If you register for free, you will be able to post threads, vote on polls and lots more. If you have problems with the registration or logging in, please contact the administrator.
what they are "termed" and what they are usually have no conjunction in reality. so why deal in the misnomers the media assign to a situation rather than get to the heart of the matter?
Originally posted by Daaaaave:
what they are "termed" and what they are usually have no conjunction in reality. so why deal in the misnomers the media assign to a situation rather than get to the heart of the matter?
Pointing out the PKK are a bunch of ***** is the heart of the matter. Too many people think they're freedom fighters.
The Kurds do have freedom fighters, but they ain't the PKK.
Bert et al, would you call the IRA of 1919 to 1921/22 freedom fighters, or terrorists?
Michael Collins largely invented modern urban guerilla warfare, and the IRA did commit attacks that today are called terrorist attacks, but the IRA was backed and controlled by a parliament that elected by the Irish people, even if that parliament was not recognised outside of Ireland.
Originally posted by Daaaaave:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by TheCranker:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Daaaaave:
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?
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. </BLOCKQUOTE>
The thread was continuing around me and Bert discussing terrorism and perspectives thereof. If you don't like what Bert and I are talking about, then ignore it. If you want to engage Cranker in a discussion - then ask him a question that you might learn from. Cranker's the sort of bloke who responds to a thought-provoking question.
In the end you're wasting time you could be spending pushing the conversation forward by instead bellyaching about what others do. I don't see that as a particulary pro-active way of going about learning from these threads.
All you've done is moan to Cranker about what he's doing, and me and Bert. I'm quite happy to let you go about your business and talk about what you like... it's you who keeps making references to me tbf.
People who kill other people who are not a direct threat to them or their cause are in the wrong. Simple as.
In my opinion, self-defence against a direct threat is the only defensible use of violence for a civilized person or society. All other use of violence will cost innocent people dearly, which renders the aim of the used violence nill and void.
Hence me saying that Bush and cronies have set us back about 80 years in development by returning to 'war is the continuation of diplomatics by other means' of before WW I.
The LTTE in the early 90s targeted public civilian areas such shopping centers.
And who are in those Israeli buses? Civilians.
Other points I feel like adding: (feel free to ignore)
-Having an Armenian in my course whom I talk to frequently, and watching docos and reading history books I think the Turks are very guilty of ignoring mass genocide and revising history to potray the genocide as part of a declared war.
-Turkey have a right to attack Kurdish rebels hiding in Iraq if they have kidnapped and killed Turkish soldiers, the US might not like it, but unlucky. I'm swaying toward the side that the PKK have committed mass terrorist acts against the Turkish population, and that this Turkey's war on terror. And the Jasari dude made a point about the Baghdad gov. behind merely a US puppet. Worth discussing, but maybe for another thread.
Originally posted by finneys13:
Bert et al, would you call the IRA of 1919 to 1921/22 freedom fighters, or terrorists?
Michael Collins largely invented modern urban guerilla warfare, and the IRA did commit attacks that today are called terrorist attacks, but the IRA was backed and controlled by a parliament that elected by the Irish people, even if that parliament was not recognised outside of Ireland.
Originally posted by Sir Bert Preast:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by finneys13:
Bert et al, would you call the IRA of 1919 to 1921/22 freedom fighters, or terrorists?
Michael Collins largely invented modern urban guerilla warfare, and the IRA did commit attacks that today are called terrorist attacks, but the IRA was backed and controlled by a parliament that elected by the Irish people, even if that parliament was not recognised outside of Ireland.
Seriously now, freedom fighters or terrorists?
I'd call it a civil war. </BLOCKQUOTE>
Isn't a Civil War a war between two factions that want to control a country? Something which the Irish War of Independence wasn't, as Ireland wanted to succeed from the Union?
Linear Mode
