Hamas are going to win! - Page 2

zinglebarb · 26-01-2006, 13:37

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. During WWII the french "resistance" bombed all sorts of areas that the occupying forces were using.Were these terroists or were they freedom fighters?.
Im not condoning terrorism in any way at all and there tactics of killing innocents in Isreal was and is appalling.But Isreal were violently occupying Palistinian territory.
Would I sit back if some foreign land took over this country?? I dont think so I would fight back at them.Would I be terrorist? or would I be a freedon fighter? Everyone knew Yasser Arrofat knew what Hamas was doing so this victory comes as no surprise to me

Xaccers · 26-01-2006, 13:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. During WWII the french "resistance" bombed all sorts of areas that the occupying forces were using.Were these terroists or were they freedom fighters?.
Im not condoning terrorism in any way at all and there tactics of killing innocents in Isreal was and is appalling.But Isreal were violently occupying Palistinian territory.
Would I sit back if some foreign land took over this country?? I dont think so I would fight back at them.Would I be terrorist? or would I be a freedon fighter? Everyone knew Yasser Arrofat knew what Hamas was doing so this victory comes as no surprise to me

One man's terrorist is most certainly not one man's freedom fighter!
A freedom fighter fights, ie against the military arm of the invading force.
A terrorist spreads terror amongst civilian populations, as these are easy soft targets.
They are very different and I find the statement that they are the same extremely offensive.

zinglebarb · 26-01-2006, 13:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaccers

One man's terrorist is most certainly not one man's freedom fighter!
A freedom fighter fights, ie against the military arm of the invading force.
A terrorist spreads terror amongst civilian populations, as these are easy soft targets.
They are very different and I find the statement that they are the same extremely offensive.

So an Afganistani bomber or and Iraqi bomber blowing up a Uk or US fighting unit is actually a Freedon fighter? these have been called terroists.Both these countries have been forced to swallow democracy.What if the USSR took us over and made us swallow communism? I do not condone what these guys do Im just trying to balance the discussion.

I think it nieve to think that the US actually didnt bomb innocents in the war but what is that called Collaterol damage I think.In both of these conflicts innocents were bombed.Tell me the difference

Bifta · 26-01-2006, 13:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

So an Afganistani bomber or and Iraqi bomber blowing up a Uk or US fighting unit is actually a Freedon fighter? these have been called terroists.Both these countries have been forced to swallow democracy.What if the USSR took us over and made us swallow communism? I do not condone what these guys do Im just trying to balance the discussion.

I think it nieve to think that the US actually didnt bomb innocents in the war but what is that called Collaterol damage I think.In both of these conflicts innocents were bombed.Tell me the difference

How about all the innocent non-combatant victims of the IRA bombing campaign? Would you consider the chap who planted a bomb in a rubbish bin outside Harrods a "freedom fighter"? What about the men who drove a lorry bomb up to Canary Wharf? How about the one who planted the bomb in Manchester?

Xaccers · 26-01-2006, 14:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

So an Afganistani bomber or and Iraqi bomber blowing up a Uk or US fighting unit is actually a Freedon fighter? these have been called terroists.Both these countries have been forced to swallow democracy.What if the USSR took us over and made us swallow communism? I do not condone what these guys do Im just trying to balance the discussion.

I think it nieve to think that the US actually didnt bomb innocents in the war but what is that called Collaterol damage I think.In both of these conflicts innocents were bombed.Tell me the difference

The democracy in Iraq is being developed by the Iraqi's, not foreign nationals.
They are not having it imposed on them, they are developing it themselves.
The high electoral turnouts suggest that this form of democracy is supported by the majority of Iraqi's.
I've not heard anyone official refer to the forces attacking the Iraqi people or our forces in Iraq as terrorists. Officially they are insurgents, as the majority are from other nations, so are infact an invading force, while our forces are there at the request and invitation of the Iraqi goverment.
When Saddam invaded Kuwait, and we were invited by the house of Saud to go into Saudi Arabia and defend Kuwait and Saudi, were we invaders? No of course not.
You can only be a freedom fighter if your freedom is being denied.
With the right to vote within a democracy, your freedom to vote for change and express your opinion is not denied.
Do you as a british citizen with the right to vote feel that you are not free?

zinglebarb · 26-01-2006, 14:05

Course im not free in this country.Im programed by society just like you and everyone is.
Im more free than a lot of people but im not free

Xaccers · 26-01-2006, 14:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

Course im not free in this country.Im programed by society just like you and everyone is.

I'm not, I was programmed by microsoft (please hold while I just reboot)

You're free to vote for change right?

Ok, so most of the insurgents in Iraq aren't free to vote for change in Iraq, but that's for the same reason I'm not free to vote in Tanzania, I'm not from there!

basa · 26-01-2006, 14:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaccers

..................Do you as a british citizen with the right to vote feel that you are not free?

Within the context of THIS debate .. yes I do feel *free* .. but in actuality .. no I don't !

(PS: Why the inclusion of the 'not' ? as in "are *not* free")

zinglebarb · 26-01-2006, 14:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bifta

How about all the innocent non-combatant victims of the IRA bombing campaign? Would you consider the chap who planted a bomb in a rubbish bin outside Harrods a "freedom fighter"? What about the men who drove a lorry bomb up to Canary Wharf? How about the one who planted the bomb in Manchester?

Ok think you need to read the bit about not condoning and the other part that actually shows why im not surprised Hamas won the election.

---------- Post added at 14:12 ---------- Previous post was at 14:09 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaccers

I'm not, I was programmed by microsoft (please hold while I just reboot)

You're free to vote for change right?

Ok, so most of the insurgents in Iraq aren't free to vote for change in Iraq, but that's for the same reason I'm not free to vote in Tanzania, I'm not from there!

I take your point but how many time have we voted for change and found it all the same.We vote people in who we trust to do whats best then they dont do whats best.We are not given the right to vote by referendum on important issues the decision is made for us.A good example is all the troops thats being sent on our behalf to Afganistan.I dont want our troops there

Bifta · 26-01-2006, 14:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

Ok think you need to read the bit about not condoning and the other part that actually shows why im not surprised Hamas won the election.

Who asked if you condoned it? Sure wasn't me, so what was the answer to the actual question?

zinglebarb · 26-01-2006, 14:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bifta

Who asked if you condoned it? Sure wasn't me, so what was the answer to the actual question?

Ok I think the difference here is the countries occupation is resent history.The troubles in Ireland and the IRA date back to older times.I must admit I do not know the history but the more modern troubles were aroused in 1929 I believe. The IRA were a blood thirsty bunch who in my opinion killed because they enjoyed it.They had a political wing and they could have tried to unify Ireland in a political rather than violent way.Of course a lot of the trouble was the mix of religions Catholics vs Protestant which dates back to the middle ages and the days of Henry 8th and Elizibeth 1st.
You could of course date back the problems with certain muslim groups back to the crusades of course where our so called Richard the Lionheart decided to kill and murder maliciously in Arab nations.

Bifta · 26-01-2006, 14:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

I must admit I do not know the history

We're most definately agreed on that one, sorry.

zinglebarb · 26-01-2006, 14:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bifta

We're most definately agreed on that one, sorry.

Informative point dude that certainly put me right on a few issues where i was so obviously misinformed.sorry

Bifta · 26-01-2006, 14:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

Informative point dude that certainly put me right on a few issues where i was so obviously misinformed.sorry

I think you're probably just as capable of using google as anyone else, but just out of curiousity, what relation did 1929 have with the recent troubles (which actually really kicked off in '68)?

marky · 26-01-2006, 15:00

Looks like Hamas & Fatah supporters are shooting at each other now