retired_the gizmo

wrong. and facetious. why sully a serious thread with "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" rubbish?

a terrorist is a terrorist. you can bandy about their convictions and motivations but that doesn't change who and what they are.

retired_rinkjustice

I can't be arsed working out the percentage wrongness of the hawks in both parties, tbh. As always and everywhere, the vast majority of them (Turks and Kurds) just want to be left the hell alone. </BLOCKQUOTE>

We're not talking about Turks vs Kurds, it's Turks vs PKK. Because the Turkish army aren't terrorists. </BLOCKQUOTE>

hmmmm </BLOCKQUOTE>

Doubt genocide is what's on their minds. </BLOCKQUOTE>


tell that to the armenians </BLOCKQUOTE>

Too bad you missed the turk on here yesterday that got banned

retired_justin05

No, it was to gt rid of Saddam. But we thought a democracy was the fairest way to replace him. </BLOCKQUOTE>

Rubbish. The main idea was to install a govt sympathetic to our own interests. Only an idiot would think democracy would take hold in Iraq in the aftermath of the war. </BLOCKQUOTE>

Sympathetic to our own interests in one that doesn't threaten the neighbours, it's own people and support international terrorism, yes.

What's wrong with that? </BLOCKQUOTE>

Democracy with provisos isn't democracy.

Plus all the above could have been met without killing half a million civilians so we're back with the cause being the problem again.

retired_princesspouty

Which is a perspective.

And shut up Daaaaave, I'm not interested.

retired_justin05

wrong. and facetious. why sully a serious thread with "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" rubbish?

a terrorist is a terrorist. you can bandy about their convictions and motivations but that doesn't change who and what they are. </BLOCKQUOTE>

It's relevant because people like Bert use it as justification for splitting the world into right and wrong.

retired_ks reddy

No, it was to gt rid of Saddam. But we thought a democracy was the fairest way to replace him. </BLOCKQUOTE>

Rubbish. The main idea was to install a govt sympathetic to our own interests. Only an idiot would think democracy would take hold in Iraq in the aftermath of the war. </BLOCKQUOTE>

Sympathetic to our own interests in one that doesn't threaten the neighbours, it's own people and support international terrorism, yes.

What's wrong with that? </BLOCKQUOTE>

Democracy with provisos isn't democracy.

Plus all the above could have been met without killing half a million civilians so we're back with the cause being the problem again. </BLOCKQUOTE>

Eh? Saddam was a facist. Who said he was a democrat?

And how?

retired_ks reddy

When is an autocrat the freedom fighter, and the democrat the terrorist?

retired_the gizmo

of course not. have fun playing your ridiculous and redundant semantic and rhetorical games with bert.

retired_ks reddy

Which is a perspective.
</BLOCKQUOTE>

No it isn't. Perceiving people like the PKK as freedom fighters is the wrong perspective.

retired_the gizmo

wrong. and facetious. why sully a serious thread with "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" rubbish?

a terrorist is a terrorist. you can bandy about their convictions and motivations but that doesn't change who and what they are. </BLOCKQUOTE>

It's relevant because people like Bert use it as justification for splitting the world into right and wrong. </BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't understand why you would argue something you don't believe simply to continue an argument with someone who carries on in an elementary level. why not just bypass them entirely?