erynthered Posted November 9, 2004 Posted November 9, 2004 http://www.meforum.org/article/649 In fact, being a freedom fighter, however defined, does not foreclose on the possibility that one is a terrorist. The Israeli terrorism scholar Boaz Ganor has put it well: "When you deliberately choose to attack civilians, you cannot say any more, 'I am not a terrorist because I am a freedom fighter.' Maybe you are a freedom fighter, but you are also definitely a terrorist." Kind of what I said the otherday.....
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 9, 2004 Posted November 9, 2004 And what? When we bomb the piss out of Fallujah, civilians caught in the crossfire are okay because we gave "them an out?" Do we play the don't ask don't tell card there? Certainly there will be civilians deliberately killed there. If you don't think so, you are naive. Then by scholar Boaz Ganor standards... "When you deliberately choose to attack civilians, you cannot say any more, 'I am not a terrorist because I am a freedom fighter.' Maybe you are a freedom fighter, but you are also definitely a terrorist." No matter what you do terrorism is a fact of life. It has been a fact of life since the dawn of human life. You live with it and minimize it. No sense and standing the "high ground" and call everybody around you a terrorist. It is all semantics. It is all in the eyes of the beholder, until those eyes are shut when dead. Somebody refresh me on the name "Boaz" in Old Testament (Ruth)... Seems this Boaz is living up the the influential standards that the original one from Bethlehem did...
chicot Posted November 9, 2004 Posted November 9, 2004 http://www.meforum.org/article/649In fact, being a freedom fighter, however defined, does not foreclose on the possibility that one is a terrorist. The Israeli terrorism scholar Boaz Ganor has put it well: "When you deliberately choose to attack civilians, you cannot say any more, 'I am not a terrorist because I am a freedom fighter.' Maybe you are a freedom fighter, but you are also definitely a terrorist." Kind of what I said the otherday..... 109767[/snapback] I have no problem with that definition. However, going back to what was said the otherday, it is more than possible that at least some of those fighting the US army in Fallujah have played no part in attacks on civilians and therefore, by that definition, cannot be considered terrorists.
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 9, 2004 Posted November 9, 2004 I have no problem with that definition. However, going back to what was said the otherday, it is more than possible that at least some of those fighting the US army in Fallujah have played no part in attacks on civilians and therefore, by that definition, cannot be considered terrorists. 109892[/snapback] Good point. An army moves into my town... I gonna fight no matter what, if I don't agree with 'em. Just because I never committed an act upon the citizenery doesn't mean I have to submit to an army I don't agree with. Isn't that the meaning of freedom fighter?
Alaska Darin Posted November 9, 2004 Posted November 9, 2004 Good point. An army moves into my town... I gonna fight no matter what, if I don't agree with 'em. Just because I never committed an act upon the citizenery doesn't mean I have to submit to an army I don't agree with. Isn't that the meaning of freedom fighter? 109906[/snapback] WOLVERINES!
stuckincincy Posted November 9, 2004 Posted November 9, 2004 And what? When we bomb the piss out of Fallujah, civilians caught in the crossfire are okay because we gave "them an out?" Do we play the don't ask don't tell card there? Certainly there will be civilians deliberately killed there. If you don't think so, you are naive. Then by scholar Boaz Ganor standards... "When you deliberately choose to attack civilians, you cannot say any more, 'I am not a terrorist because I am a freedom fighter.' Maybe you are a freedom fighter, but you are also definitely a terrorist." No matter what you do terrorism is a fact of life. It has been a fact of life since the dawn of human life. You live with it and minimize it. No sense and standing the "high ground" and call everybody around you a terrorist. It is all semantics. It is all in the eyes of the beholder, until those eyes are shut when dead. Somebody refresh me on the name "Boaz" in Old Testament (Ruth)... Seems this Boaz is living up the the influential standards that the original one from Bethlehem did... Perhaps we should follow the French and Soviet Army model in post-WWII Germany. If attacks occur, ring the town unannounced with artillary and flatted the town and the townfolk. 109880[/snapback]
stuckincincy Posted November 9, 2004 Posted November 9, 2004 And what? When we bomb the piss out of Fallujah, civilians caught in the crossfire are okay because we gave "them an out?" Do we play the don't ask don't tell card there? Certainly there will be civilians deliberately killed there. If you don't think so, you are naive. Then by scholar Boaz Ganor standards... "When you deliberately choose to attack civilians, you cannot say any more, 'I am not a terrorist because I am a freedom fighter.' Maybe you are a freedom fighter, but you are also definitely a terrorist." No matter what you do terrorism is a fact of life. It has been a fact of life since the dawn of human life. You live with it and minimize it. No sense and standing the "high ground" and call everybody around you a terrorist. It is all semantics. It is all in the eyes of the beholder, until those eyes are shut when dead. Somebody refresh me on the name "Boaz" in Old Testament (Ruth)... Seems this Boaz is living up the the influential standards that the original one from Bethlehem did... 109880[/snapback] Perhaps we should follow the model of the post-WWII French and Soviet armies - ring the offending town unannounced with artillary, and flatten it along with the townfolk.
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 9, 2004 Posted November 9, 2004 Perhaps we should follow the model of the post-WWII French and Soviet armies - ring the offending town unannounced with artillary, and flatten it along with the townfolk. 109933[/snapback] Shhhhhhhhhhhh... You might bring Boomer out from under his rock!
Alaska Darin Posted November 9, 2004 Posted November 9, 2004 Shhhhhhhhhhhh... You might bring Boomer out from under his rock! 109937[/snapback] Wanna bet on that?
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 9, 2004 Posted November 9, 2004 Wanna bet on that? 109939[/snapback] NO! I am already a big loser.
erynthered Posted November 9, 2004 Author Posted November 9, 2004 Perhaps we should follow the model of the post-WWII French and Soviet armies - ring the offending town unannounced with artillary, and flatten it along with the townfolk. 109933[/snapback] Nazi sympathizers were freedom fighters too I guess.
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 9, 2004 Posted November 9, 2004 Nazi sympathizers were freedom fighters too I guess. 109951[/snapback] Freedom is in the eyes of the beholder... There were a lot of "protected people" in Nazi Germany. They were fighting for their freedom to continue with a better life over the others. Name me one place that people don't suffer under your gains? By no means does this justify genocide... Of course I am playing devil's advocate here.
UConn James Posted November 10, 2004 Posted November 10, 2004 WOLVERINES! 109917[/snapback] That movie ("Red Dawn," for those not in the know) is what prompted my brother to the military back in the early 90s. He now uses it as a moderately close parallel to how Iraqis see their situation. There is such a thing as different perspectives. Through the grapevine, he's heading to Afghanistan early next year.
Tux of Borg Posted November 10, 2004 Posted November 10, 2004 We have our own so-called freedom fighters here in the United States. They're called militants, extremist and neo-nazis. You won't find me cheering on those groups anytime soon.
IBTG81 Posted November 10, 2004 Posted November 10, 2004 I have no problem with that definition. However, going back to what was said the otherday, it is more than possible that at least some of those fighting the US army in Fallujah have played no part in attacks on civilians and therefore, by that definition, cannot be considered terrorists. 109892[/snapback] Right now, if you're Muslim, you should be considered a terrorist.
UConn James Posted November 10, 2004 Posted November 10, 2004 We have our own so-called freedom fighters here in the United States. They're called militants, extremist and neo-nazis. You won't find me cheering on those groups anytime soon. 111049[/snapback] Just to clarify.... Those particular asshats in militias/McVeigh types are fighting their own govt. The Iraqis are fighting against a foreign govt force --- a foreign govt who says they're there to help them, that they choose not to believe. Two different circumstances.
UConn James Posted November 10, 2004 Posted November 10, 2004 Right now, if you're Muslim, you should be considered a terrorist. 111064[/snapback]
IBTG81 Posted November 10, 2004 Posted November 10, 2004 111072[/snapback] Makes perfect sense. They use children and women, no? Everyone AT THIS POINT should be considered guilty until dtermined innocent,
UConn James Posted November 10, 2004 Posted November 10, 2004 Makes perfect sense. They use children and women, no? Everyone AT THIS POINT should be considered guilty until dtermined innocent, 111085[/snapback] Again, great idea, man. And if you want guilty until proven innocent, move to Europe. We can also bring back the Alien and Sedition Acts. Kee-rist.
Recommended Posts