• 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!

If you are fighting...

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

  • Total voters
    15
By the way, the mujaheddin Reagan labeled "freedom fighters" were led by Ahmad Shah Massoud, who fought the Taliban in Afghanistan, too, and was eventually assassinated by bin Laden on their behalf.

So, if the "mujaheddin" are all the same, as you say, shouldn't they have been bestest buddies?

(Oh, and there's no literal, official transliteration of the word, so don't bother trying to correct my spelling.)
 
Goobieman said:
I know. And, its pretty much the basis for you Mujahadeen = Taliban arugment.
Click to expand...

No, there was a second argument:
Mujahideen means "Jihadist " in Arabic
Talibans are "Jihadists"
= Talibans are Mujahideen


Factually and logically flawed, rendering your conclusion unsound.
Click to expand...

The point of debating is trying to show why the other's posts are "logically flawed"

It's not just about saying "you're wrong"
 
bub said:
Reagan is just an example to show that the USA & the Western world have supported fundamentalist Islamists and called them "freedom fighters"
Click to expand...
You continue to fail to understand that you being a "freedom fighter" isnt determined by who does or does not refer to you as such.
 
bub said:
The point of debating is trying to show why the other's posts are "logically flawed" It's not just about saying "you're wrong"
Click to expand...
I did that. You havent responded.
 
Goobieman said:
You continue to fail to understand that you being a "freedom fighter" isnt determined by who does or does not refer to you as such.
Click to expand...

I agree with this statement 100%. I think the same is true regarding "terrorist". There are preconditions that must be met in order to warrant each label. These preconditions are not subjective, so the fact that one group labels them in any direction means nothing.
 
bub said:
No, there was a second argument:
Mujahideen means "Jihadist " in Arabic
Talibans are "Jihadists"
= Talibans are Mujahideen
Click to expand...

The Brits have MI5 for their internal secret service.

The Nazis had the Geheime Staatspolizei for their internal secret service.

MI5 = the Gestapo?
 
Harshaw said:
The Brits have MI5 for their internal secret service.
The Nazis had the Geheime Staatspolizei for their internal secret service.
MI5 = the Gestapo?
Click to expand...
And, the Boy Scouts = Nazis.
 
bub said:
Mujahideen means "Jihadist " in Arabic
Talibans are "Jihadists"
= Talibans are Mujahideen
Click to expand...
muhajadeen - generic term
Mujahadeen - specific term
Taliban - specific term

You are arging that because the Taliban are mujahadeen, they are then also the Muhajadeen.

See the flaw?
 
Harshaw said:
The Brits have MI5 for their internal secret service.

The Nazis had the Geheime Staatspolizei for their internal secret service.

MI5 = the Gestapo?
Click to expand...

No, because Mujahideen is a more generic term.

The Brits have secret service
The Nazis had the Gestapo

Gestapo = secret service
 
Goobieman said:
muhajadeen - generic term
Mujahadeen - specific term
Taliban - specific term

You are arging that because the Taliban are mujahadeen, they are then also the Muhajadeen.

See the flaw?
Click to expand...

My dictionary does not make the difference between "Mujahideen" and "mujahideen". Maybe you can show me one that does?
 
bub said:
No, because Mujahideen is a more generic term.

The Brits have secret service
The Nazis had the Gestapo

Gestapo = secret service
Click to expand...

'Fraid not.

All you did was mix it around. It still comes out to MI5 = Gestapo, because they're both "secret service."
 
bub said:
No, because Mujahideen is a more generic term.
Click to expand...
Not when you're using it in its specific meaning to describe the organization that fought the Soviets.
His equation stands.
 
bub said:
My dictionary does not make the difference between "Mujahideen" and "mujahideen". Maybe you can show me one that does?
Click to expand...
And that, folks, is where any question as to your seriousness ends.
 
Goobieman said:
You continue to fail to understand that you being a "freedom fighter" isnt determined by who does or does not refer to you as such.
Click to expand...

Then how is it determined? There are different possible definitions, as this term is subjective, just like "terrorist".

I just pointed out the fact that "During the Cold War, the term freedom fighter was used by the United States and other Western Bloc countries to describe rebels in countries controlled by communist states or otherwise under the influence of the Soviet Union, including rebels in Hungary, the anti-communist Contras in Nicaragua, UNITA in Angola and the multi-factional mujahideen in Afghanistan, as well as rebels in Indian-administered Kashmir."

Freedom fighter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Harshaw said:
'Fraid not.

All you did was mix it around. It still comes out to MI5 = Gestapo, because they're both "secret service."
Click to expand...

Goobieman said:
Not when you're using it in its specific meaning to describe the organization that fought the Soviets.
His equation stands.
Click to expand...

Goobieman said:
And that, folks, is where any question as to your seriousness ends.
Click to expand...

PM me when you find an argument other that "in my mind, and in spite of what the dictionary says, I refer to the ones who fought against USSR and not to the Mujahideen"

And Goobieman, you skipped that again:
Both Mujahideen and Taliban (who are a kind of Mujahideen according to the Merriam Webster dictionary) are Islamists.

Islamists struggle in order to establish an Islamist state.

The Mujahideens in the 80's have established the "Islamic state of Afghanistan"
The Taliban (who are also Mujahideen) have the same ideology, they fight for the same thing, "though the Taliban subscribed to a particularly narrow interpretation of Islam"

Much of the civil war could be characterized as an ethnic conflict between the Pashtun Taliban, and the non-Pashtun Northern Alliance, since both sides of the conflict espoused fundamentalist Islam.


So, they fight for the same thing, the difference is that Talibans are Pashtun
 
bub said:
PM me when you find an argument other that "in my mind, and in spite of what the dictionary says, I refer to the ones who fought against USSR and not to the Mujahideen"
Click to expand...

When what Reagan said or didn't say becomes relevant to the poll -- or the concept -- you PM . . . someone.
 
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.
Click to expand...
Wow, you must be very glad that we got rid of George Bush, so we won't have to through that.
 
bub said:
Then how is it determined? There are different possible definitions, as this term is subjective, just like "terrorist".
Click to expand...

In correct usage, they are not subjective, bub. To be a freedom fighter, you must fight for freedom. To be a terrorist, you must purposely target civilians.

Even if I incorrectly label a group that targets civilians as "freedom fighters", if they are not fighting for freedom, that label is incorrect.

Let's use an example: A group lives in a society where they enjoy many things that we label as basic freedoms, but they choose not to partake of many of these freedoms. Now, this group does not like that other people can engage in these freedoms and it is their desire to live in a society where basic freedoms are denied to the people.

They take up armed conflict against the rulers of this society.


They cannot be correctly labelled "freedom fighters" because it is their desire to eliminate the freedom which already extant, and replace it with oppression.



Now let's say that they do not target civilians. In fact they take pains to prevent civilian casualties. Then they ALSO cannot be labelled "terrorists", because they do not engage in terrorism.

In this case, the only names that could apply that would be accurate would be "Rebels", "Insurgents", "Dissidents", "Paramilitary group" etc.



Conversely, lets say there is a group that lives in an oppresive society. They choose to take up arms in order to overthrow this oppresive regime and instill a free society. They can correctly be labelled "freedom fighters".

But let's say that this particular group purposely targets civilians in order to achieve their goals. Then they would also be terrorists.

One can be both freedom fighter and terrorist.

One label is regarding WHAT they are fighting for, the other is regarding HOW they go about fighting for it.
 
dragonslayer said:
Wow, you must be very glad that we got rid of George Bush, so we won't have to through that.
Click to expand...
Please refrain from polluting this thread with your usual useless partisan bigotry.
 
Tis just a point of view and how you see the world .. Of course there are some extremist nuts in the world.

What is hard for some to understand, is that it is matter of opinion and
having the right teacher/preacher/iman/priest to give us information. If one opposes mainstream in Middle East or in America, one can be considered a nut.
 
Tucker Case said:
In correct usage, they are not subjective, bub. To be a freedom fighter, you must fight for freedom. To be a terrorist, you must purposely target civilians.

Even if I incorrectly label a group that targets civilians as "freedom fighters", if they are not fighting for freedom, that label is incorrect.
.
Click to expand...

Then we are arguing about what is freedom

Main Entry:
free·dom Listen to the pronunciation of freedom
Pronunciation:
\ˈfrē-dəm\
Function:
noun
Date:
before 12th century

1: the quality or state of being free: as a: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b: liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : independence c
Click to expand...

On the social level, they do not fight for freedom, indeed (they want to force the Sharia upon everyone in their society), but on the international level, yes, they fight for freedom, in the sense that they want to be independent from any Western influence and live like they want
 
Tucker Case said:
In correct usage, they are not subjective, bub. To be a freedom fighter, you must fight for freedom. To be a terrorist, you must purposely target civilians.
Click to expand...
Yes. And this is why it doesnt matter what RWR or the CIA calls you.
 
But suppose we accept that Reagan called them ALL "freedom fighters."

What now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom