• 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
Goobieman said:
How does fighting for the power to impose an oppressive theocracy equate to fighting for freedom?
Click to expand...

If one wants to live in a theocratic state why shouldn't they have that freedom?
 
winston53660 said:
If one wants to live in a theocratic state why shouldn't they have that freedom?
Click to expand...
Um... the point is that when living under an oppressive theocracy, you don't HAVE a choice?

And so, fighting for the power to impose an oppressive theocracy CANNOT be 'fighting for freedom'.
 
Goobieman said:
No. You haven't.
You know it, and you're stonewalling.
Click to expand...
You are a terrible debater, but a phenomenal entertainer.
snacks.gif
 
EgoffTib said:
You are a terrible debater...
Click to expand...
Did I miss your answer to my question?

No, no I didnt -- because you havent answered it.

If I am such a terrible debater, why havent you answered my question?
 
Goobieman said:
Um... the point is that when living under an oppressive theocracy, you don't HAVE a choice?

And so, fighting for the power to impose an oppressive theocracy CANNOT be 'fighting for freedom'.
Click to expand...

So a person doesn't have the freedom to live in a theocracy?:lol:
 
Goobieman said:
No. You haven't.
You know it, and you're stonewalling.
Click to expand...

Listen, if you can't handle an academic discussion try another thread.
 
Goobieman said:
Did I miss your answer to my question?

No, no I didnt -- because you havent answered it.

If I am such a terrible debater, why havent you answered my question?
Click to expand...
Which one? I already explained how they were fighting for freedom. Unless you want me to answer the Gem that was "How many terrorists are fighting for freedom?". In that case, 7. :cool:
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Listen, if you can't handle an academic discussion try another thread.
Click to expand...
Says he who refuses to address a question that diectly attacks the heart of the discussion.

I guess that means you won't be posting here any more.
 
Goobieman said:
Says he who refuses to address a question that diectly attacks the heart of the discussion.

I guess that means you won't be posting here any more.
Click to expand...
It would appear that you are a less amusing version of Truth Detector...
 
EgoffTib said:
Which one? I already explained how they were fighting for freedom.
Click to expand...
I asked:

How does fighting for the power to create an oppressive throcracy erquate to fighitng for freedom?

Neither you nor anyone else has answered that.
 
EgoffTib said:
It would appear that you are a less amusing version of Truth Detector...
Click to expand...
It appears you have less intellectual honesty that hautey.
 
Goobieman said:
I asked:

How does fighting for the power to create an oppressive throcracy erquate to fighitng for freedom?

Neither you nor anyone else has answered that.
Click to expand...
Who is creating an oppressive theocracy? Who, in this thread, condoned a theocracy? Are you swinging at strawmen again?
 
Goobieman said:
Says he who refuses to address a question that diectly attacks the heart of the discussion.

I guess that means you won't be posting here any more.
Click to expand...

Great, go tell your babysitter that you won a debate and get your cookie.

I won't tell her you never addressed my point and didn't bother pursuing the question of mine you avoided.
 
Arch Enemy said:
I would like to see the one person who voted "No" to post their reason why.
Click to expand...

I voted no because there was no "other" option.

Here's why:

The poll question asks an absolute. Is every person who is one man's terrorist, another man's freedom fighter.

This is not necessarily true.

The truth is that one man's terrorist may actually be a freedom fighter, and one man's freedom fighter may actually be a terrorist.

The definitions are clear for each of these terms, and are not necessarily subject to mis-application of the terms.

If a combatant's actions specifically and purposely target civilians and does not purposely target combatants, they are a terrorists.

If a combatant's actions specifically and purposely targets combatants and does not purposely target civilians, they are a freedom fighter.


For example, there were many members of the pIRA that were freedom fighters, not terrorists, because they only targetted RUC outposts, British soldiers, and Protestant paramilitary groups like the UVF and never specifically targetted civilians.

Affiliation with an organization alone is not enough to warrant the label "terrorist". Labelling those who do not target civilians as terrorists is incorrect. They may belong to an organization that has committed terrorism, but that does not necessarily make them an actual terrorist. Regardless of the oopinions of those who seek to label these people as "terrorists" without the all-important prerequisite of purposely targetting civilians, the label cannot apply.

And some pIRA members targetted civilians. These people were terrorists, regardless of whetehr someon wanted to label them otherwise. The subjective views of the person claiming that these men were not terrorists but freedom fighters cannot stand up to the definitions because the action specfically targetted civilians. Regardless of how the person feels about it, the objective truth is that they are terrorists.



The thing is the definition is clear. If someone specifically targets civilians instead of combatants, they are a terrorist. If they specifically target combatants to achieve freedom, they are freedom fighters.

Subjective interpretations by either side only seek to muddy the waters further. The truth is actually black and white and applied to the individual.

Hiroshima? Nagasaki? These were terrorist acts because they targetted civilians.

Just because people might happen to agree with a terrorist action really has no bearing on whether or not it is actually terrorism.
 
EgoffTib said:
Who is creating an oppressive theocracy?
Click to expand...
This is the objective of Hamas, Hizbollah and AQ.
Please, try to keep up.

So...?

How does fighting for the power to create an oppressive throcracy erquate to fighitng for freedom?
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
This is the objective of Hamas, Hizbollah and AQ.
Please, try to keep up.

So...?

How does fighting for the power to create an oppressive throcracy erquate to fighitng for freedom?
Click to expand...

Oh! Silly me! Did you miss the part when I asked who, in this thread, condoned a theocracy?
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
Ah. The juvenile retort of someone that knows he can no longer carry his position.

Noted.
Click to expand...

What do you call expelling a foreign occupation?
 
EgoffTib said:
Oh! Silly me! Did you miss the part when I asked who, in this thread, condoned a theocracy?
Click to expand...
Irrelevant to my question. You know this; you're engaged in misirection and obfuscation in order to avoid having to give me an answer.

How does fighting for the power to create an oppressive throcracy erquate to fighitng for freedom?
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
Irrelevant to my question. You know this; you're engaged in misirection and obfuscation in order to avoid having to give me an answer.

How does fighting for the power to create an oppressive throcracy erquate to fighitng for freedom?
Click to expand...

Why would I answer a question that is loaded and misrepresents my position? Do keep trying to spell big words properly, though. :lol:
 
EgoffTib said:
Why would I answer a question...
Click to expand...
...that goes directly to the heart of the matter?
Seems pretty obvious to me.

Do keep trying to spell big words properly, though
Click to expand...
Ah. Attacking typos. The TRUE mark of a great debater.

:roll:
 
Goobieman said:
...that goes directly to the heart of the matter?
Seems pretty obvious to me.


Ah. Attacking typos. The TRUE mark of a great debater.

:roll:
Click to expand...
I'm glad you left out the part where I said your question was loaded and misrepresented my position. Do continue to attack doctored quotes of mine... The TRUE mark of a great debater. :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom