• 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
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
REally so all the woman under the Taliban wanted to be forced into being beggars if they were widowed?
Click to expand...

Im asking a question. Answer it.

If people want a theocratic system, do they not the freedom to choose that system?
 
Laila said:
Al Qaeda and Taliban and many Iraqi resistance groups make the case they are fighting against western "crusaders" who invaded their land. Would that be fighting for freedom or not?
Click to expand...
I'm not at all sure why you have trouble with this, other than your innate inability to call a spade a spade qhwen dealing with Muslim extrmists.

They are fighting for the power to establish oppressive thocracies -- especially in the case of AQ and the Taliban

Are oppressive theocracies examples of 'freedom'?

If not, then your question is answered.
 
Laila said:
Im asking a question. Answer it.

If people want a theocratic system, do they not the freedom to choose that system?
Click to expand...




I did. This is not "freedom fighting"


Did people WANT to live under the Taliban barbarity? What percentage? :roll:
 
Goobieman said:
They are fighting to establish oppressive thocracies -- especially in the case of AQ and the Taliban.
Click to expand...

Freedom to the west and what is classified as 'free' is VERY different to what Muslims classify as free. There are a thousand different interpretation of freedom, what makes your version so correct?

I won't deny that but why is it so hard for you to accept that western soldiers on muslim land occupying it has a role to play
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
I did. This is not "freedom fighting"
Click to expand...

According to you it is not ...

And i was being hypothetical, i have no idea whether all Arab Muslims want to live under Taliban type sharia.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
I did. This is not "freedom fighting"
Did people WANT to live under the Taliban barbarity? What percentage? :roll:
Click to expand...
Its a sad, sad day when an oppressive theocracy, one that forces women to wear burkas and treats them like property, is considered "freedom".
 
Goobieman said:
Its a sad, sad day when an oppressive theocracy, one that forces women to wear burkas and treats them like property, is considered "freedom".
Click to expand...

Sad indeed ...
 
Laila said:
According to you it is not ...
Click to expand...
Under what legitimate definition of "freedom" are women treated as the property of their husbands?
 
Laila said:
Sad indeed ...
Click to expand...
And yet YOU argue that people that fight for the power to force this condition upon others are "freedom fighters".
 
Goobieman said:
And yet YOU argue that people that fight for the power to force this condition upon others are "freedom fighters".
Click to expand...

No, i argue one cannot define freedom fighting. It's too difficult.

And i asked you whether fighting against western occupation is 'freedom fighting' but you disregard it.

Yes Al Qaeda wants to impose Sharia but what gives them the strength to attempt it? The fact that western "crusaders" [as they like to call them] have invaded.
 
Laila said:
No, i argue one cannot define freedom fighting. It's too difficult.
Click to expand...
Not at all.
Are you fighting for the freedom of those you fight for?
Actual freedom, not some version that allows you to oppress them according to your views?
Then you are a freedom fighter. If not, then you are not.

The Taliban, Hamas, Hizboolah, AQ, and the vast majority of the 'insurgents' in Iraq fall within the latter group.

And i asked you whether fighting against western occupation is 'freedom fighting' but you disregard it.
Click to expand...
I did not. See above.

Yes Al Qaeda wants to impose Sharia...
Click to expand...
Then they are not 'freedom fighters'. Period.
 
Goobieman said:
The Taliban, Hamas, Hizboolah, AQ, and the vast majority of the 'insurgents' in Iraq fall within the latter group.
Click to expand...

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
 
Laila said:
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
Click to expand...
If you disagree with me, then you necessarily argue that to live under an oppressive, brutal theocracy, one that forces women to wear burkas and treats them like the property of their husband, is to live free.
 
Goobieman said:
If you disagree with me, then you necessarily argue that to live under an oppressive, brutal theocracy, one that forces women to wear burkas and treats them like the property of their husband, is to live free.
Click to expand...

I think fighting against soldiers who invaded can in some cases be classified as freedom fighting when its the soldiers that are the targets. You don't.

That is why we disagree.
 
Laila said:
I think fighting against soldiers who invaded can in some cases be classified as freedom fighting when its the soldiers that are the targets. You don't.
Click to expand...
So, the Nazis that resisted the US/UK/French occupation forces after WW2were freedom fighters.
Roger. Thanks.
:roll:
 
Goobieman said:
So, the Nazis that resisted the US/UK/French occupation forces after WW2were freedom fighters.
Roger. Thanks.
:roll:
Click to expand...

You're comparing that to Iraq? Gotcha.
 
Laila said:
You're comparing that to Iraq? Gotcha.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry... you stated that "[those] fighting against soldiers who invaded can in some cases be classified as freedom fighting when its the soldiers that are the targets".

Under your argument, were the Nazis that resisted the US/UK/French
occupation forces freedom fighters, or not?

If not, why not?
 
Goobieman said:
I'm sorry... you stated that "[those] fighting against soldiers who invaded can in some cases be classified as freedom fighting when its the soldiers that are the targets".
Click to expand...

And i was clearly implying Iraq with my previous comments :roll:
 
Laila said:
And i was clearly implying Iraq with my previous comments :roll:
Click to expand...
You didn't answer the question. Your unwillingness to do so is telling.

Under your argument, were the Nazis that resisted the US/UK/French
occupation forces freedom fighters, or not?

If not, why not?
 
Goobieman said:
Under your argument, were the Nazis that resisted the US/UK/French
occupation forces freedom fighters, or not?
Click to expand...

Not really, If anything it was UK/US/France fighting for freedom.

The war was justified in the fact that it was provoked, it was Hitler who chose to take it that step further and the big 3 were responding.
 
Hatuey said:
Do you agree? Why? Why not?
Click to expand...

Yes. And I'd add that "terrorism" is when they fail/haven't succeeded yet. When they succeed, history calls them "revolutionaries" or something like that.
 
Laila said:
Not really, If anything it was UK/US/France fighting for freedom.
Click to expand...
You are dodging.
How, exactly, does the Nazi resistance ---not--- meet your definition of "freedom fighters"?
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
So, the Nazis that resisted the US/UK/French occupation forces after WW2were freedom fighters.
Roger. Thanks.
:roll:
Click to expand...

How many nazis have resisted after WWII? :shock:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom