View Poll Results: Do you agree with the statement?

Voters
53. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    29 54.72%
  • No

    24 45.28%
Page 34 of 40 FirstFirst ... 243233343536 ... LastLast
Results 331 to 340 of 399

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

  1. #331
    R.I.P. Léo
    bub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    05-17-12 @ 01:54 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    9,649

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by bub View Post
    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/...post1057918633

  2. #332
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

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

    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.

  3. #333
    R.I.P. Léo
    bub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    05-17-12 @ 01:54 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    9,649

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    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

    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'

  4. #334
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

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

    Quote Originally Posted by bub View Post
    ...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'?

  5. #335
    Sage
    Infinite Chaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:25 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,357

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

    Quote Originally Posted by bub View Post
    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.

  6. #336
    R.I.P. Léo
    bub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    05-17-12 @ 01:54 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    9,649

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    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.
    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"

    Quote Originally Posted by Infinite Chaos View Post
    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 by bub; 02-10-09 at 02:46 PM.

  7. #337
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

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

    Quote Originally Posted by bub View Post
    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.

  8. #338
    R.I.P. Léo
    bub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    05-17-12 @ 01:54 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    9,649

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Irrelevant.



    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.

  9. #339
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

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

    Quote Originally Posted by bub View Post
    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?

  10. #340
    Sage
    First Thought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    DFW, Texas
    Last Seen
    12-01-10 @ 02:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    6,218

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post


    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?
    "An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it." - Gandhi

Page 34 of 40 FirstFirst ... 243233343536 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •