If you are fighting...

Goobieman · Feb 10, 2009

creativedreams said:
Am I off base?

If you are asking if you've addressed the question in the poll, then then answer is no.

jamesrage · Feb 10, 2009

Goobieman said:
...for the power to create a murderous, oppressive, theocratic government, are you fighting for freedom?

If not, then can you be a 'freedom fighter'?

Please explain your answers.

I answered "no,no". A a murderous, oppressive, theocratic government is not freedom,therefore they are not freedom fighters. The only people who use the "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" line are Eurotrash and anti-american scum.

First Thought · Feb 10, 2009

Goobieman said:
...for the power to create a murderous, oppressive, theocratic government, are you fighting for freedom?

If not, then can you be a 'freedom fighter'?

Please explain your answers.

Holy unadulterated bias, batman.

First Thought · Feb 10, 2009

jamesrage said:
I answered "no,no". A a murderous, oppressive, theocratic government is not freedom,therefore they are not freedom fighters. The only people who use the "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" line are Eurotrash and anti-american scum.

...and only the ignorant make such silly blanket statements.

Joby · Feb 11, 2009

Tucker Case said:
One question, and it is highly pertinent:

Are the people fighting being prevented from self-determination by the current regime? i.e. Are they not given a vote/voice in the current government?

Yes, this is the heart of the matter.

The Mujahideen and Taliban were freedom fighters in the sense that they were trying to remove the Soviet Union from their nation. One can argue that the bull**** govt under Karzai is for freedom, but that's naive.

Arch Enemy · Feb 11, 2009

If you are fighting for an oppressive theocracy, and your intent is (once you've won) to oppose your will on everyone, then "yes" you still are fighting for A FREEDOM.

You are fighting for the freedom/power impose you will on another. Thus, you are a freedom fighter.

Goobieman · Feb 11, 2009

Arch Enemy said:
If you are fighting for an oppressive theocracy, and your intent is (once you've won) to oppose your will on everyone, then "yes" you still are fighting for A FREEDOM.

You are fighting for the freedom/power impose you will on another. Thus, you are a freedom fighter.

I didnt ask if you were fighting for 'a' freedom, but freedom, period.

Fighting for the power to oppress others isnt fighting for freedom.

Goobieman · Feb 11, 2009

Joby said:
The Mujahideen and Taliban were freedom fighters in the sense that they were trying to remove the Soviet Union from their nation.

The Taliban did not exist until the mid 90s.

bub · Feb 11, 2009

Goobieman said:
The Taliban did not exist until the mid 90s.

these were the same people doing the same thing in the same place, but since now they attack the USA they are evil terrorists.

Goobieman · Feb 11, 2009

bub said:
these were the same people doing the same thing in the same place, but since now they attack the USA they are evil terrorists.

As noted eslewhere, there's no direct link between the entities.
Your correlation here is unsound.

Infinite Chaos · Feb 11, 2009

Goobieman said:
Tucker Case said:

One question, and it is highly pertinent:

Are the people fighting being prevented from self-determination by the current regime? i.e. Are they not given a vote/voice in the current government?

Click to expand...

Not sure how that matters?
The system they want to install is murderous and oppressive; these things on their own create an antithesis to freedom.

There are lots of problems with your premise Goobieman but until the system is installed and proven to be murderous and oppressive - we're making assumptions. Anyhow - I'm going with Tucker Case on this - if the people fighting or using terror as a tactic are prevented from self determination - which includes the right to choose whatever form of govt they want or have any say in the choice of or vote in the Govt they are fighting for their freedom to make those choices.

You're trying to put our moral disgust or reprehension of all things Islam on a question that is beyond Islam and partisan politics.

jamesrage said:
The only people who use the "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" line are Eurotrash and anti-american scum.

Here's a case in point. Suddenly you are "Eurotrash" or "anti-American scum" if you disagree with jamesrage. Pretty convincing argument by the above poster by the way. :rofl

bub · Feb 11, 2009

Goobieman said:
As noted eslewhere, there's no direct link between the entities.
Your correlation here is unsound.

Indeed, no direct link except that it was the same people* doing the same thing in the same place

(*OBL anyone?)

Oh look at that, it's funny what you can find on internet:

The main base station of mujahideen in Pakistan was the town Badaber, 24 km from Peshawar. Afghanistan mujahideen were trained in the Badaber base under supervision by military instructors from the U.S.A., Pakistan, and the Republic of China .The base served as the concentration camp for Soviet and DRA captives as well. In 1985, the uprising of captives destroyed the base, but the incident was concealed by Pakistani and Soviet governments until the dissolution of the USSR.

Ronald Reagan praised mujahideen as "freedom fighters", and four mainstream Western films, the 1987 James Bond film The Living Daylights, the 1988 action films Rambo III, The Beast and the 2007 biographical movie Charlie Wilson's War, portrayed them as heroic.

Under direct instructions from Director of Central Intelligence William Casey, the CIA initiated programs for training Afghans in techniques such as car bombs and assassinations and in engaging in cross-border raids into the USSR

Soviet war in Afghanistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Goobieman · Feb 11, 2009

bub said:
Indeed, no direct link except that it was the same people* doing the same thing in the same place

Look... if you cannot get past the fact that the Taliban is not the descendant of the Mujahadeen, there's no sense in continuing the conversation.

bub · Feb 11, 2009

Goobieman said:
Look... if you cannot get past the fact that the Taliban is not the descendant of the Mujahadeen, there's no sense in continuing the conversation.

what's the difference between

1) islamists fighting in afghanistan in 1985*
2) islamists fighting in afghanistan in 2005**

(* A Mujahid (Arabic: مجاهد, muǧāhid, literally "struggler") is a Muslim involved in a jihad, who is fighting in a war )
Mujahideen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(** Taliban (Pashto: طالبان ṭālibān, also anglicised as Taleban; translation: "students") is a Sunni Islamist)

The Talibans are a sort of Mujahideen.

oh and look at that one, that's from Reagan

To watch the courageous Afghan freedom fighters battle modern arsenals with simple hand-held weapons is an inspiration to those who love freedom. Their courage teaches us a great lesson -- that there are things in this world worth defending.

To the Afghan people, I say on behalf of all Americans that we admire your heroism, your devotion to freedom, and your relentless struggle against your oppressors.

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1983/32183e.htm

Goobieman · Feb 11, 2009

bub said:
what's the difference between

Let me know when you've finally admitted to yourself that you're wrong.

bub · Feb 11, 2009

Goobieman said:
Let me know when you've finally admitted to yourself that you're wrong.

Look, it was funny to defeat you about
- the "german resistance after WWII"
- the freedom fighters

but now it gets a bit repetitive, especially because you never admit when you're wrong. Instead you just skip the arguments that defeat you and focus on something unimportant: even if it was not the same people, there would still be no difference and you would still be defeated again.

Infinite Chaos · Feb 11, 2009

bub said:
--The Talibans are a sort of Mujahideen --

Bub, I'm sorry but that's about as close as the history shows. They are two different groups - you could even say the Taleban defeated the Mujahideen. While you are right the mujahideen of the 80's were praised by Reagan and Osama Bin Laden was a US ally the group that became the "Taleban" is very different as far as I can recall.

You'll find that the "mujahideen" are different in most parts of the world but the Taleban can (I think) only loosely be called a version of the mujahideen that took on the Soviets.

Goobieman · Feb 11, 2009

bub said:
Look, it was funny to defeat you about...

Dream on pally. You haven't been right about any of those things.
You know it, you just dont have the intellectual honesty to admit it.

See, what you refuse to understand is:
1: Its doesnt matter who calls someone a freedom fighter, if they aren't
2: Freedom fighters can use terrorism and stll be freedom fighters
3: The Taliban is NOT the descendant of the Mujahadeen; the groups fought for entirely different reasons.

So, since you seem to think that font size and color count more toard the validity of a point than being factually correct, I will say again:

Let me know when you've finally admitted to yourself that you're wrong.

bub · Feb 11, 2009

Infinite Chaos said:
Bub, I'm sorry but that's about as close as the history shows. They are two different groups - you could even say the Taleban defeated the Mujahideen. While you are right the mujahideen of the 80's were praised by Reagan and Osama Bin Laden was a US ally the group that became the "Taleban" is very different as far as I can recall.

You'll find that the "mujahideen" are different in most parts of the world but the Taleban can (I think) only loosely be called a version of the mujahideen that took on the Soviets.

"Mujahideen" is a word reffering to any Islamist fighter: you find "mujahideens" in Chechnya etc...it just means "someone who takes part in the Jihad"

"Taliban" are also Islamist fighters, so they are also "Mujahideens". They fought against other islamists, but they are also islamists, and some of them fought against both the USSR and the USA, like Bin Laden.

It's like "soldiers" and "US soldiers": US soldiers fought against (german) soldiers during the WWII, but they are still soldiers

Goobieman · Feb 11, 2009

Infinite Chaos said:
Bub, I'm sorry but that's about as close as the history shows. They are two different groups - you could even say the Taleban defeated the Mujahideen. While you are right the mujahideen of the 80's were praised by Reagan and Osama Bin Laden was a US ally the group that became the "Taleban" is very different as far as I can recall.

You'll find that the "mujahideen" are different in most parts of the world but the Taleban can (I think) only loosely be called a version of the mujahideen that took on the Soviets.

This is the SECOND time you've told him this.
His ignorance on this point is clearly willfull.

Goobieman · Feb 11, 2009

bub said:
"Mujahideen" is a word reffering to any Islamist fighter: you find "mujahideens" in Chechnya etc...it just means "someone who takes part in the Jihad"

How lame.

When referring to the Mujahadeen in the context of this threat, you're referring to a SPECIFIC group of people -- a goup specific to a time, place, population and goal.

You cannot then use the term in its generic sense to also then refer to the Taliban, an organization that differ in time, population and goal.

Pathetically desperate of you to try.

bub · Feb 11, 2009

Goobieman said:
Dream on pally. You haven't been right about any of those things.
You know it, you just dont have the intellectual honesty to admit it.

says the one who believed that there was a nazi resistance after WWII

See, what you refuse to understand is:
1: Its doesnt matter who calls someone a freedom fighter, if they aren't

well that was the answer of your poll: you asked if "if you're fighting for the power to create a murderous, oppressive, theocratic government, are you fighting for freedom?
If not, then can you be a 'freedom fighter'?"

My answer is that US president Reagan considers that YES, if you're a Jihadist using terrorist methods in your fight against communists you are a freedom fighter.

2: Freedom fighters can use terrorism and stll be freedom fighters

where did I disagree with that?

3: The Taliban is NOT the descendant of the Mujahadeen; the groups fought for entirely different reasons.

Both are Islamists and fight to introduce the Sharia in Afghanistan, but let's say that they are unrelated (which is false: Bin Laden was both) => what would be the difference? Don't they use the same tactics? What would make the first group "freedom fighters" and the others "terrorists"? Just because you don't like the commies?

So, since you seem to think that font size and color count more toard the validity of a point than being factually correct, I will say again:

I can write bigger than you

bub · Feb 11, 2009

Goobieman said:
His ignorance on this point is clearly willfull.

Goobieman said:
How lame.

Pathetically desperate of you to try.

and stop it with the personnal attacks

bub · Feb 11, 2009

Goobieman said:
How lame.

When referring to the Mujahadeen in the context of this threat, you're referring to a SPECIFIC group of people -- a goup specific to a time, place, population and goal.

You cannot then use the term in its generic sense to also then refer to the Taliban, an organization that differ in time, population and goal.

Pathetically desperate of you to try.

looks like the Oxford English dictionary & the Merriam-Webster dictionary disagree with you on 2 points:
1) Mujahadeen is spelled Mujahideen
2) Mujahideen refers to EVERY muslim taking part in the Jihad, not only to the ones in Afghanistan

Main Entry:
mu·ja·hid·een Listen to the pronunciation of mujahideen
Variant(s):
or mu·ja·hed·in Listen to the pronunciation of mujahedin also mu·ja·hed·een \mü-ˌja-hi-ˈdēn, mu̇-, -ˌjä-\
Function:
noun plural
Etymology:
Arabic mujāhidīn, plural of mujāhid, literally, person who wages jihad

Goobieman · Feb 11, 2009

bub said:
says the one who believed that there was a nazi resistance after WWII

More dishonesty. This was explained to you; you refuse to understand.

My answer is that US president Reagan considers that YES

And, as I said:
Its doesnt matter who calls someone a freedom fighter, if they aren't.
So, your point here is meaningless.

If you're a Jihadist using terrorist methods in your fight against communists you are a freedom fighter.

And, as you have been told, the Mujahadeen are not the "jihadists" of the Taliban. So, again, your point here is meaningless.

Both are Islamists and fight to introduce the Sharia in Afghanistan....

More ignorance on your part. The Mujahadeen that fought the Soviets fought to drive out the Soviets, not to "introduce the Sharia in Afghanistan"

I can write bigger than you

It doesn't matter how big you write -- you're still wrong.

If you are fighting...

2-part question. See OP. Please explain your answer.

No - No

No - Yes

Yes - No

Yes - Yes

Reactor Janitor

Familiaist

R.I.P. Léo

R.I.P. Léo

R.I.P. Léo

R.I.P. Léo

R.I.P. Léo

R.I.P. Léo

R.I.P. Léo

R.I.P. Léo