• 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

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
...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.
 
Last edited:
can you be more specific? under which government is the "you" you ask about? whom is you fighting? why? define "murderous." define "freedom."

ps. why do you hate America?
 
Last edited:
Can you be more specific? under which government is the "you" you ask about? whom is you fighting? why? define "murderous." define "freedom."
You don't need these questions answered in order to address the questions I asked. You're simply tying to find away to attack the premise of the questions in order to find a way to argue that you can legitimately answwer yes-yes.

Why not just answer yes-yes and explain your answer?
 
Last edited:
You don't need these questions answered in order to address the questions I asked. You're simply tying to find away to attack the premise of the questions in order to find a way to argue that you can legitimately answwer yes-yes.

Why not just asnwer yes-yes and explain your answer?

no, my answer, honestly, is "it depends." it depends upon the context. it depends upon what you mean by your terms. if you don't want to supply a context, then my answer is, "it depends."
 
no, my answer, honestly, is "it depends." it depends upon the context. it depends upon what you mean by your terms. if you don't want to supply a context, then my answer is, "it depends."
Interesting.
When does a murderous, oppressive theocracy ever equate to freedom?
 
No-No.

Seems pretty plain on its face.
 
...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.

Are you talking about the Taliban?

If you are, then my answers are No and No. I don't think there's any explanation needed. An oppressive government is the anti-thesis of freedom, at least the way we define freedom in the West.

I could go one step further, tho. Anyone who fights to create any type of government is not fighting for freedom. Government, no matter how democratic always restricts people's freedom in some way, at least the way I define freedom. However, if we're fighting against an oppressive regime to replace it with a less oppressive one, then I guess I could call those people "freedom fighters".
 
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?
 
Interesting.
When does a murderous, oppressive theocracy ever equate to freedom?

how oppressive? what kind of murderous? how much theocracy? what kinds of freedoms?

it's interesting that I don't want to assume very much? but you expect me to?

interesting.
 
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?
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.
 
If I am fighting for the freedom to create the government I want. Then yes I am a freedom fighter to me and all those that believe in what I am fighting for.
 
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.

it totally matters. it's important to think of things in terms of cost vs benefit. for example, the US has occasionally propped up murderous, oppressive regimes in order to advance "freedom." some think it was worth it, or that it worked, some don't.
 
If I am fighting for the freedom to create the government I want. Then yes I am a freedom fighter to me and all those that believe in what I am fighting for.
"Fighting for the freedom to create the government I want", depending on that government, translates to "fighting for the power to oppress and murder my people".

That's Saddaam Hussein and his Ba'athists resisting the US in Iraq.

That's 'freedom'?
 
Last edited:
how oppressive? what kind of murderous? how much theocracy? what kinds of freedoms?
it's interesting that I don't want to assume very much? but you expect me to?
interesting.
Its apparent you arent willing to honestly discuss this.
Thanks for playing.
 
The term 'freedom fighter' doesn't literally mean somebody who is fighting for freedom. It' just a synonym for insurgent, and in the media/common usage that definition is very loose as well.
 
I do find it disturbing that while our leadership was getting us all focused on the terrorists attacking freedom and our rights...we were actually being "pick-pocketed" of the very same while our attention was turned.

So who is the bigger terrorist against freedom?

This reminds me of some of the famous quotes by great people (Presidents, Einstein, etc.) years ago who talked about how the real threats will be in the guise of fighting a foreign threat.
 
The term 'freedom fighter' doesn't literally mean somebody who is fighting for freedom. It' just a synonym for insurgent, and in the media/common usage that definition is very loose as well.
So, if that's the case, the term 'freedom fighter' isn't accurate.
 
Its apparent you arent willing to honestly discuss this.
Thanks for playing.

You refuse to clarify what you meant by the topic you started. You expect me to assume what you meant by your vague terms. You stroll through a cloudy haze of hypothetical rhetoric and are surprised when I don't exactly want to stroll through it with you, without clarification, or debate. wow.
 
"Fighting for the freedom to create the government I want", depending on that government, translates to "fighting for the power to oppress and murder my people".

Which re-translates into "fighting for the freedom to have a government that those fighting want". That's freedom fighting from the perspective of those fighting.
 
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.

Well if they are currelntly being oppressed, then they are fighting for their own freedom even if the regime they want put in place is oppressive towards otehrs, those doing the fighting will have freedom under it, while they currently do not have freedom.



Think of it this way: the US system, as originally installed, was murderous towards the native population and oppressive towards the slave and female population. Does that mean that they were not fighting for their own freedom?

I thjink the answer must be "No, of course not. They sought freedom from tyranny and a right to self-determination."

The fact that they indeed created an oppressive system that took almost 200 years to fully correct is irrelevant to the fact that they sought freedom from tyranny.



The issue with regards to "freedom fighting" has nothing to do with the system being promoted, and everything to do with the oppression inherent in the current system.

If the people who are fighting are actually given voice in the current government and their freedoms are not curtailed, i.e. they have the same degree of freedom as those they would seek to oppress in the current system, then they are not freedom fighters.

But if the current system is oppresive towards them, then they are clearly freedom fighters.

Fighting for freedom =/= fighting for universal freedom. It's subjective. It's fighting for one's own freedom.

Otherwise, we MUST label the founding fathers as "terrorists" because they did not fight for freedom, otherwise we could not possibly have had slavery for another 80+ years in this country.
 
Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Welcome to the english language
I dont believe its the English language, I believe its the desire to spin the despicable into the superficially supportable.

"Insurgent" and "terrorist" and "murderer" do not have a noble ring to them, and so, to paint a better picture of people you like, you choose the term "freedom fighter".

(Note that I use the term 'you' in the generic sense)
 
Well if they are currelntly being oppressed, then they are fighting for their own freedom even if the regime they want put in place is oppressive towards otehrs, those doing the fighting will have freedom under it, while they currently do not have freedom.
So, as I said -- they arent fighting for freedom, they are fighting for power.
 
Back
Top Bottom