon", who died violently before and after the invasion, respectively.[13] The general Cuban population was not well informed, except for CIA funded Radio Swan.[14] As of May 1960, almost all means of public communication were in the government’s hands.[15][16]
 
Last edited:
Come on man, stop playing the fool. They funded and trained a group of subnationals for a covert invasion into Cuba... :doh
Your own source defeats you.

Nevertheless, days before the invasion, multiple acts of sabotage were carried out....
Sabotage is not in any way necessarily terrorism.
 
Back
Top Bottom