• 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
walleye said:
Islam is a religious-political culture. When a religion has the ability to make laws in society then it is much more than a religion.
Click to expand...

This could be said for other religions as well. ;)
 
Hatuey said:
Do you agree? Why? Why not?
Click to expand...

If Al-Qaida or Hamas were fighting for freedom I might agree with the statement.

They are, however, fighting for fascism, so I do not agree with the statement in its modern context.
 
There are some groups that you could make an academic argument for subjective treatment but in reality pretty much no entity regards them in any legitimate or positive way.

the Lords Resistance Army in Africa and I think increasingly the FARC in Colombia have pretty much been abandoned by any significant body of people.
 
Jerry said:
If Al-Qaida or Hamas were fighting for freedom I might agree with the statement.

They are, however, fighting for fascism, so I do not agree with the statement in its modern context.
Click to expand...

you could probably make a pretty good argument that Al Qaeda is trying to install theocratic totalitarianism, however fascism is not just a byword for totalitarianism, it's specific manifestation of totalitarianism.

Fascism is totally incompatible with Islamic totalitarianism for a lot of reasons, most important being fascism's nationalism (which is totally the opposite of Islamic totalitarianism's pan-nationalism) and fascism's enthusiastic acceptance of industrial modernity (versus Islamic totalitarianism's obsession with returning to pre-industrial antiquity).

Fascism does not simply mean "bad" or "totalitarian" and terms like "Islamofascism" are nothing but meaningless propaganda which not only confuses our battle with Islamic totalitarianism but degrades the meaning of fascism.

Fascism was a very distinct, and distinctly evil, thing. To dilute its meaning to "they're bad authoritarians" diminishes the lesson that their evil has taught us.
 
new coup for you said:
you could probably make a pretty good argument that Al Qaeda is trying to install theocratic totalitarianism, however fascism is not just a byword for totalitarianism, it's specific manifestation of totalitarianism.

Fascism is totally incompatible with Islamic totalitarianism for a lot of reasons, most important being fascism's nationalism (which is totally the opposite of Islamic totalitarianism's pan-nationalism) and fascism's enthusiastic acceptance of industrial modernity (versus Islamic totalitarianism's obsession with returning to pre-industrial antiquity).

Fascism does not simply mean "bad" or "totalitarian" and terms like "Islamofascism" are nothing but meaningless propaganda which not only confuses our battle with Islamic totalitarianism but degrades the meaning of fascism.

Fascism was a very distinct, and distinctly evil, thing. To dilute its meaning to "they're bad authoritarians" diminishes the lesson that their evil has taught us.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what your point here is.

Are you arguing that Islam is fighting for individual freedom?
 
walleye said:
He denied involvement in the plane incident. He is also fighting against tyranny so he is a freedom fighter. Hamas is fighting to instill tyranny.
Click to expand...

He denies? That is rich. He has admitted several bombings and attacks on civilian targets hence he is a terrorist, and you believe him when he denies he bombed the plane?

As for fighting tyranny.. is that justification for terror in your eyes? So when a Palestinian blows himself up in a bus, then that is justified because he is fighting a government that is oppressing him and his people?

As for Hamas. They were formed, along with the PLO and Hizbollah to fight against Israel because of Israel's oppression of the Palestinian people. The IRA was formed to fight against the British occupation of Northern Ireland. The French resistance was formed to fight against Nazi tyranny in France during WW2. According to your definition then all 3 are terrorist organisations, and yet the US supported 2 of them with money and weapons.

The OP words "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is 100% correct and the US actions prove it time and time again. They protected an admitted terrorist (by your and the US own definitions) and that is solely because the US views his actions as "fighting" Cuba and not terror. The US never made the IRA a terrorist organisation and continued to allow funding by its citizens because the citizens in question were a big political block and viewed the IRA as freedom fighters.
 
new coup for you said:
So maybe you (and Fox News) should stop saying that they're "fighting for fascism".
Click to expand...

You know, I was about to say something on how I don't work for Fox News, but then I realized that my avatar has a show on the Fox Business Network :2wave:

Islam does, yes it does, fight for fascism, and your objection to that fact has nothing to do with my point.

Islam does not fight for freedom so they cannot be equated in any way or regard to freedom fighters.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Islam does not fight for freedom so they cannot be equated in any way or regard to freedom fighters.
Click to expand...

Really?
Every fighter is fighting for freedom. It may not appear as freedom to you, probably because you have a highly horrid bias toward Islam, but to someone it is a fight for freedom. Your opinion, your existence, does not out-weight that of an Islamic fundamentalist; i'm sorry to inform you that the world is not meant for humans, but for the cultivation of germs by the Tramalafordores.
 
Jerry said:
You know, I was about to say something on how I don't work for Fox News, but then I realized that my avatar has a show on the Fox Business Network :2wave:

Islam does, yes it does, fight for fascism, and your objection to that fact has nothing to do with my point.

Islam does not fight for freedom so they cannot be equated in any way or regard to freedom fighters.
Click to expand...

They aren't fascists!

Fascism is even atheistic, the complete opposite of the Islamist!

Reread my post, and repeat after me: fascism is a form of totalitarianism, not the only form of totalitarianism.

Al Qaeda has absolutely nothing to do with fascism. At all. In anyway.

Totally unrelated.

That doesn't make Al Qaeda any less bad, but they are not fascists.

Fascism doesn't mean "someone who doesn't believe in democracy", it's a distinct (anti-democratic) political system.

Was King George a "fascist"? He didn't believe in democracy. No, he was a monarchist.

Was Lenin a "fascist"? He didn't believe in democracy (at least our concept of it). No, he was a communist.

Was Calvin a "fascist"? He didn't believe in democracy. No, he was an authoritarian theocrat (much like Al Qaeda).

Words have actual meanings.
 
Last edited:
new coup for you said:
They aren't fascists!

Fascism is even atheistic, the complete opposite of the Islamist!

Reread my post, and repeat after me: fascism is a form of totalitarianism, not the only form of totalitarianism.

Al Qaeda has absolutely nothing to do with fascism. At all. In anyway.

Totally unrelated.

That doesn't make Al Qaeda any less bad, but they are not fascists.

Fascism doesn't mean "someone who doesn't believe in democracy", it's a distinct (anti-democratic) political system.

Was King George a "fascist"? He didn't believe in democracy. No, he was a monarchist.

Was Lenin a "fascist"? He didn't believe in democracy (at least our concept of it). No, he was a communist.

Was Calvin a "fascist"? He didn't believe in democracy. No, he was an authoritarian theocrat (much like Al Qaeda).

Words have actual meanings.
Click to expand...

......man just doesn't know when he's being trolled...... :2razz:
 
bull****, rightwingers are completely serious when you use terms like "Islamofascist" and I just indefensibly called you out on it.

You're wrong. Don't call them fascists.

Because they're not.

Next will be a lesson on how a social democrat is not a socialist.
 
Arch Enemy said:
Really?
Every fighter is fighting for freedom. It may not appear as freedom to you, probably because you have a highly horrid bias toward Islam, but to someone it is a fight for freedom. Your opinion, your existence, does not out-weight that of an Islamic fundamentalist; i'm sorry to inform you that the world is not meant for humans, but for the cultivation of germs by the Tramalafordores.
Click to expand...

I like how you're trying to change the topic from what radical Islam is fighting for to my personal credibility. It's a good attempt at trolling, but fails in its transparency.

You see new coupe, that's how you deal with trolls: call them out instead of feeding them. I like to counter toll troll, like when I make a point that Al-Qaida is not fighting for freedom and therefore the OP's comparison doesn't apply and you start down some tangent on how I mislabeled Al-Qaida while totally ignoring the point I made.

Yes, I just called you a troll, and a weak one at that :2razz:

Now if you can dispense with these sidetracks may we please debate the issue at hand?
 
Jerry said:
Islam does not fight for anyone's freedom.

Islam fights to bring about Armageddon and a resulting global theocracy.
Click to expand...

I think those muslims that are fighting the Taliban in Pakistan and Afganistan would object to that statement :roll: Also bear in mind that if all 1 billion odd Muslims in the world were *all* fighting for the same cause then we would be in the middle of ww3. The war on terror has really been quite tame so far in comparision to much of the conflict in the 20th century.
 
new coup for you said:
bull****, rightwingers are completely serious when you use terms like "Islamofascist" and I just indefensibly called you out on it.
Click to expand...

I'm not a republican, btw.

new coup for you said:
You're wrong. Don't call them fascists.
Click to expand...

They're all faciasts. The whole lot of them :2razz:

new coup for you said:
Because they're not.
Click to expand...

Even though they are.

new coup for you said:
Next will be a lesson on how a social democrat is not a socialist.
Click to expand...

Whoohoo, another tangent that has NOTHING to do with the thread :mrgreen:
 
Red_Dave said:
I think those muslims that are fighting the Taliban in Pakistan and Afganistan would object to that statement :roll: Also bear in mind that if all 1 billion odd Muslims in the world were *all* fighting for the same cause then we would be in the middle of ww3. The war on terror has really been quite tame so far in comparision to much of the conflict in the 20th century.
Click to expand...

I think those Muslims that are fighting the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan would read the part where I'm speaking about Al-Qaida, Hamas and "radical Islam".

You're another troll to add to the collection.
 
Jerry said:
I think those Muslims that are fighting the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan would read the part where I'm speaking about Al-Qaida, Hamas and "radical Islam".

You're another troll to add to the collection.
Click to expand...
You didn't seem to mention "radical Islam" in any of your posts, instead just using basic generalizations:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057916644-post182.html
http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057916678-post187.html

Here comes the trolling label. I noticed that when he got smacked in the face with his use of the term Islamic facism.
 
PeteEU said:
And yet you have no problem supporting their cause, and their fund raising in the US even to this day? Is that not a bit hypocritical? Or do you support the Palestinian movement to be free of Israeli oppression?
Click to expand...

You missread my statemnt. I said in refering to the IRA "I had sympathy for the IRA's cause of freedom. But there tactic of purposefully targeting civilians was unacceptable. They were terrorist."

The IRA were terrorist. There goal was not the destruction of Britain and the death of all Brits. There goal was freedom for Ireland.

Hamas stated goal is the destruction of Israel and to drive all Israelis into the sea. They use terrorist tactics to achieve this goal. They will not settle for two nation states. Hamas uses tactics with the intent to kill civilians. They are a terrorist organization just as the IRA was a terrorist organization.
 
Hatuey said:
Do you agree? Why? Why not?
Click to expand...

Does it matter? One man's thief is another man's good father. One man's criminal is another man's survivor. There is enemy and non-enemy. Playing around with philosophical meaning and understanding does not address these issues. There's wrong and right.

And the idea that these terrorists, who are not seeking "freedom" for even their own people, are somehow "freedom" fighters, is beyond ludicrous. And this is largely a leftist's argument. It only leads to an outcry for legitimacy towards people who have proven to be more than capable of slaughtering their own people for their ideals, which is not "freedom."
 
SgtRock said:
The IRA were terrorist. There goal was not the destruction of Britain and the death of all Brits. There goal was freedom for Ireland.
Click to expand...


You are describing a very real category of terrorist. People pass off the notion that a terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist, but this is ignorant. What you described above is considered a "PRACTICAL" Terrorist. He can be dealt with and talked to because he seeks a worldy agenda for the betterment of his people. His goals are attainable. An "APOCALYPTIC" terrorist cannot be reasoned with. His goal is to punish and his reward is beyond this world. Most religious terrorists in history fall into this category. They are dreamers and impractical vionaries. Put simply, these types have to be put down.

In dealing with these enemies, we have to able to identify what we are talking about in order to determine the best path. When we talk of "PRACTICAL" terrorists, the term "freedom" fighter can apply. When we are talking about "APOCALYPTIC" Terrorist, we must consider his goal and acknowledge that "freedom" isn't it.
 
Jerry said:
I like how you're trying to change the topic from what radical Islam is fighting for to my personal credibility. It's a good attempt at trolling, but fails in its transparency.

You see new coupe, that's how you deal with trolls: call them out instead of feeding them. I like to counter toll troll, like when I make a point that Al-Qaida is not fighting for freedom and therefore the OP's comparison doesn't apply and you start down some tangent on how I mislabeled Al-Qaida while totally ignoring the point I made.

Yes, I just called you a troll, and a weak one at that :2razz:

Now if you can dispense with these sidetracks may we please debate the issue at hand?
Click to expand...

Well when I said you, I really meant the collective you. I have no qualms with you Jerry, you just so happen to be the one I was referring to.

My point, which was in my post as well, is that in the eyes of every fighter they are fighting freedom from or for or to something. Whether it's the political sovereignty our fore-fathers fought for, the freedom of the restrictions of Earth which religious extremists fight for. But overly, the main thing people fight for is the freedom to choose. The freedom to choose whether they want a theocracy, or a democracy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom