retired_ks reddy

Hey, was I just belittled, or was I provoked?

retired_princesspouty

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? </BLOCKQUOTE>
So I can assume that you because you didn't bypass me, that you must think I'm above elementary?

Ah you imply the nicest things sometimes.

retired_justin05

Bypass to people I agree with? Where's the fun in that?

retired_the gizmo

either/or, by the standards of this board.

the truth is that I know you know that a terrorist and a freedom fighter can be the same thing or completely different. one is a method of fighting and the other is a cause. they are unrelated to each other.

I don't know why you argue something you know to be false simply to continue an argument. there's plenty of valid things to disagree on in this situation.

retired_justin05

By the way Daaave what is it you think I don't believe in that I'm arguing about?

retired_miki57

I thought we were going to wind up Bert...

The fight for freedom from an oppressive government/fight for freedom-autonomy/government of different ethnic base ruling over youand the fight for global jihad and Islam share many similar traits and methods. Tamil Tigers & Hamas and their suicide attacks and all that.

What happened to the Turkish guy? He was a right laugh, though he did raise some points worth discussing.

retired_the gizmo

Bypass to people I agree with? Where's the fun in that? </BLOCKQUOTE>

the fun is in holding a bottom-feeding thread to your level, drawing in smarter users who might otherwise have avoided the thread, and actually holding something along the lines of rudimentary higher-level discussions.

between you and me (and for god's sake don't tell retro), I actually used to come into threads like these to learn. if not anything factual, than at least other opinions and viewpoints on the matters, even if I disagreed with them and belittled/provoked them.

you can't learn anything when the discussion is just a merry-go-round of semantic nulls.

retired_the gizmo

in your case, I don't believe you believe what you're arguing about is worth arguing about.

retired_ks reddy

either/or, by the standards of this board.

the truth is that I know you know that a terrorist and a freedom fighter can be the same thing or completely different. one is a method of fighting and the other is a cause. they are unrelated to each other.

I don't know why you argue something you know to be false simply to continue an argument. there's plenty of valid things to disagree on in this situation. </BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree. A group that is armed but not acting on behalf of a government may be termed terrorist even if they limit their operations to military targets and carry them out in a military manner. That's being a guerrilla rather than a terrorist.

Of course not all guerrillas are freedom fighters, which is why the cause matters too. For me the PKK are terrorists because the form of government they want, even should they win and take power, will have to be imposed. The ANC on the other hand would not be terrorists in my view, had they not made a habit of going around blowing up bars etc.

retired_ks reddy

That's not the same method. The LTTE use suicide attacks to take out military targets or for assassinations. Hamas just blow up buses.