DanTheFoxBhoy Posted 4 May 2007 Posted 4 May 2007 One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Some 'terrorism' is justified. I believe that infrastructure is a legitimate target in costing offending governments money - sometimes $$$ is the only thing that talks. Strapping a bomb to yourself and taking out innocent civilians on their way to work is not noble, is not professional and is cowardly. Extremists needs to be neutered, but that needs to happen with our input as well. It's half a majority's fault that a minority feels alienated. It's not good enough to sit back and say 'they need to conform.' Dunno about over there, but I know there have been great integration initiatives over here, including anti-vilification laws that allows Christian and Muslim preachers alike to be charged with slagging off the other's faith!
Rincewind Posted 4 May 2007 Posted 4 May 2007 I'm not saying I agree with the methods some terrorists use just making a point on how they are portrayed. History is written by the victors. For instance the American native indian have always been portrayed as savages when in reality they were simple nomads living a simple life. When Europeans first settled there they took with them diseases which killed a number of the natives. They all but killed off the buffolo. They were lied to and cheated when it came to giving them settlements to live in. A good book to read on this is Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee by Dee Brown I have little sympathy for the suicede bombers but I do wonder what could cause them to take such drastic action. It is hard for us Westerners to understand this and I myself have trouble understanding it but a little part of me does raise the question.
Thracian Posted 4 May 2007 Posted 4 May 2007 I'm not saying I agree with the methods some terrorists use just making a point on how they are portrayed. History is written by the victors. For instance the American native indian have always been portrayed as savages when in reality they were simple nomads living a simple life. When Europeans first settled there they took with them diseases which killed a number of the natives. They all but killed off the buffolo. They were lied to and cheated when it came to giving them settlements to live in. A good book to read on this is Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee by Dee Brown I have little sympathy for the suicede bombers but I do wonder what could cause them to take such drastic action. It is hard for us Westerners to understand this and I myself have trouble understanding it but a little part of me does raise the question. Native American Indians simple nomads? I don't think so. The Comanche south east of Sante Fe, Ute to the north west of Taos the Chiricahau and Mescalero Apaches in the south of what is now New Mexico, and the Navajos from south of the San Juan River were forever raiding the Peublo Indians in their settlements. The Spanish initially wanted peaceful co-existence with the "wild" Indians - and for good reasons - but eventually had to join forces with the Peublo peoples because of the tribes' hit and run raids which cost livestock, property and lives, the carrying off of women and children for ransom and so on. As for lying and cheating, Indian tribes were notorious for reneging on agreements and would often trade items with the Spanish which they'd previously stolen from the Pueblo Indians. From what I recall the buffalo ran out because the Indians acquired guns and were so greedy and shortsighted that they preferred to slaughter more than was necessary for sustainance - so they could get short-term profits at market - rather than effect an effective preservation scheme. Rather like the fishing industry today!. New Mexico by Calvin A Robert and Susan A Roberts will give you an unemotive account of the history and peoples of the area which is now New Mexico from around 1500 onwardsincluding fairly full account of the negotiations and events relating to the reservation settlement of various tribes. You will gather that there were always two sides to the stories and much cause and effect behind events we have since come to fantasise.
Koke Posted 4 May 2007 Posted 4 May 2007 One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Its true. People have used and abused the word "terrorist" nowadays. The word doesnt have a meaning no more. And it doesnt help when the president of United States are calling half the Middle East terrorist and Iran "axes of evil", you do start to wonder, is everyone opposing the West really terrorists?
Thracian Posted 4 May 2007 Posted 4 May 2007 One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. If you take that to its logical conclusion the strong have carte blanche to annihilate the weak - althouh the sentiment seems to suggest the opposite.
Rincewind Posted 4 May 2007 Posted 4 May 2007 In one of the last confrontations, the place of the title of the book, Wounded Knee, in late December in freezing conditions, the US army held a few hundred men women and children. They were hungry and badly clothed. The company holding them were the 7th the same as the one defeated under General Custer at the Little Big Horn. A medicine man started to do a rain dance. The US army thinking it was a sign to revolt panicked and commenced firing upon the unarmed indians with automatic machine guns. None survived. After slaughtering them they were left to freeze in the snow, mothers frozen trying to protect their babies. When negotiating land the indians were offered land that was unfit to live on. Unworkable for crops. It was the first frontie men that killed off the buffolo. For centeries there had been enough to last and they were used for food and clothing when needed. Read the book I mentioned. It will open your eyes.
Zingari Posted 5 May 2007 Posted 5 May 2007 One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. this is a ridiculous statement; anyone planting bombs etc with the sole object to injure and maim innocent people is a terrorist , full stop end of, FACT true; in exceptional circumstances it may be that it is acceptable in eg a military dictatorship etc to target governments or their armies but against innocents its always terrorism not freedom fighting
Daggers Posted 5 May 2007 Posted 5 May 2007 this is a ridiculous statement; anyone planting bombs etc with the sole object to injure and maim innocent people is a terrorist , full stop end of, FACTtrue; in exceptional circumstances it may be that it is acceptable in eg a military dictatorship etc to target governments or their armies but against innocents its always terrorism not freedom fighting Simply because you do not accord with the statement does not draw into question its veracity. One man's terrorist IS another man's freedom fighter - as borne out by the support that Al Kaida enjoyed after 9/11 and the excuses being given for the actions of 6/6. The support the IRA enjoyed from the United States and a level of support that ETA continue to receive to this day are/were based on the belief that they were/are engaged in a just battle of liberation from an oppressor and therefore accorded the status of freedom fighters. Ken was not debating the semantics of 'freedom fighter' or 'terrorist'.
Zingari Posted 5 May 2007 Posted 5 May 2007 Simply because you do not accord with the statement does not draw into question its veracity. One man's terrorist IS another man's freedom fighter - as borne out by the support that Al Kaida enjoyed after 9/11 and the excuses being given for the actions of 6/6. The support the IRA enjoyed from the United States and a level of support that ETA continue to receive to this day are/were based on the belief that they were/are engaged in a just battle of liberation from an oppressor and therefore accorded the status of freedom fighters.Ken was not debating the semantics of 'freedom fighter' or 'terrorist'. a terrorist can NEVER be a freedom fighter for the sole reason that the method employed to achieve "freedom" is fundamentaly flawed how can the new regime achieving victory in such a manner then continue in a manner of a free government ; the two scenarios are incongruent
Webbo Posted 5 May 2007 Posted 5 May 2007 how can the new regime achieving victory in such a manner then continue in a manner of a free government ; the two scenarios are incongruent a good point and something that history has proven to be correct.
Daggers Posted 5 May 2007 Posted 5 May 2007 a terrorist can NEVER be a freedom fighter for the sole reason that the method employed to achieve "freedom" is fundamentaly flawedhow can the new regime achieving victory in such a manner then continue in a manner of a free government ; the two scenarios are incongruent Yawn!
davieG Posted 5 May 2007 Posted 5 May 2007 Where does Mandela fit into this? Once a terrorist, spent 27 years in goal, then became a President in a fully representative democratic election, received a Nobel Prize for Peace and now considered an Elder Statesman? I'm not being funny, it's just a very confusing subjective matter.
Webbo Posted 5 May 2007 Posted 5 May 2007 Where does Mandela fit into this?Once a terrorist, spent 27 years in goal, then became a President in a fully representative democratic election, received a Nobel Prize for Peace and now considered an Elder Statesman? I'm not being funny, it's just a very confusing subjective matter. it wasn't the ANC that brought down apartheid, rather foreign sanctions. South Africa appears to be democratic at the minute as there is no realistic challenger to the ANC but i wonder if it would stay the same if 1 arose.
davieG Posted 5 May 2007 Posted 5 May 2007 it wasn't the ANC that brought down apartheid, rather foreign sanctions. South Africa appears to be democratic at the minute as there is no realistic challenger to the ANC but i wonder if it would stay the same if 1 arose. I don't think I said that or implied it or see the relevance; as for the future , who knows about any country - a BNP Government in Britain
Thracian Posted 5 May 2007 Posted 5 May 2007 In one of the last confrontations, the place of the title of the book, Wounded Knee, in late December in freezing conditions, the US army held a few hundred men women and children. They were hungry and badly clothed. The company holding them were the 7th the same as the one defeated under General Custer at the Little Big Horn. A medicine man started to do a rain dance. The US army thinking it was a sign to revolt panicked and commenced firing upon the unarmed indians with automatic machine guns. None survived. After slaughtering them they were left to freeze in the snow, mothers frozen trying to protect their babies. When negotiating land the indians were offered land that was unfit to live on. Unworkable for crops. It was the first frontie men that killed off the buffolo. For centeries there had been enough to last and they were used for food and clothing when needed. Read the book I mentioned. It will open your eyes. I could follow that with example and counter example each showing the other, and the Spaniards, in a bad light right back to the early 1700's. From what you say, the book I mentioned will take you back much further and give you build up and backgroud to events of the later time. It also gives chapter and verse on the reservation issues. It was indeed traumatic and disastrous when the Navajo and Mescalero were removed to a reservation near Fort Sumner in 1863. However this was not only because the crops failed but because the two Indian groups detested one another. The Mescalero moved out and the US government recognised their right to return to their Homeland and provided another reservation in the White and Sacramento mountains. The Navajo remained for a time but in 1873 General Sherman offered them three alternatives - to stay put at Bosque Redondo reservation, to move to a new home in the Arkansas River Valley where there was a precious supply of water and fertile land or return to the natural home around the Four Corners Area of NW New Mexico and NE Arizona. It was the Navajo themselves who chose the third option although three breakaway groups moved elsewhere and have reservations to this day at Rami near Zuni, Alamo north of Magdalena and Canoncito west of Albuquerque and near to where my youngest son's fiance lives. The Navajo never raided again and their decision prompted the Jicarilla Apache to move to a permanent reservation and to live in peace. Other Indian tribes, particularly the Comanche, Kiowa, and Chiricahua Apache continued to mount raids which allowed great leaders like Victorio, Nana and Geronimo to take their places in history but it was a continuous round of murder and reprissal with both sides guilty of attrocities. Nana won eight battles against US troops before being confined to San Carlos Reservation in Eastern Arizona and Geronimo escaped his reservation and raided across Arizona and New Mexico until surrender in 1886 when over 500 Chiricahu were imprisoned in Florida before being moved first to Fort Sill, Oklahoma and finally back to reservation life with their cousins the Mescalero.
craigadams22 Posted 5 May 2007 Posted 5 May 2007 Hello Lineker's Left Foot, I am also from Hinckley. I am Craig Adams 22, I think your right about these Terrorists's. Britain is a real soft ground touch when it comes to immigration, we shouldn't allow them in.. I am becoming a British National Party member soon, my cousin Christopher is good on him I say. Regards CraigAdams22
potter3 Posted 5 May 2007 Posted 5 May 2007 Hello Lineker's Left Foot, I am also from Hinckley. I am Craig Adams 22, I think your right about these Terrorists's. Britain is a real soft ground touch when it comes to immigration, we shouldn't allow them in.. I am becoming a British National Party member soon, my cousin Christopher is good on him I say. Regards CraigAdams22 Ooooooh controversial
stez Posted 5 May 2007 Posted 5 May 2007 Hello Lineker's Left Foot, I am also from Hinckley. I am Craig Adams 22, I think your right about these Terrorists's. Britain is a real soft ground touch when it comes to immigration, we shouldn't allow them in.. I am becoming a British National Party member soon, my cousin Christopher is good on him I say. Regards CraigAdams22 Send the buggers back, oh send the buggers back. These aren't the ones I wanted, son, I'm sending them straight back. I said I wanted white ones, they've sent us bloody black, I'm going to put the lid back on and send the buggers back. Me father worked hard all his life down pits in't tannery, He laboured every hour God sent from June to January. He kept his pennies in a jar to buy his son some shoes, But when the bastards came out black he blew a bloody fuse eh craig?
BartonFox Posted 5 May 2007 Posted 5 May 2007 Simple fact of the matter is if you live in a 'forgien' land then you have an obligation to intigrate yourself in to that society. By all means follow your beliefs but the people of the homeland should not be expected to change their ways just to make you feel welcome. If you can't live with it then pack your bags and leave. The BNP is only going to gain more mainstream support in the coming years and the knuckle draggers will take a back seat soon. There are enough people in the UK getting f'ckd off with the Government and the perceived lack of action against immigration legal or not is a sore point. Look across the border, the SNP won the elections and now there is someone fighting for the rights of Scottish people they are only going to get stronger. Seeing as the English are made to feel bad for portraying their Englishness it is only a matter of time before people start to look for something similar to the SNP.
Daggers Posted 5 May 2007 Posted 5 May 2007 Simple fact of the matter is if you live in a 'forgien' land then you have an obligation to intigrate yourself in to that society. By all means follow your beliefs but the people of the homeland should not be expected to change their ways just to make you feel welcome. If you can't live with it then pack your bags and leave. Does this apply to Scots and appreciating Porter?
BartonFox Posted 5 May 2007 Posted 5 May 2007 Does this apply to Scots and appreciating Porter? I have integrated myself with English society I love jellied eels, Spitfire ale and a cuppa
lookwhaticando Posted 5 May 2007 Posted 5 May 2007 Where does Mandela fit into this?Once a terrorist, spent 27 years in goal, then became a President in a fully representative democratic election, received a Nobel Prize for Peace and now considered an Elder Statesman? I'm not being funny, it's just a very confusing subjective matter. You're obviously looking forward to tomorrow's game - you've got football well and truly on the brain.
stez Posted 5 May 2007 Posted 5 May 2007 I have integrated myself with English society I love jellied eels, Spitfire ale and a cuppa well proper english persons prefer vindaloo, red stripe and a good cup of indian tea
Daggers Posted 5 May 2007 Posted 5 May 2007 well proper english persons prefer vindaloo, red stripe and a good cup of indian tea ...and battenburg (not deep-fried)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.