34 replies to this topic

[stealth816]

I found an article that seemed fitting for this topic. It's just your perspective of what is right and wrong in the short and long run.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090524/ap_on_..._immortal_rebel

[CommanderJB]

Zero, on 24 May 2009, 6:14, said:

Well, again, I will explain I was stating my OWN point of view. And I know insurgency is not always related to religion, but now more than ever it usually is, religion has always been a really good scapegoat, either that or the promise of a "Freedom" that never exists.

Religion isn't even a common cause of insurgency, let alone a typical one. Very few religious groups will actually engage in armed insurgency against an established power in order to institute their control into authority, mostly because it doesn't work very well. The absolutely vast majority of insurgencies - in the past and now - are motivated for political, typically separatist, reasons. That holds true in everything from the late Tamil Tigers to the Basque separatist movement in Spain to the Irish Republican Army. The only current notable insurgencies commonly associated with religion are to the best of my knowledge those in Iraq and Afghanistan - and they are far more political in nature anyway (something which, I would stress, is once again a simple statement of fact with no additional intended meaning).

Zero, on 24 May 2009, 6:14, said:

@JB, not everything can be defined with definition alone. He asked what was the difference, I stated my OWN viewpoint. Actually, there are MANY cases such as this where one thing=another but in terms of definition they are same, yet they are interpreted differently, so in cases such as this you must use your own viewpoint.

If I say 'I will define 'splabfrab' as the round flat china object off which I eat my dinner', does that make me correct? Not really. A belief is never truly wrong - everyone has the right to believe what they want regardless of others - but definition of a term is not a statement of belief, it is a statement of accepted convention and practice. My point was only this - that by what is regarded as the correct definition of the word, the American revolutionaries were insurgents just as much as those that operate in Iraq and Afghanistan today, and that whatever else you attach to the definition is your perspective on the matter and is not appropriate to use as a definition in itself. I would never claim that they represent exactly the same thing; simply that they both fall into the category of an insurgency.

Edited by CommanderJB, 27 May 2009 - 07:46.

[Zero]

True, very few Insurgencies are based on religion, even those in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, I am not blaming the religion. Religion, is, has been, and shall alway be, one of the GREATEST scapegoats for violent action, political or otherwise. While not many insurgencies are religious, how many have used religion, or fought in the name of God? Countless. And let us not forget that of all insurgencies, the ones that have shed the most blood lately and the ones that have gotten the most notice are those of Iraq, Afghanistan, and even the people of Hamas, all of whom use religion as a Scapegoat.

True, very few Insurgencies are based on religion, even those in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, I am not blaming the religion. Religion, is, has been, and shall alway be, one of the GREATEST scapegoats for violent action, political or otherwise. While not many insurgencies are religious, how many have used religion, or fought in the name of God? Countless. And let us not forget that of all insurgencies, the ones that have shed the most blood lately and the ones that have gotten the most notice are those of Iraq, Afghanistan, and even the people of Hamas, all of whom use religion as a Scapegoat.

And JB, I understand the definition, and I know that by NO means you are uneducated enough to say that. Afterall, you along wiht Dauth, Chyros, and CodeCat are one of THE MOST knowledgeable and intelligent people on this forum. By the definition they were terrorists, insurgents, and all the rest, but I as I said before, I divide them by idealisms and belief, I will NOT challenge a dictionary, that'd be foolish, however, philosophically I will draw a fine line. Then again, it might be slight bias since I particularly dislike their methods, but eh, that is my personal belief.

Edited by Zero, 28 May 2009 - 19:15.

[Antonius Maximus]

The idea of a Freedom fighter can be linked to iconic people like Nelson Mandella. While in South Africa the Boer government viewed him as a terrorist although for the black population he was a freedom fighter. As many of you may know that the Black community in South Africa were slaves for the white Boer peoples. Nelson Mandella sought to change this and no matter how many times he protested, organized rallies or pleaded with the government his appeals were quashed and sometimes with deadly and unnecessary force. It was at this stage he turned to terrorist tactics to draw attention to his cause. The point i am trying to make is that Nelson Mandella was representing the majority in his country and was really fighting for equal rights, not for some extremist establishment.

[Wizard]

Antonius Maximus, on 8 Sep 2009, 17:06, said:

The point i am trying to make is that Nelson Mandella was representing the majority in his country and was really fighting for equal rights, not for some extremist establishment.

Does an extremist establishment not have equal rights to?

[BeefJeRKy]

Wizard, on 9 Sep 2009, 12:32, said:

Antonius Maximus, on 8 Sep 2009, 17:06, said:

The point i am trying to make is that Nelson Mandella was representing the majority in his country and was really fighting for equal rights, not for some extremist establishment.

Does an extremist establishment not have equal rights to?

In many cases no. Look at the Wahabist movement in Saudi Arabia, the Islamic Revolution in Iran, the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Ku Klux Klan are another example. Extremism tends to favor the superiority of a certain side.

[Wizard]

Scope, on 9 Sep 2009, 14:27, said:

Wizard, on 9 Sep 2009, 12:32, said:

Antonius Maximus, on 8 Sep 2009, 17:06, said:

The point i am trying to make is that Nelson Mandella was representing the majority in his country and was really fighting for equal rights, not for some extremist establishment.

Does an extremist establishment not have equal rights to?

In many cases no. Look at the Wahabist movement in Saudi Arabia, the Islamic Revolution in Iran, the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Ku Klux Klan are another example. Extremism tends to favor the superiority of a certain side.

Then your concept of equal rights fajls. Equal rights = total inclusivity. You can't say "equal rights for everyone, but not for you over there".

[Golan]

That might be the reason why he didn't say that.

[Wizard]

Scope misread my statement. I was not asking if a group holds equal rights as it's clear most don't, but if it deserved equal rights.

[Golan]

Guess most people would say that they have the right to have their arse kicked like every violent numskull. Applying "equal rights" to extremists is a bit of a hollow question, seeing that what Antonius Maximus referred to would be clearly a case of innumerable criminal acts to almost every concept of equal rights.



That is, unless I misunderstood your question.
*throws two cents in the quantum well*