or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Respect for terrorists....
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Respect for terrorists....

post #1 of 150
Thread Starter 
I know that this may be a very sickening topic for a lot of you since this is an American dominated board. However, it is a discussion board and not a be popular board. I hope the mods will also realise that censorship never helped anyone.

What makes a terrorist. Well the way I see it, you have to be part of a minority. On top of that you have to fight in an unconventional way. No mass engagements. Finally, what you are fighting for has to be the unpopular thing in the region you fight for it. Difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter? There is none. It's just that the part of the media that believes in your goal calls you a freedom fighter and the rest calls you a terrorist.

Being from a country with a, so called, terrorist presence in it I feel that I know what I'm talking about since I experienced it first hand.

I respect terrorists as we know them. They are willing to die for what they believe in. They don't do it for personal gain. They believe it is right to shoot English soldiers. They believe it's right to blow up an American embassy. They believe it so much that they have no problem strapping themselves with dynamite and blowing themselves up during rush hour in Tel Aviv.

Do I think they are right? No I don't. I don't support violence over diplomacy ever. But I do respect their conviction.

I think we should all not forget that without terrorists America would not have gained it's independance. Nazi Germany would have been a lot harder to beat without the resistances in Europe. In those times, these groups were also seen as terrorists.
"Trying is the first step to failure - Homer J. Simpson"
Reply
"Trying is the first step to failure - Homer J. Simpson"
Reply
post #2 of 150
heavy stuff. I tend to agree with what you are saying. American foreign policy is wacker than Britany Spears' latest album, and while I don't applaud or condone the events of Sept. 11th, I can understand them.

I was shocked at the scale of the events, but personally I think 'terrorist' retalliation was entirely predictable. It was also entirely predictable that George Bush Jr. would dismiss any attack on America as a battle of 'good vs. evil.' But America (Gov't, Military) is not a pillar of 'goodness' and ethical/moral 'purity'. Nor was the attack on Sept. 11th an attack on freedom, democracy etc. It was a statement to the American Gov't that they are not untouchable/indestructable. That although their military is the strongest, they cannot impose their ways (global culture) on every country when it is so obviously a game America will always win. Mexico is America's bitch. Canada is America's bitch. So many countries are, and when a few small ones refuse to bend over and take it in the @$$, I can understand why.

It's a terrible shame that thousands had to die in New York. I'm not 'down' w/ the Taliban (who are certainly fuct up), or terrorist acts, but I can understand their rationale.
No, the bazaar cannot satisfy users. Neither can the cathedral. Nothing can satisfy users, because software is written to enable rather than satisfy, and because most users are mewling malcontents...
Reply
No, the bazaar cannot satisfy users. Neither can the cathedral. Nothing can satisfy users, because software is written to enable rather than satisfy, and because most users are mewling malcontents...
Reply
post #3 of 150
Good post, stimuli.
post #4 of 150
Excellent post, stimuli!
post #5 of 150
I think I know what you're trying to say, even if you're not really sure how you should say it. Mayb, at best, you're close, but still wrong. Certainly media spin makes some (or a lot) of the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter. And in Ireland both sides partake of the honorable and machiavellian virtues in substantial helpings. But this situation is quite different, these are not freedom fighters. They are soldiers in a holy war of the worst kind, fuelled by hate, poverty, and worst of all a conditioned appetite for hate and war. These are a people that need now to be subjugated, ruled, governed, policed -- pick your favorite term so long as you understand it means that we call the shots and not them -- for they are utterly incapable of doing it themselves. All this talk of Afganistan figuring it's own destiny is the worst kind of foolishness. What will they figure it with? The angry, unemployed, hungry, and to be frank, ignorant masses? No no. We will fight a war that will replace a crazy regime with a corrupt one, and we will suffer further attacks from the next wave of brave madmen.

There is no such thing as moral equivalency. But that's only half the tale: there is also no such thing as a star-trek style prime directive. To free Afganistan only to leave its future in its own inept hands will lead to more suffering for them, and -- don't kid yourself -- for us. We have a duty to stamp our style on those whose own ideology has brought forth nothing but disaster upon disaster. We are Rome. Or at least the USA is, the rest of us are provinces. If we really believe in the virtues of our democracy, then there is, and ought to be, no tolerance for religious fundamentalists regimes.

[ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: Matsu ]</p>
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #6 of 150
I simply prefer to boil this down to it's base. We've done some things that may not have been appropriate but we've NEVER targeted 50,000 Civilians. I have No, nada, nine, nyet respect for Terrorists. Just like a Gang Members they are fuken cowards. At least look me in the eye before you kill me. I'd enjoy breaking my hand on one of those fukers faces if I had the chance. I'm ok will the US being a superpower because for the most part we don't abuse it too much but I see nothing wrong with grinding losers like Bin Laden and his al-Queda biotches up into little bits of flesh and bone. Look at Bin Laden now...scurrying around hiding like a rat..his days are numbered and so are ANY terrorists who think they got the chutzpuh to smack America and not get touched.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #7 of 150
[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:

<strong>What makes a terrorist... you have to fight in an unconventional way. No mass engagements.... </strong><hr></blockquote>

This really is the key distinction. In the case of terrorists "fight in an unconventional way" means you attack civilian targets rather than military ones.

[quote]<strong>... Difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter? There is none... </strong><hr></blockquote>

If the tactics of a so-called freedom fighter involves killing civilians this is true. But not all freedom fighters stoop so low.

p.s. Good post, Matsu.

[ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #8 of 150
Matsu and roger_ramjet are the only people in this thread who aren't delusional.

[ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: ColorClassicG4 ]</p>
This is not 38, this is old 97!
Reply
This is not 38, this is old 97!
Reply
post #9 of 150
What a bunch of idiots.

[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>

What makes a terrorist. Well the way I see it, you have to be part of a minority. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Oh? So were giving them minority status are we? Trying to illicit some sympathy for them by tagging them as a "minority". Racial minority? Political minority? Ideological minority? Doesn't matter right? The terrorist are "minorities" and there for deserving on our unconditional sympathy. Or are you trying to argue that terrorism is the only way they could get their "message" out because they are a "minority".

Political Correctness gone WAY too far.


[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>On top of that you have to fight in an unconventional way. No mass engagements. Finally, what you are fighting for has to be the unpopular thing in the region you fight for it. Difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter? There is none.</strong><hr></blockquote>

There isnt huh? As far as I can tell bin Laden and the rest of Al Qaeda has their freedom. So what are they fighting for? OR better yet who are they fighting? A bunch of people going to work in the morning? Theyre fighting some woman trying to earn a living by answering a phone?

[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>It's just that the part of the media that believes in your goal calls you a freedom fighter and the rest calls you a terrorist.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Terrorist tend to do their acts to create terror. Where as freedom fighters tend to fight for freedom, not against it. Killing a bunch of people going to work fights against freedom.

[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>Being from a country with a, so called, terrorist presence in it I feel that I know what I'm talking about since I experienced it first hand.</strong><hr></blockquote>


I know what Im talking about too because I experienced. Killing a bunch of innocent people trying to earn a living is a 100% illegitimate way to achieve a political agenda.

[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>I respect terrorists as we know them. They are willing to die for what they believe in. They don't do it for personal gain. They believe it is right to shoot English soldiers. They believe it's right to blow up an American embassy. They believe it so much that they have no problem strapping themselves with dynamite and blowing themselves up during rush hour in Tel Aviv.</strong><hr></blockquote>

They think its right to kill women. They think its right to kill children. They think its right to kill fathers, mothers, son daughters all of whom have no relation at all to their jihad.

[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>Do I think they are right? No I don't. I don't support violence over diplomacy ever. But I do respect their conviction. </strong><hr></blockquote>

You just spent the whole page praising them and now you try to reform yourself as being a moral person by saying you dont think its right. Do you respect a rapist then? After all many rapist are a determined lot. Are we to respect people just because they are determined?

[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>I think we should all not forget that without terrorists America would not have gained it's independance. Nazi Germany would have been a lot harder to beat without the resistances in Europe. In those times, these groups were also seen as terrorists.</strong><hr></blockquote>

The fight for independence did not include mass murder. The people fighting Nazi Germany behind the lines were saboteurs not murders.


Youre just a simple minded fool.

[ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: Scott H. ]</p>
post #10 of 150
There is a huge difference between freedom fighters and terrorists. Freedom fighters are. . . fighting for freedom. The IRA, those are freedom fighters. GB took their land they want it back.
The cowards hiding in Afghanistan: Are we holding their land or holding their people captive? No. Do we refuse to let them practice their barbaric and backwards form of Islam on their own lands? No.

They don't like what we do, well guess what, it works both ways. The only difference is we're big enough and strong enough to get shit done right. Do you think things would be better rather than worse if the tables were turned?

As an aside:
What actions by Revolutionary War figures qualify them as terrorists?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #11 of 150
[quote]I simply prefer to boil this down to it's base. We've done some things that may not have been appropriate but we've NEVER targeted 50,000 Civilians. <hr></blockquote>

Some Latin Americans would beg to differ.

[quote]I'm ok will the US being a superpower because for the most part we don't abuse it too much <hr></blockquote>

We do abuse it, on a regular basis.

[quote]This really is the key distinction. In the case of terrorists "fight in an unconventional way" means you attack civilian targets rather than military ones.<hr></blockquote>

Nope.

It means you don't send tank colums after your enemy, but it does not mean you fail to restrict your activity to millitary targets.
post #12 of 150
I should have known that as soon as AI came back up it would be filled with people making apologies for bin Laden.

And don't say you're not.
post #13 of 150
Very interesting post, stimuli.
post #14 of 150
[quote]Originally posted by DoctorGonzo:
<strong>Some Latin Americans would beg to differ.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Slow down with that. We've done some bad things in Latin America but never anything on that scale. Not even close.

We armed them which allowed them to kill each other more than they already were killing each other.

[quote]<strong>We do abuse it, on a regular basis.</strong><hr></blockquote>

When you are the premier superpower in the world things aren't always so black and white in terms of good and bad.

Painting it black is just as ignorant as painting it white.

Terrorists are cowards. Wife-beaters are cowards although they may be "brave" enough to use physical force. Cowardice is a state of mind.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #15 of 150
[quote]Originally posted by DoctorGonzo:
<strong>
It means you don't send tank colums after your enemy, but it does not mean you fail to restrict your activity to millitary targets.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Nope. You are describing guerrilla tactics. Terrorists may use guerrilla tactics but not everyone who fights this way is a terrorist. The distinguishing characteristic that sets terrorists apart is their willingness to attack noncombatants.
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #16 of 150
[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<strong>The distinguishing characteristic that sets terrorists apart is their willingness to attack noncombatants.</strong><hr></blockquote>So, dropping atom bombs on Japan was terrorism then.
post #17 of 150
We vaporized two cities in Japan, though it was during a declared war. But how many times have we ignored the fact that these people have declared war on us for years?

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were also cirtual military factories...not to mention Japan really needed a wake-up call...see past atrocities in Korea, China, Phillippines...To this day, I don't think I've ever had a coversation with my Japanese friends about WWII...they just don't talk about it, not even if you try to force them to talk about it...whereas plenty of people here are willing to talk about Vietnam and Somalia.

An eye for an eye, Hammurabi's Laws aren't going to change.

The US is powerful because of exploitation, not because we attacked other nations. If the civilians in Kunduz an Kandahar want the bombings to stop, they're going to have to flush out the Taliban, otherwise they are NOT "innocent civilians."
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #18 of 150
Don't bother. This thread is filled with people who think that the terrorist "have a point" and that killing innocent people is an appropriate way to get achieve a political goal. Also that the US "got what it had coming" and that there is little difference between a military and civilian target.

You can explain the difference between a "freedom fighter" and terrorist, a "saboteur" and "terrorist", a "guerrilla" fighter and a terrorist until you're blue in the face. The people here will justify all terrorism because they are blinded by their anti-american hatred. They hate the US because of their own reasons and there for anything that kills people in america is justified without inspection.
post #19 of 150
[quote]This thread is filled with people who think that the terrorist "have a point".....<hr></blockquote>

Because someone understands why someone does something does not mean they agree with what they do.

[quote].....and that killing innocent people is an appropriate way to get achieve a political goal.<hr></blockquote>

Show me one example in this thread.

[quote]Also that the US "got what it had coming"<hr></blockquote>

U.S foreign policy has supported corrupt regiemes and illegal millitary occupations in the Middle East. Not surprising that some people are a bit pissed off at that.

[quote]and that there is little difference between a military and civilian target.<hr></blockquote>

Once again, you are manufacturing a statement.

[quote]The people here will justify all terrorism because they are blinded by their anti-american hatred.<hr></blockquote>

No one here has tried to justify what happened on September 11th. Some have tried to explain why people are so pissed off at the U.S.

If you can't see the distinction, than this discussion is above your level of understanding and you should find something on your intellectual level to debate.

[quote]They hate the US because of their own reasons and there for anything that kills people in america is justified without inspection. <hr></blockquote>

Once again, a manufactured statement.

Boy, we should just stop posting, you are apparently capable of putting words in our mouths for us.

Saves us the effort, you know.

post #20 of 150
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>There is a huge difference between freedom fighters and terrorists. Freedom fighters are. . . fighting for freedom. The IRA, those are freedom fighters. GB took their land they want it back.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The IRA are perhaps freedom fighters by your definition, but they are most definitely also terrorists.
[quote]ter·ror·ism (tr-rzm)
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.<hr></blockquote>
And I understand it's not just about dictionary definitions. If you target innocent citizens of any nation, whether they're willing subjects of their governors or not, that is terrorism and an utterly evil act.
Chicanery.
Reply
Chicanery.
Reply
post #21 of 150
[quote]Originally posted by Eugene:
<strong>The US is powerful because of exploitation</strong><hr></blockquote>

What on earth does this mean? What is "exploitation"?
This is not 38, this is old 97!
Reply
This is not 38, this is old 97!
Reply
post #22 of 150
Respect for terrorists? Yeah right.

Do I know why they did it? Yep. So what.

I have no respect for terrorists, their actions, or their motives. Shame on those that do, regardless of how displeased they are with our nation's foreign policy.

(two good foreign policy books:

Blowback, Chalmers Johnson
Special Providence, Walter Russell Mead)
post #23 of 150
The last thing in the world we need to do is give terrorist credibility by either "respecting" them or giving any consideration to their grievances. To do so ONLY encourages more terrorist attacks.

If anyone in the middle east wants to "make a point" to "be heard" they can take it to the UN. They can take it to the leaders of their countries. Slamming planes into office buildings can never be condoned in any way shape or form.
post #24 of 150
I think so far most of the things that Scott H. Has said are true. Just by encouraging the terriorists like some of you are doing almost guarantees more attacks like 9/11. But hey, if you wanna take the chance of being killed in a building that a terrorist hi-jacked plane hits then keep encouraging them.
post #25 of 150
[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:

<strong>So, dropping atom bombs on Japan was terrorism then.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Nothing unconventional about planes dropping bombs. And of course, Eugene's point applies as well. WWII wasn't an example of terrorism. It was total war. Total war is awful in it's own way. Terrorism is awful in another way. Sometimes bad things overlap, have similar characteristics. That doesn't make them the same bad thing.
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #26 of 150
"Good, Bad...I'm the one with the gun"

I kind of agree with George Carlin on all this...fine, go ahead and kill, rape and pillage...see if I care. It all boils down to one thing...religion...stupid campfire tales of fear and stupidity shrouded in "the rules of man" from some bearded nothing from nowhere.

When the hell are we going to wake up and understand that the true god is right under our feet (E-A-R-T-H) and the true sense of goodness and understanding is within all of us. We all have two arms, two legs, eyes and a brain which we only have achieved in using 20% of. We have a long way to go and I don't think any of us are going to see the day. Either from time or the inevitable stupidity of powers today.

Me? I don't care...right now my thoughts are:

Good guys? Keep 'em...but stay away from these...
Bad guys? A bloody stain on the carpet. Get rid of 'em.

Oh, and I don't respect any loner ****head that needs to kill themself and take an unneeded amount of innocents for some "agenda" from "god".
I AM THE Royal Pain in the Ass.
Reply
I AM THE Royal Pain in the Ass.
Reply
post #27 of 150
Ahhhh too much rhetoric. Why try to get in the mind of a sociopath. Frankly I don't care what the US has done abroad...all I know is that thousands of US citizens are dead and that must not go unpunished. Whether you call the opponent a Terrorist or a Freedom Fighter is up to you...Self Preservation reigns supreme.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #28 of 150
At times we do altogether too much self flaggelation. I like what Silvio Berlusconi said about the general situation. His speech was perhaps colored by racism, or at least a level of cultural elitism, and (furthermore) it perhaps should not have come at the time when it did, but it was in essence correct. And every democratic westerner would do well to keep it in mind:

"We must be aware of the superiority of our civilization, a system that has guaranteed well-being, respect for human rights and - in contrast with Islamic countries - respect for religious and political rights, a system that has as its values understandings of diversity and tolerance..."

"The West will continue to conquer peoples, like it conquered communism," even if that means confronting "another civilization, the Islamic one, stuck where it was 1,400 years ago."

Perhaps his sweep of history and culture is unfair, but the core is entirely correct. We have managed to understand the seperation of church and state. The Islamic world has not. Think for a moment if the right wing, religious right, christian coalition yahoos were universally revered, even for a short time, and subsequently armed. They wouldn't be the objects of ridicule (that they richly deserve); they would instead be your government. That is essentially the taliban. The west may not be perfect, but, to our great benefit, we have taken care to guard against this. Religion may, and often does, inform politics, but it does not infallibly dictate the civic code. As political civic beings, we are better, we are more advanced. They have to catch-up to us, we must never make, or encourage, the retrograde policies which, thankfully, are for the most part our history.
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #29 of 150
So Matsu? Would you say that the Protestant Reformation which led to a type if religious diversity and maybe then the separation of church and state led to our pluralistic society that allows the West to move forward in this world while the religious bigotry of the Islamic world holds them back?

Hummm?


Maybe the Islamic worlds inability of introspection and self criticism holds them back?


Naw thats crap. Its all the US fault. Ill go hijack a plane and crash it into Sears because the US asked for it. Maybe the people here will respect me for that?
post #30 of 150
the taliban are guilty of over generalization...

Punish the many(innocent) for the crimes of the few...???

this sounds like an idea I have heard before...

Actions present in many forms, both lesser and greater in many religions...

Religions often over generalize everything... and get specific only when it would threaten there presently held beliefs...

thats why there are often several different factions of a faith...

Since religion cannot be taken out of this discussion becuase of it direct influence on the infamous events of 9/11... I would have to remind you of the Islamic Law (al-Shari'ah)... and it many unquestionable rules...

Kill the infidel..., etc.

Now I could say the same about christains and attack them in a retro-fashion... using phrases in the questionable laws in the bible... questioning the people of the present by the actions of the past (visiting the sins of the father unto the sons an daughters) but I wont becuase we wont get anywhere doing that...

This Law, while being rooted in the sources of the Islamic revelation, is a living body of law which caters to the needs of Islamic society. Islamic laws are essentially preventative and are not based on harsh punishment except as a last measure. The faith of the Muslim causes him to have respect for the rights of others and Islamic Law is such that it prevents transgression from taking place in most instances. That is why what people consider to be harsh punishments are so rarely in need of being applied.

I have seen how happy the people are now to be free of the taliban... and I will remind myself not to judge a people for the crimes of a few...

they taliban are terrorists who inspire fear, terror and are dictators that decide what "is" freedom... they are in no way to be parralelled with freedom fighters...

E PLURIBUS UNIX
-----------------------------
post #31 of 150
What it is is years of humanistic 'liberal' (not as in left vs right) thought; the Rennaissance; the Enlightenment; the Industrial era, and even the age of High modernism and yes post-modernism. In each of these successive eras we have hashed out ideas about individuality in relation to truth, state, and god...ideas that that have led to an over-all relatively large amount of personal freedom.


In each of these eras there are a large number of interlocking contributing factors, but, probably the main factor is the changes in the means of production due to a technological (Metaphysical) frame of mind which is an inheritence of the Platonic/Greek world view, that, and a smattering of the Judao/Christian ethical code.......


Some people see that the west went through cataclysmic war just as the industrial revolution came to an end and the age of imperialism also ended, and, they see a similarity with contemporary Islam: namely that they are feeling the effects on the social body-identity of large scale technological changes, while at the same time a sense of self-hood, that at one time in the imagination covered vast lands, is now seen as being disparate and fragmented.... this then leads to a radical attempt to fuse all the fringes of the "self" under a unity. In the west this took the form of Fascism, in the Middle East it is taking the form of Jihad and Pan-islamism.

we have adapted to fragmentation and even have learned to make it a value to be praised --I think there is definitely some merit to its acceptance, and I too praise its value --its a glorious history in many respects. However, there is also some darker movements in the western Esprit that don't make the above indicated historical movement all the peaches-in-regalia it may at first seem... after all, it included the rationalistic pruduction of bars of soap made from humans


Also, in a basic way, I 'understand' the terrorists: they were a bunch of blind idiots.

my 2cents
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #32 of 150
[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:

<strong>... Think for a moment if the right wing, religious right, christian coalition yahoos were universally revered, even for a short time, and subsequently armed. They wouldn't be the objects of ridicule (that they richly deserve); they would instead be your government. That is essentially the taliban... </strong><hr></blockquote>

This is essentially the flip side of Jerry Falwell's and Pat Robertson's infamous and <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A28620-2001Sep14" target="_blank">stupid conversation</a> regarding sept. 11. Stop being so ignorant, Matsu. The Taliban were on the radar screens of evangelicals well in advance of the rest of America.

Christianity Today, Week of August 27

The Soviet Union, United States, and others helped create Afghanistan's ruling Taliban. Will the world's most Islamic state backfire?

<a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/135/44.0.html" target="_blank">In Perspective: The Friendliest Murderous Militants in the World</a>
By Todd Hertz | posted 8/30/01

[quote]A popular information site on Afghanistan advertises the land-locked Asian nation as "The Friendliest Country in the World, Possibly the Universe."

Tell that to the 24 relief workers detained there since August 5 for allegedly teaching Christianity. Or even to the citizens of Afghanistan - a country ravaged by 23 years of war, plagued by disease, drought, and famine, and ruled with an iron fist by its self-declared leaders, the Taliban.

On August 5, Taliban authorities closed down the Kabul office of Shelter Now, a Germany-based aid group, and arrested eight foreigners and sixteen Afghan employees. All will remain in captivity until the Taliban conducts a full investigation into the extent of what they allege is a conspiracy by aid groups (including the U.N.'s World Food Program) to convert Muslims... <hr></blockquote>

[ 11-20-2001: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #33 of 150
[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>What it is is years of humanistic 'liberal' (not as in left vs right) thought; the Rennaissance; the Enlightenment; the Industrial era, and even the age of High modernism and yes post-modernism. In each of these successive eras we have hashed out ideas about individuality in relation to truth, state, and god...ideas that that have led to an over-all relatively large amount of personal freedom. </strong><hr></blockquote>Well, as usual, I only understand about 10% of what you're saying. But I'd add that post-modernism has also led to the kind of relativistic thinking that started this thread.
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
(not really sure what this smiley means, but seems to work just about anywhere)
post #34 of 150
Thread Starter 
Maybe I should clarify.

I'm not making up excuses for the Taliban or Bin Laden. First of all, Taliban are not terrorists in my opinion. They are, well were, the government of Afghanistan. A government that came to be by overthrowing the excisting government by force but that's the way some governments come to power. Actually, up until a month ago, the Northern Alliance, now backed by the western world, were the rebels. The Taliban referred to them as terrorists.

However, it does reiterate my point. To the people of the U.S the people that flew a plane in to the WTC are terrorists. To the people that support them they are heroes.

Those people see them as freedom fighters. You may have the opinion that the U.S never took their freedom from them but they disagree. These people don't think in borders and countries. They think in tribes and in the end they're all Arabs. They see the U.S as the main supporter of Israel and Israel took their land and freedom from them. That's the way they see it. So while you may feel that you didn't take anyone's freedom they disagree.

I read an article, I think in Time, about the Pashtun tribe. It consists out of two main factions that fight each other. However, when attacked they stick together.

The way I see it the U.S can get rid of Taliban and Bin Laden and do two things. Declare war on pretty much the entire middle east, country by country because terrorists are everywhere. Or they could meet with the heads of state and just listen. Ask them why is this happening. What can we do to change it.

On a personal note: I do not hate the U.S. I don't agree with some of it's foreign policies. I also don't agree with what it's doing right now. But just the same as I understand the terrorist's motivation, I understand that it's out for blood now. It's only human to want revenge.

In the end, however, reason and diplomacy must prevail. One thing America should have learned, has learned, from Vietnam is that you can't kill everyone that is against you. That's a war that you will lose. No matter how many tanks and bombs and planes you have.

I understand why many of you disagree with me. I knew that when I posted it. I would have been fairly shocked if everyone had jumped up and said: "Damn! You're right! Forgive and forget."

I just hope that, in time, you will be able to forgive because we can never have peace without it. If wanting peace makes me a liberal or whatever else you wish to call me then I'll wear that tag with pride.
"Trying is the first step to failure - Homer J. Simpson"
Reply
"Trying is the first step to failure - Homer J. Simpson"
Reply
post #35 of 150
Hey bud, i know what your trying to say, about the media being bios towards freedom fighters. And i personally dont support US all the way though, because this country was in war with mine, IN THE COLD WAR. But terrorism is a dirty way to fight. I know that because Russia was in war with Chechnya (supported by Usama, and other muslim extremist syndicates).

But i dont think that pulling up to a civilian building with a car that is filled with explosives, killing hundreds of civilians, their limbs being blown off if a good cause. Thats a dirty way to fight. This is going to be a bloody war, that will last for another 20 years, claming 1000 of lives. And the propaganda seen on the TV will influence the next generation to hate a certain ethnic groups.

War is pointless.
Sorry if I seam a bit disoriented its just that I have to run to school now. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
I live in a shack and poop in an out house. I study Islam, play chess to sharpen warfare skill and killer instinct
Reply
I live in a shack and poop in an out house. I study Islam, play chess to sharpen warfare skill and killer instinct
Reply
post #36 of 150
[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>Maybe I should clarify.

These people don't think in borders and countries. They think in tribes and in the end they're all Arabs. They see the U.S as the main supporter of Israel and Israel took their land and freedom from them. That's the way they see it. So while you may feel that you didn't take anyone's freedom they disagree.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Which are the Arabs in Afghanistan again? The Tajiks or the Pashtuns?


This is not 38, this is old 97!
Reply
This is not 38, this is old 97!
Reply
post #37 of 150
[quote]Originally posted by ColorClassicG4:
<strong>

Which are the Arabs in Afghanistan again? The Tajiks or the Pashtuns?


</strong><hr></blockquote>

Ha ha. I get a laugh out that every time. All these "experts" with "respect" for the terrorist don't even know the Muslims from the Arabs from the Persian from the Asians.

They don't even know what the **** they are talking about and then they try to tell me I should respect people that kill 5000 people.

****ing morons.
post #38 of 150
[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>I
I respect terrorists as we know them. They are willing to die for what they believe in. They don't do it for personal gain. They believe it is right to shoot English soldiers. They believe it's right to blow up an American embassy. They believe it so much that they have no problem strapping themselves with dynamite and blowing themselves up during rush hour in Tel Aviv.

.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I do not and will never respect terrorist even if i share their opinion (i have serious doubt to share their opinions indeed). Killing innocent people is pure evil. Saying that terrorism is the only way for them to be respected is pure stupidity, a minority has not the right to control the majority of the people in a democratic republic where the humans right of every people are respected. There is much better way to defend your opinion.
Terrorism leads to chaos. Democraty even if not perfect have been waited since so many millenium.
So for me : absolutely no respect for any terrorist they are just been unhabited with hate, or controled by other people with sect's method
post #39 of 150
I wonder why you disagree with me now, roger?

That the Taliban appeared first on the 'radar of Evangelicals' says nothing to my point. I'm willing to concede that you're right, but I'm also inclined to think that a major part of the Evangelical concern -- with Islamic Fundamentalism -- is due to both their own self-righteous propoganda and their manachean 'us v. them', 'christian v. pagan' rhetoric. None of that disqualifies them from being right about the Taliban, mind you. However, take the stupid conversation and imagine it as the guiding principal of our heads of state. Imagine also that they were armed, and that the rest of the population is too hungry/scared/sick/confused to do anything about it.

It seems impossible. It isn't, but that it is well guarded against is a testament to the seperation of church and state; to the pluralist society -- as Scott H nicely surmised.

We have simply learned more about civics. And if the Evangelicals get their heads too big, either through too much penetration in government, or too much popular support, what stops them from behaving badly?

Full bellies, and full schools. As Pfflam (I think fairly) outlined, we have done much more in the mental arena to guarantee that the religious zealots don't hijack the proceedings. Yet, though perhaps there is no cure for this, we maintain disturbing and very dark undercurrents. Perhaps secularism will hijack our society while we're all busy investigating the priests? But there is greater possibility that we will find balance, and in that balance opportunity for all.

I find it interesting that you thought it was OK to subjugate (the Islamic fundamentalist/Arab Nationalist/whoever those pagan monkeys in the desert might be) when perhaps the implication suggested the Christian should do that work. However, when I suggested that all devout groups might behave badly in the proper conditions, you balked. To be clear, the advances of western civic culture are not specifically judeo-christian, they are, rather, in putting belief in its proper place. They are, largely, republican (in the classical sense of the word)
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #40 of 150
[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:

I wonder why you disagree with me now, roger?

... I'm willing to concede that you're right, but I'm also inclined to think that a major part of the Evangelical concern - with Islamic Fundamentalism - is due to both their own self-righteous propoganda and their manachean 'us v. them', 'christian v. pagan' rhetoric...<hr></blockquote>

Let's see. The term manichaean comes to us from Christian theology. It was one of the first heresies. It is certainly a temptation but I'm not sure why you believe evangelicals to be more susceptible than others. This is the kind of discussion that would engage a believer. It is at least possible, don't you think, that someone like that would be less likely to be tempted by such a world view than another person who doesn't believe we are all sinners. (Solzhenitsyn is right. The line between good and evil runs not between groups but through every individual soul.) How often do we see the term "NAZI" thrown around? And how often is it an evangelical Christian using this label? Are not the people who so recklessly use that word also manichaean in their thinking? So why do you believe evangelicals to be particularly persuaded to Talibanism? It has become a habit of though to refer to the Christian right in America and the Taliban in the same breath. But it is lazy thinking and it doesn't illustrate any point other than kneejerk hostility towards conservative Christians.

[quote]... take the stupid conversation and imagine it as the guiding principal of our heads of state.<hr></blockquote>

Let's not. Falwell and Robertson speak for themselves. Televangelists get far too much attention. Television ministries have a lot of reach but no depth. The heart and soul of the church is among the people who wander into that building just down the street from you. There's a reason why that both Falwell and Robertson felt the need to walk back from that conversation - even among their supporters there was a great deal of dispute about what they had said.

The failure of the evangelical world as I see it is not an over-involvement in the world but in their underrepresentation in the larger culture. They are too comfortable in their cultural ghetto and have not significantly engaged the world outside their churches and parachurch organizations. This translates into something quite the opposite of Talibanism.
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Respect for terrorists....