Insurgency
stealth816 24 May 2009
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
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090524/ap_on_..._immortal_rebel
CommanderJB 27 May 2009
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.
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.
Edited by CommanderJB, 27 May 2009 - 07:46.
Zero 28 May 2009
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.
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 08 Sep 2009
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 09 Sep 2009
BeefJeRKy 09 Sep 2009
Wizard 09 Sep 2009
Scope, on 9 Sep 2009, 14:27, said:
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".
Wizard 09 Sep 2009
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 09 Sep 2009
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*
That is, unless I misunderstood your question.
*throws two cents in the quantum well*