Thread: What is a Terrorist?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What other type of freedom oriented government is there?

You know as well as I do that anyone of their own beliefs is under the impression that their government is the "best". In this respect, I suspect that most would say that they consider it "best" because they are free to judge it as "best". Hence, I highly doubt it is valid to say that someone out there is "against freedom". While we can argue political plateau's against one another, the thing is that "freedom" is closely tied to the benefits and ethics attached to government. This is the crux of political debate usually and why "terrorism" is so difficult to define because of it's obvious relative and subjective nature which is so commonly given a mask of truth.

Besides, Zarqawi and Bin Laden and the fellas settle for nothing short of a government run by the Koran, a kind of government where pretty much everything fun is illegal. That is hatred for freedom. Those people are clearly not fighting for freedom.

Read the answer to Q2 of this...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

Maybe the word "freedom" is not mentioned specifically in it, but it is freedom that he is speaking out against.

2) These tragedies and calamities are only a few examples of your oppression and aggression against us. It is commanded by our religion and intellect that the oppressed have a right to return the aggression. Do not await anything from us but Jihad, resistance and revenge. Is it in any way rational to expect that after America has attacked us for more than half a century, that we will then leave her to live in security and peace?!!

He is saying that he wants to fight back - not fight freedom. I don't get your point here. It's almost as though you are really mis-representing what he is saying. He feels that he was attacked and his country offended, thus, he is attacking in turn.

We can debate about the political reasons and validity and shit but the point I am making here is that he is not saying "I hate freedom" or "I am against freedom".

Then I ask you the same question. What other type of freedom oriented government is there? If the people don't rule, they are not free. Do you disagree?

You realize you are just about to argue over politics and ethics? Come on, we both know that, even though it may make sense to you, there is obvious disagreement about many political plateau's. Also, no single government is "perfect" or "absolutely free" etc. etc.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

You know as well as I do that anyone of their own beliefs is under the impression that their government is the "best". In this respect, I suspect that most would say that they consider it "best" because they are free to judge it as "best". Hence, I highly doubt it is valid to say that someone out there is "against freedom". While we can argue political plateau's against one another, the thing is that "freedom" is closely tied to the benefits and ethics attached to government. This is the crux of political debate usually and why "terrorism" is so difficult to define because of it's obvious relative and subjective nature which is so commonly given a mask of truth.

I didn't ask you what type of government is the best. I asked you what other type of freedom oriented government there is. I don't mean the mere freedom to judge a government inside their heads.

If the people do not rule, are they free?

Originally Posted by O'nus

He is saying that he wants to fight back - not fight freedom. I don't get your point here. It's almost as though you are really mis-representing what he is saying. He feels that he was attacked and his country offended, thus, he is attacking in turn.

The answer is way longer than that. He talks at first about how our infidels are on their ethnocentric holy land, but then he gets into how we allow stock trade, female models, legal alcohol, investment interest, not having the Koran as a law book, and all kinds of other things. He says that the "Islamic nation" will not call off their war on us until we give up all of those things and other freedoms.

Originally Posted by O'nus

You realize you are just about to argue over politics and ethics? Come on, we both know that, even though it may make sense to you, there is obvious disagreement about many political plateau's. Also, no single government is "perfect" or "absolutely free" etc. etc.

I stand by my point. By fighting against this "evil" that is "democracy", the scummy nut bags are fighting against freedom. What they want is not freedom, and what they are against is freedom. Freedom exists only in democracy and anarchy (no government).

I am not at all saying any government is perfect. I didn't even come close to that. I said that democracy is the only freedom oriented form of government there is. A democratic republic is also a republican democracy, by the way. If the people don't have the power to vote their law makers in and out of office, they are not free. If you disagree, I would be interested in knowing why. The insurgents die in the name of preventing the only free category of government. They are therefore against freedom.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I didn't ask you what type of government is the best. I asked you what other type of freedom oriented government there is. I don't mean the mere freedom to judge a government inside their heads.

If the people do not rule, are they free?

You're asking my political opinion. I did not want to give it.

The answer is way longer than that. He talks at first about how our infidels are on their ethnocentric holy land, but then he gets into how we allow stock trade, female models, legal alcohol, investment interest, not having the Koran as a law book, and all kinds of other things. He says that the "Islamic nation" will not call off their war on us until we give up all of those things and other freedoms.

I asked you to quote me someone against explicitly "freedom" and you referenced me Q2 - not the whole thing. I will now use the holy ctrl+f command to look for "freedom" - nothing else:
"This argument contradicts your continuous repetition that America is the land of freedom, and its leaders in this world"
"The religion of the Unification of God; of freedom from associating partners with Him, and rejection of this; of complete love of Him"
"You are a nation that permits acts of immorality, and you consider them to be pillars of personal freedom."
"Giant corporations and establishments are established on this, under the name of art, entertainment, tourism and freedom, and other deceptive names you attribute to it."
"How many acts of oppression, tyranny and injustice have you carried out, O callers to freedom?"
"The freedom and democracy that you call to is for yourselves and for white race only"

After this, it is now more abundantly clear that your own article can be used against your point. He is arguing the nature of freedom. This was my point. You have your own opinion on what political and governing party offers freedom, and so does he. You can argue about that, but the point is that he is for freedom and believes that democracy is against it.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

You're asking my political opinion. I did not want to give it.

Then my point stands.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I asked you to quote me someone against explicitly "freedom" and you referenced me Q2 - not the whole thing.

As I said, I don't know where one of the loons specifically used the word "freedom" and said something like, "I hate freedom." But I did show you where one of the top dogs in Al Qaeda said it about democracy, which is the only freedom oriented form of government. I also showed you where Bin Laden spoke out against freedom, though you pointed out that he said that it is not freedom. He is incorrect. He spoke out against freedom, just not the word.

If you could have spent one day living under the rule of the Taliban (Al Qaeda's wonderful bunch of harboring allies in Islamofascism), you would completely agree with me. Islamofascists despise freedom. I taught an Afghan refugee a few years ago. I wish she could be here to post in this thread. She would blow your mind with her opinion of what Islamofascists think of freedom. I am happy that she was able to go to school and show her face. I am happy that she was able to even go to school. The United States gave her those freedoms, among a very long list of others, which she did not have under the Islamofascist government of old Afghanistan.

Originally Posted by O'nus

After this, it is now more abundantly clear that your own article can be used against your point. He is arguing the nature of freedom. This was my point. You have your own opinion on what political and governing party offers freedom, and so does he. You can argue about that, but the point is that he is for freedom and believes that democracy is against it.

Entirely semantic. All it shows is that Bin Laden and his loons are really screwed up on what freedom is. Hitler could have said to the concentration camp victims, "This is freedom." It doesn't mean it was. The Taliban might call elections "oppression" or say that they go against "freedom". It doesn't mean they would be right. Clearly they would not.

The "freedom fighters" are fighting against freedom no matter what words they use.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Then my point stands.

You were trying to get me to debate over the stance of freedom in differing government systems. Don't be a dink.

" But I did show you where one of the top dogs in Al Qaeda said it about democracy, which is the only freedom oriented form of government

That's your opinion and, as your quoted dialogue showed, it is the opinion of Al Qaeda that your opinion is wrong and theirs is right. You are being no different than them.

If you could have spent one day living under the rule of the Taliban (Al Qaeda's wonderful bunch of harboring allies in Islamofascism), you would completely agree with me. Islamofascists despise freedom.

They say the same about America.

Entirely semantic.

Your point is entirely semantic.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

You were trying to get me to debate over the stance of freedom in differing government systems. Don't be a dink.

Don't play dodgeball. Anti-democracy is anti-freedom. I still challenge you to explain otherwise.

Originally Posted by O'nus

That's your opinion and, as your quoted dialogue showed, it is the opinion of Al Qaeda that your opinion is wrong and theirs is right. You are being no different than them.

So you don't think Al Qaeda is against freedom after everything you have now read? At what point do you stand against something if you are going to throw "opinion... no different" at that which is clearly severe oppression? Is it just my "opinion" that when the Taliban made the women of Afghanistan get under blankets to go in public and never get educactions the Taliban was anti-freedom? Do you feel that same way about the rights of American women? Is it merely my "opinion" that slavery was a crime against humanity and a blatant pissing on the principle of freedom? What is your "opinion"?

Originally Posted by O'nus

They say the same about America.

And they are out of their skulls. I have some problems with American restraints on freedom, particularly concerning the war on drugs and how it has caused the 4th Amendment to cease to exist when it comes to automobiles. But don't try to compare our flaws with those of the Taliban. There is no contest. Do you ever recognize women you know in public? We can start there.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Your point is entirely semantic.

Tell yourself that if you ever get blown up for looking at the Victoria Secret catalogue.

I don't know for sure that this applies to you, but it blows my mind how American liberals are so gung-ho rights and freedoms when it comes to Americans (aside from economic freedom and the right of conservatives to have talk radio shows), freaking out if a serial killer gets a tiny bit screwed over in court and puking venom in the streets over women's job and education rights, etc, YET turn right around and talk about how freedom is a matter of opinion when it comes to people of other countries and say, "Hey, the genocidal terrorist dictator does things his way, and who are we to say he is wrong?" Then they piss fire like flamethrowers if a fucking terrrorist isn't read any rights when we capture one of them in one of those "to each his own" former dictatorships. What an obvious double standard.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If the people do not rule, are they free?

Even people with political power are not free. One slip up and they're either out of office, or they end up without a head (French Revolution, anyone?) Besides, peoples' ideas of freedom differ greatly. It also makes a difference if you live in the wrong area and have a skin color other than white, or a name like mine that gets you pulled to the side every time you go through an airport terminal. Freedom is completely subjective, and will likely appear different to you than it does to me or the president or a random construction worker.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Don't play dodgeball. Anti-democracy is anti-freedom. I still challenge you to explain otherwise.

Of course you would, but you're failing to argue my point and try making your own argument in defense.

So you don't think Al Qaeda is against freedom after everything you have now read? At what point do you stand against something if you are going to throw "opinion... no different" at that which is clearly severe oppression? Is it just my "opinion" that when the Taliban made the women of Afghanistan get under blankets to go in public and never get educactions the Taliban was anti-freedom? Do you feel that same way about the rights of American women? Is it merely my "opinion" that slavery was a crime against humanity and a blatant pissing on the principle of freedom? What is your "opinion"?

You are asking my political opinion again and again I am going to say I do not want to give it. My point is simply that it is a matter of opinion and almost everyone believes they are for freedom, not against.

Tell yourself that if you ever get blown up for looking at the Victoria Secret
I don't know for sure that this applies to you, but it blows my mind how American liberals are so gung-ho rights and freedoms when it comes to Americans (aside from economic freedom and the right of conservatives to have talk radio shows), freaking out if a serial killer gets a tiny bit screwed over in court and puking venom in the streets over women's job and education rights, etc, YET turn right around and talk about how freedom is a matter of opinion when it comes to people of other countries and say, "Hey, the genocidal terrorist dictator does things his way, and who are we to say he is wrong?" Then they piss fire like flamethrowers if a fucking terrrorist isn't read any rights when we capture one of them in one of those "to each his own" former dictatorships. What an obvious double standard.

So now you're trying to paint me up as some asinine liberal fundamentalist.. Please don't do that.. You're avoiding my point which is really simple.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Of course you would, but you're failing to argue my point and try making your own argument in defense.

What point of yours did I not counter?

A person who is against democracy is against freedom. If you can't find your way around that point, then good game.

Originally Posted by O'nus

You are asking my political opinion again and again I am going to say I do not want to give it. My point is simply that it is a matter of opinion and almost everyone believes they are for freedom, not against.

Again, that does not mean they are right.

Originally Posted by O'nus

So now you're trying to paint me up as some asinine liberal fundamentalist.. Please don't do that.. You're avoiding my point which is really simple.

I think you missed a key clause...

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I don't know for sure that this applies to you, but it blows my mind how American liberals...