Terrorists or something else...

Roughneck · 7 Jul 2006 at 13:22

delete

Bar · 7 Jul 2006 at 13:24

a atlas

Just to say it before VIRII does and thus deny him the pleasure.

It's an atlas.

Roughneck · 7 Jul 2006 at 13:27

delete

VIRII · 7 Jul 2006 at 18:24

Bar said:
Was the intention of Mohammed that what was written in his name to be followed to the letter or was he trying to provide guidelines for people to become better.

Religion is harmless - its only when people get involved that it becomes a dangerous weapon. Just like a gun.

I think Mohammed was giving people very direct instructions as to how to live.
This seems to fit in with how most Muslims understand Islam.

Jesus, on the other hand, gave rather broad open guidelines and examples. For example "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Or "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
As such his life advice was pretty wide and on the whole about reflecting upon your own behaviour and the effect that you have upon others.
I think such guidelines are admirable.

VIRII · 7 Jul 2006 at 18:30

Roughneck said:
thanks for that pearl of wisdom (please is that the right spelling and grammatical way of putting it)

but I know the difference between holland and the netherlands. Try an atlas sometime you'll learn as well

An absolute pleasure to educate you

Sadly though your grammar and spelling show no signs of improvement and are both rubbish.

I'm going to continue to refer to "holland" in relation to the Islamic attacks because afaik they were indeed in Holland - little linky for you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holland

crashuk · 7 Jul 2006 at 18:48

Roughneck said:
haha is that why we can only send 3600 to afganistan

lmao wake up my friend. This country is suffering from living in the past

but thats the case for everything in this country we look backwards at our past.

Borris · 7 Jul 2006 at 18:54

As opposed to looking foward to our past?

crashuk · 7 Jul 2006 at 18:56

VIRII said:
Believing in God is one thing. Faith is one thing. No-one can prove that God doesn't exist or explain some pretty fundamental questions about ourelves and the universe. There is certainly room for God to exist.

Strictly following the dogma of a religion such as Catholicism or Islam is quite another. Believing that God spoke to just a couple of people and entrusted them to write it all down (after they were long dead) and assuming that we should strictly follow those ancient words is quite another.

Believing that the message of for example Jesus (love, trust, forgiveness) is a good basis for living your life and that those are attributes to aspire to is fine.
You don't even have to believe in God or be a Christian to do that. It is when religion comes into it with its dogma and BS that the problems start.

well i believe in some kind of higher lifeforce what ever u like to call it god etc.., but just dont believe in the human side of things like taking form of a man etc.. that just crazy. Thing is there hasnt been any proof just some one saying, and i would think that in the world we live in with all the problems this would have been a very good time to show himself. personally when you die you die thats it.

bigredshark · 7 Jul 2006 at 20:58

I said very recently in a post in SC that i don't like labling terrorists as such, because it's only a point of view. I also used the french resistence to make the point.

Bottom line, one mans terrorist, anothers freedom fighter...

phykell · 7 Jul 2006 at 21:58

bigredshark said:
Bottom line, one mans terrorist, anothers freedom fighter...

We've had this discussion so many times before but that one sentence compels me to say something. The people who deliberately target civilians are not one person's terrorists and another's freedom fighters, they are terrorists, pure and simple and there can be no justification for their actions. For example, there is no way anyone can convince me that the inhuman monsters who bombed Warrington town centre can be ever be described as "freedom fighters" but if anyone thinks they can provide a perspective where the deliberate and cynical targetting of innocent women and children is justified in any way, I'd be interested in hearing it.

Beansprout · 7 Jul 2006 at 22:23

bigredshark said:
Bottom line, one mans terrorist, anothers freedom fighter...

Oh come bloody off it.

:mad:

Bar · 7 Jul 2006 at 22:31

One thing that should be remembered is we are judging all of this with your morals and values.

In places like Iraq, Syria, Palestine they may very well view those terrorists as freedom fighters.

bigredshark · 7 Jul 2006 at 22:37

no, I stand by that point. Hitler could have called the french resistance terrorists by all accounts (though i'll accept the obvious point they didn't target civilians).

terrorism is not killing civilians, thats not a definition of it in any way. Terrorism is the business of using acts of violence (however directed) to make a political statement.

we call them terrorists because we are being terrorised.

One mans terrorist, another freedom fighter isn't a debatable concept, to us they're terrorists, to people sharing their views they're soldiers fighting for their beliefs.

I suppose that 'terrorist' is technically correct because they are in the business of terrorising people, but the way we use the term is more complex.

It's an unpopular viewpoint but if palestinian terrorists hadn't killed people do you think israel would ever have sat at a negotiating table with them, if they'd decided to start a petition instead do you think israel would have done anything other than ignored them. In some circumstances terrorism is the only thing that will advance a cause and whether you agree or disagree with the cause it's easy to see how those who do agree can think terror is a justifiable means

Overlag · 7 Jul 2006 at 23:07

bigredshark said:
Bottom line, one mans terrorist, anothers freedom fighter...

Not really......

The only "valid" (to me) freedom fighter would be palestine area being taken over by Israel. The Palestinians have almost no way of defending themselfs and you could think of them as the French resistance of WWII.....

....I know this is probably going to hit some Nerves.

However terrorist bombers in London, New york, Bali or holland... What are they fighting for? they just want every Non Islamic person dead. So you cant exactly call them freedom fighters.

bigredshark · 7 Jul 2006 at 23:24

Overlag said:
Not really......

The only "valid" (to me) freedom fighter would be palestine area being taken over by Israel. The Palestinians have almost no way of defending themselfs and you could think of them as the French resistance of WWII.....

....I know this is probably going to hit some Nerves.

However terrorist bombers in London, New york, Bali or holland... What are they fighting for? they just want every Non Islamic person dead. So you cant exactly call them freedom fighters.

I agree and have said as much about palestians, it's a touchy subject though.

Regarding islamic extremism, their fighting to impose a 12th century islamic theocracy and to prevent the spread of western decandence to the arab world. as they see it. one of the things about islamic extremism is most people don't understand their motives and what they want, they have speicific complaints about the west which aren't easy to understand outside of their culture.

so, palestinians can, by some, be seen as freedom fighters because their cause is understandable. just because we don't understand (or even know in many cases) the cause being promoted by those who bombed bali doesn't mean that nobody does. there will always be somebody to defend their actions.

as another example possibly similar to the palestinians, the IRA, how long would it have taken for the government to take northern ireland to where it is today if they hadn't been killing people. like it or not, terrorism works.

Beansprout · 7 Jul 2006 at 23:34

Bar said:
One thing that should be remembered is we are judging all of this with your morals and values.

In places like Iraq, Syria, Palestine they may very well view those terrorists as freedom fighters.

What, just like we judge our troops as freedom fighters? I think not.

The only people who believe those who blow up innocent civilians, especially in a non-wartime situation, are sick, evil people - I don't care what label or word you want to use to describe them, but that's what they are.

squiffy · 7 Jul 2006 at 23:37

Beansprout said:
What, just like we judge our troops as freedom fighters? I think not.

The only people who believe those who blow up innocent civilians, especially in a non-wartime situation, are sick, evil people - I don't care what label or word you want to use to describe them, but that's what they are.

Pretty sure the French resistance did have to take "collateral damage" with their own civilians, such as blowing up a train (with Nazis and French civilians on it)

phykell · 7 Jul 2006 at 23:59

bigredshark said:
I agree and have said as much about palestians, it's a touchy subject though.

Again, and in this instance, the deliberate targetting of innocent civilians cannot be justified as "freedom fighting". There are a great number of non-civilian targets in Israel for the Palestinians to target if they so wish. Make no mistake, they target civilians because they are an easier target and because of their hatred for the Jewish people. This hatred provides them with a convenient layer of abstraction, and excuse if you like, that lets them justify the murder of human beings by viewing them as something else, something lower than themselves. More on this later... I take no sides with respect to the Israel-Palestine conflict but it's clear to me that when one side resorts to the softer targets, indiscriminately murdering and maiming men, women and children, the rubicon from freedom fighter to terrorist has been crossed.

bigredshark said:
Regarding islamic extremism, their fighting to impose a 12th century islamic theocracy and to prevent the spread of western decandence to the arab world. as they see it. one of the things about islamic extremism is most people don't understand their motives and what they want, they have speicific complaints about the west which aren't easy to understand outside of their culture.

One crucial point about Islamic extremism, and the reason why their methods are so abhorrent is because of that convenient layer of abstraction again. They are able to dismiss their victims as somehow deserving of their fate.

bigredshark said:
so, palestinians can, by some, be seen as freedom fighters because their cause is understandable. just because we don't understand (or even know in many cases) the cause being promoted by those who bombed bali doesn't mean that nobody does. there will always be somebody to defend their actions.

A cause does not necessarily justify actions, and as I've already shown IMO, there is no way you can claim that the Palestinians' indiscriminate murder of men, women and children is justifiable. So far all you've provided are platitudes I'm afraid. You said you stand by your point, I'm still waiting for you to provide some substance to your argument. Mine is quite clear, the terrorists are murderers, indiscriminately killing regardless of whether or not their victims disagree with their grievances or not. That is senseless murder, without rhyme or reason, and it simply cannot be justified, not when they are the very people that the terrorists are deliberately targetting in order to cause the most terror. You see, there's the clue, and it applies to the bombing in Warrington as it does in so many terrorist atrocities. They aren't trying to cripple the military, or the Police, they are going for the soft targets in order to terrorise the civlian population because they can't fight back. The terrorists' cowardice disgusts me and to me the issue is black and white. You deliberately kill civilians, you're a murderer, a terrorist, simple as.

as another example possibly similar to the palestinians, the IRA, how long would it have taken for the government to take northern ireland to where it is today if they hadn't been killing people. like it or not, terrorism works.[/QUOTE]
You made a huge generalisation when you repeated the trite phrase, "one man's terrorist, etc." and while you say you stand by your point, you are now attempting to be very specific about

Borris · 8 Jul 2006 at 00:09

Just for troll value, let's look at the French resistance quickly - they were acting against their own Vichy government, not just the German occupiers.

Regarding the OP - If only the definition of terrorism were so easy - Our own government has legislated without check or balance against terrorists, without so much as providing us with anything more than a loosely worded idea of what that refers to.

Of those arrested made under this legislation, only a handful could ever be considered tobe terrorists by your definition.

bigredshark · 8 Jul 2006 at 00:43

I've made a lot of these points in the past in SC, I think it's perhaps best if i put my position another way. I don't think you should be able to arrest and charge someone for being a 'terrorist', if they kill people they're murders and should be treated as no more or less.

Also, whether they use a layer of abstraction to justify killing civilians is somewhat irrelevent, they believe in it and people support them in it, what they use to justify it doesn't affect that they justify it.

A final note, while palestinians could target military targets and instead choose to go for soft civilian targets, I think it's merely pragmatism on their part (why try to hit a harder target) and possibly that unless civilians were being killed it still might not influence a government.