This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Freedom Fighters? or Terrorists?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Adamsm
1) They can have any state they want, but honestly, left to their own devices, they start slaughtering eachother.Because there all savages and sand monkey's right?
2) North Korea is actually very stable. They are not detonating nuclear weapons, launching long range missiles toward us, or threatening war. Oh wait...Heh yeah, I wonder why that would be, couldn't be because in the last 8 years they've watched as a puffed up, over bearing idiot steadily waged war with two different middle east countries.
3) 'liberal' isn't a political party.Actually,
It is.
(if your Canadian anyways)
Post by
Deepthought
1) They can have any state they want, but honestly, left to their own devices, they start slaughtering eachother.
Them craaazzzyyy mooselims, eh MyTie?
They are not detonating nuclear weapons,
I'm going to Bikini Atoll for my holidays. You?
launching long range missiles toward us,
But the SCUDS, fired from the eastern coast of North Korea, have limited range, and fell harmlessly into the sea less than 300 miles (480 kilometers) from where they were launched.
Ctrl + F "fired" "launch" doesn't come up with anything more of note.
or threatening war. Oh wait...
Has anything more been heard of this or was it a one time thing? Either way, it's not like the west has been exactly welcoming to them, is it?
Post by
Adamsm
North Korea:
Some analysts say this nuclear test could be an attempt to shore up the legitimacy of a potentially weakened leader in the eyes of a domestic audience
ter·ror·ism (těr'ə-rĭz'əm)
n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of
intimidating
or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or
political reasons
I also like how you jump from Iraq to North Korea, but hey, we all know them koreans are the next big terrorist after them muslim folks.Actually, it appears, by definition, yes, yes they are.
Do I win now?
Not really. The States are doing the same thing; "Either act like we do, or were going to invade your country and kick your leader out of office(even if we did set him up in the first place)".
Post by
MyTie
Both of you just justified your enemy's ambition to kill you because we, as a country, are imperfect.
Post by
Adamsm
Both of you just justified your enemy's ambition to kill you because we, as a country, are imperfect.What enemy? Only crime Canada has in the eyes of the world is the giant canker south of us.
Post by
Deepthought
Both of you just justified your enemy's ambition to kill you because we, as a country, are imperfect.
You are doing the same with Korea.
1) They can have any state they want, but honestly, left to their own devices, they start slaughtering eachother.
Them craaazzzyyy mooselims, eh MyTie?
P.S. "we as a country". You don't know where either of us live, do you?
Post by
MyTie
Both of you just justified your enemy's ambition to kill you because we, as a country, are imperfect.
You are doing the same with Korea.I'm justifying what?1) They can have any state they want, but honestly, left to their own devices, they start slaughtering eachother.
Them craaazzzyyy mooselims, eh MyTie?
P.S. "we as a country". You don't know where either of us live, do you?
Then, you were not included in 'we', if you are not part of this country. I'm not going to put a disclaimer under every statement I am making about the limited application depending on the country of the reader. I understand there are people from other countries on the internet. Those people should realize I was speaking about the US, due to the fact I have been talking about the US Military's actions for the last 2 pages. Does every post I make have to clarify that to make it politically correct enough for you not to stick your nose up to? Do you just need something else to whine about, instead of talking about the above points?
Post by
Adamsm
Both of you just justified your enemy's ambition to kill you because we, as a country, are imperfect.
You are doing the same with Korea.I'm justifying what?Justifying why they want to attack. Ever since 9/11, the States have been trying to become some global police force, cracking down on every so called 'terrorist' threat, and not caring how many people they kill, or what damage they cause. After all, isn't that the same country that put into a law that lets anyone, in the name of Homeland Security, permission to break into a house, take you prisoner, stick you in a camp like Git-mo, and leave you there without trial.
You wonder why the rest of the world is trying to get nuclear weapons and the like ready to go? Because they have no idea who is next. Who is the only country to use a nuclear weapon in a war.... the States, and look at all the civilians they killed in Hiroshima and the other spot, but you know, I guess the lives of a few hundred soldiers is worth the lives of a few thousand civilian japanese men, woman and children, as well as making two spots unliveable, but hey, it's alright, they were attacked first......
The rest of the world is scared to death of that insane country that calls itself America.
Post by
Deepthought
I'm justifying what?
An invasion (or other action) against Korea? I thought it would be obvious. I'm arguing that what Korea is doing is tolerable, and you're arguing that it isn't and military action is needed? That's the only reason I can see for you to take this line of argumentation.
Then, you were not included in 'we', if you are not part of this country. I'm not going to put a disclaimer under every statement I am making about the limited application depending on the country of the reader. I understand there are people from other countries on the internet.
You are missing the point.
Those people should realize I was speaking about the US, due to the fact I have been talking about the US Military's actions for the last 2 pages.
No @#$%?
Does every post I make have to clarify that to make it politically correct enough for you not to stick your nose up to?
Again, you are missing the point. But nice to see you take every chance to lash out at the big bad boogeyman of political correctness.
Do you just need something else to whine about, instead of talking about the above points?
Your entire point was "you must agree with me or want to be killed because if you don't agree with me you want Korea to attack the US" and this point only "stands-up" (it doesn't stand up at all for other reasons, but let's ignore them) if we assume that the person this is aimed at is living in the US.
Post by
TheMediator
MyTie is always on the right side (in his opinion), so if they're opposed to what he believes, they are evil (in his opinion).
Anyways, the way I see it, there's not a much difference, they're just names to suit whatever one side wants to make look "right". The US bombed the hell out of Japan to lower their morale during World War 2, which isn't fundamentally different from terrorists blowing up buildings in the US. Its just a matter of who is telling the story.
Post by
MyTie
I'm justifying what?
An invasion (or other action) against Korea? I thought it would be obvious. I'm arguing that what Korea is doing is tolerable, and you're arguing that it isn't and military action is needed? That's the only reason I can see for you to take this line of argumentation.
No. I was discussing the economics of oil trading between Iraq and North Korea. I don't condone any military action against anyone in the world right now, besides limited protection of our borders, mainly against drug runners. I don't pretend to justify the war in Iraq, or anywhere, or the possibilities of such anywhere. It seems words are being put in my mouth. Let me state what I do believe, so it will not be misinterpreted anymore. My beliefs stated in this thread are:
1) The US military is not a terrorist organization.
2) Freedom Fighters are not necessarily Terrorists, and Terrorists are not necessarily Freedom Fighters.
3) Distorting point 2 does injustice to Freedom Fighters.
4) Injustices perpetrated by the US does not justify the actions of other countries, nor make them wrong.
5) Iraq, left to its own devices, would probably fall to an oppressive and bloody government.
6) North Korea employs terror for political gain.
7) The people that make the honest mistakes in wartime should not be punished, like the pilot that drops the bomb on the civilians, while following orders, from an altitude that he cannot visually see the target, while under the understanding that he is destroying a military target.
Post by
MyTie
MyTie is always on the right side (in his opinion), so if they're opposed to what he believes, they are evil (in his opinion).
This is trolling. I am not always right. Those that disagree with me are not evil. I never said contrary, ever. Like most criticisms you make of me, it is not founded in fact, reason, sound logic, or example. Your inability to stop having a negative prejudice of me personally makes you unable to form a well thought out arguement against my ideals.
Post by
Adamsm
Anyways, the way I see it, there's not a much difference, they're just names to suit whatever one side wants to make look "right". The US bombed the hell out of Japan to lower their morale during World War 2, which isn't fundamentally different from terrorists blowing up buildings in the US. Its just a matter of who is telling the story.
To the Victor goes the bragging right.
MyTie is always on the right side (in his opinion), so if they're opposed to what he believes, they are evil (in his opinion).
This is trolling. I am not always right. Those that disagree with me are not evil. I never said contrary, ever. Like most criticisms you make of me, it is not founded in fact, reason, sound logic, or example. Your inability to stop having a negative prejudice of me personally makes you unable to form a well thought out arguement against my ideals.
And aye, I am enjoying this conversation, nice to have one that doesn't descend into "Whatever, shut up n00b!"
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
MyTie is always on the right side (in his opinion), so if they're opposed to what he believes, they are evil (in his opinion).
This is trolling. I am not always right. Those that disagree with me are not evil. I never said contrary, ever. Like most criticisms you make of me, it is not founded in fact, reason, sound logic, or example. Your inability to stop having a negative prejudice of me personally makes you unable to form a well thought out arguement against my ideals.
Haha I read Mediator's post and the first thing that came to my mind was a quote from my least favorite novel of all time, Pride and Prejudice: "You expect me to account for opinions which you choose to call mine, but which I have never acknowledged."
Post by
TheMediator
You basically have said it. You believe that anything wrong your side does is an unintended mistake, and anything right the opposing side does is an unintended consequence to some evil goal.
Post by
Lecks
You basically have said it. You believe that anything wrong your side does is an unintended mistake, and anything right the opposing side does is an unintended consequence to some evil goal.
Carefull with interpreting people's words, it leads to a discussion on semantics.
Post by
MyTie
You basically have said it. You believe that anything wrong your side does is an unintended mistake, and anything right the opposing side does is an unintended consequence to some evil goal.
Would you please provide a quote? I don't believe I have basically 'said it', or anything like that.
To your credit, I am passionate about my beliefs, and, at many times, unwaivering in my standing up for them. However, many times my beliefs have been in error. It is a humbleing moment when you realize that you are the one that is wrong. I have been there. So, if the arguement is that I personally believe myself to be infallible, then the truth of the matter could not be more to the contrary.
If the arguement is that I don't believe my 'side' can by wrong, that is incorrect also. As I have said just a few posts ago, I disagree with almost all military action taken in the world today by the US. I can point to political leaders and question thier actions and the consequences of the actions, as well as thier logic in those actions. I am all about questioning the US side(I was gonna say 'our side', because saying the 'US side' makes it sound like I am not in the US, but I didn't want the foreigners to start crying about their percieved inclusion in the US' actions). I am just not going to use these faults to justify terrorism. Nor will I blame a pilot who was doing his job. I do my best to apply fault with reason, not with biases or emotion.
Post by
ASHelmy
a freedom fighter is (should be) a responsible, honorable person who fights those that try to bring down the democratic ideals of his country. therefore, a freedom fighter always defends something.
(of course there are shades of grey, so when a freedom fighter starts to be more violent than necessary, he might become a bad freedom fighter. but that is for another topic)
a terrorist is someone who kills innocent civilians on full purpose because he thinks it is the only way he can get any attention from the world. he tries to convince the more wealthy countries to
give him freedom
. (is that even possible?) because he knows the government will not listen to them, he tries to spread fear among the people, so that they in turn may influence the government.
the problem is this. the wealthy countries in the world have achieved their wealth because they built a democratic system that offers you freedom - and luxury, if you are smart enough to make the money. the terrorists live as they always have, but now they have become greedy.
i know there is a lot of debate going on about surpression and so forth. that may even be true, but really it only channels the hate that stems from the poor and religious countries inability to support themselves.
so the definition stands, freedom fighters defend what they have built up. terrorists try to blackmail the more evolved countries into sharing. (instead of realizing that being religious zealots has got them into the position they are in now)
TLDR = if all countries in the world were filled with reasonable westerners, there would be no base for terrorism because the countries would have evolved more instead of remaining on the same level of science surpressing religious zeal that was state of the art some two thousand years ago.
Cool story bro. You claim that religious people are the reason that we are not good? Well, buddy, religion once made us (The middle east) one of the most powerful empires of the time. Calm down a bit, read a book about the history of the middle east, then come debate. Religion was once considered more important than science, now science is thought to be better, such is the way time works: things rise and fall.
The people of Afghanistan and Iraq are not terrorists, they got attacked by a far stronger country for no fault of their own. You can't blame them for ANYTHING they do there, they are just trying to retake what is rightfully their's. In other words, the soliders who went there are fair game (a crude and harsh term, but the truth) to them. I don't blame the soliders, they are good men/women who believe that they are doing the best for their country, and for that, you have to salute them. But they are woefully mistaken. Horribly decieved into thinking that they are fighting for freedom, when infact, they robbed two whole nations of peace.
And duuuude, the koran totally tells us to kill western devils! In fact I am considering the best way to bring about your demise right. this. instant! But I guess you're too smart to be told something like that by a stupid religious zealot like me.
Post by
Magnerz
Just wanna start off saying i've nothing against people having opinions, so long as they are willing to alter these or adopt new ones in view of new evidence etc... but some of the opinions on here are bordering on stupidity;
MyTie; "Terrorist Motives = Slaughter anyone and everyone neccessary, including yourself, to spread the peaceful message of Allah."
This is possibly one of the most ignorant things i've seen on this thread, i'd like to point out to you the american-centric absurdity of this argument. Just because the "war on terror" happens to be the 'fotm' of the american political world, it doesnt mean that this is all that terrorism entails, if you want people to take note of your words, don't be needlessly derogitary and nieve. I'm not defending extremists here, just pointing out that terrorism isn't just all about the standardized view of America's attack on extremist Islam.
Could point out the IRA, ETA, chechnyan (spelling) rebels, from the past 10 years... or go back 100's of years to the Christian Crusades...
In essence, as history is all too often "written by the winner's", and as such, freedom fighters are often portrayed as terrorist, and visa-versa.
"There is no truth or lies, it all depends upon the colour of the glass you are lookng through" - not exactly who first said this, or came up with the sentiment, but i do agree with it. Perspective means everything, as someone has already said, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter".
MyTie; "In the rare circumstances that civilians are killed by the US Military, it is either in unintentional error" - i thought, perhaps wrongly, that it was the american military who came up with the term "collateral damage". If you know it could and likely will happen, even how is that completely unintentional. This is classic Machievellian (spelling) theory of the ends justify the means. You may not set out to harm civilians, but in aceeding that it may happen, you cannot realistically claim the moral high-ground.
Post by
MyTie
Just wanna start off saying i've nothing against people having opinions, so long as they are willing to alter these or adopt new ones in view of new evidence etc... but some of the opinions on here are bordering on stupidity;
MyTie; "Terrorist Motives = Slaughter anyone and everyone neccessary, including yourself, to spread the peaceful message of Allah."
This is possibly one of the most ignorant things i've seen on this thread, i'd like to point out to you the american-centric absurdity of this argument. Just because the "war on terror" happens to be the 'fotm' of the american political world, it doesnt mean that this is all that terrorism entails, if you want people to take note of your words, don't be needlessly derogitary and nieve. I'm not defending extremists here, just pointing out that terrorism isn't just all about the standardized view of America's attack on extremist Islam.
Could point out the IRA, ETA, chechnyan (spelling) rebels, from the past 10 years... or go back 100's of years to the Christian Crusades...
In essence, as history is all too often "written by the winner's", and as such, freedom fighters are often portrayed as terrorist, and visa-versa.
"There is no truth or lies, it all depends upon the colour of the glass you are lookng through" - not exactly who first said this, or came up with the sentiment, but i do agree with it. Perspective means everything, as someone has already said, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter".Perspective is important, true. However, are you argueing that angry religious zealotry is not a major source of terrorism in the world today, and furthermore, that the religious zealotry does not come from radical islam? And I don't know what being American has to do with this idea. It seems that is pretty common knowledge.MyTie; "In the rare circumstances that civilians are killed by the US Military, it is either in unintentional error" - i thought, perhaps wrongly, that it was the american military who came up with the term "collateral damage". If you know it could and likely will happen, even how is that completely unintentional. This is classic Machievellian (spelling) theory of the ends justify the means. You may not set out to harm civilians, but in aceeding that it may happen, you cannot realistically claim the moral high-ground.
I'm not argueing that the collateral damage is justified, only that it was not an intentional act perpetrated to inspire fear.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.