How would you kill him?

[Phoenall]

No not even close enough for you to say they are similar, many cases the lines don't even look similar. The rules and tenets are copies of each other if you look and show that Nazism is copied from islam.

Just as communism Is copied from the original concept of Christianity

Don't look similar? Similar enough for people to make comparisons, that's the whole point.

You're making a claim that Nazism copied stuff from Islam. Then you'd need to prove the links between Nazism and Islam. What did Hitler know about Islam? What did the Nazi bigwigs know about Islam?

You haven't bothered to even make this case. It would seem rather important when this is what you're claiming.

Enough to see islam as an ally, or at least the Suuni muslims under the Mufti. Enough to copy their laws and adapt them for their own use, Enough to know that without the support they would fail in the M.E. if they won the war. Enough to copy their tactics and implement them. Enough to say that islam would be the best state religion for Germany once they had won the war. Again full details and a link posted just today that details it all and you must have ignored it.

Well at the same time the US has the USSR as allies. Does this mean the USA was based on Communism?

They copied their laws? Which laws did they copy?

So, the Nazis needed oil to make their tanks and planes work, therefore they copied Islam?

They wanted Islam as state religion after the war? WTF?

Again, you're talking a crock of shit.

You've proven NOTHING. You've provided no links. You're making connections in such a rubbish way. This is laughable. I take it you didn't do history at degree level.

WRONG again as they were not allies just fighting for the same cause.

Dhimmi laws, sharia laws and the pact of Omar

WRONG again as they had oil aplenty, research the subject before making a fool of yourself.

Read the links provided

Only because it destroys your argument

Only in your fantasy world

The US was fighting the same cause as the Soviets.

Where did Nazi Germany get its oil from?

Germany and Oil • Axis History Forum

"In 1938, of the total consumption of 44 million barrels, imports from overseas accounted for 28 million barrels or roughly 60 percent of the total supply. An additional 3.8 million barrels were imported overland from European sources (2.8 million barrels came from Romania alone), and another 3.8 million barrels were derived from domestic oil production. The remainder of the total, 9 million barrels, were produced synthetically."

"At the outbreak of the war, Germany’s stockpiles of fuel consisted of a total of 15 million barrels. The campaigns in Norway, Holland, Belgium, and France added another 5 million barrels in booty, and imports from the Soviet Union accounted for 4 million barrels in 1940 and 1.6 million barrels in the first half of 1941. Yet a High Command study in May of 1941 noted that with monthly military requirements for 7.25 million barrels and imports and home production of only 5.35 million barrels, German stocks would be exhausted by August 1941. "

Oil aplenty. Hmm, that's why Germany's oil would be exhausted by August 1941 then... because they... er.... had so much......

As for you fantasy world and all of that... I'm sorry, you've making a really bad case for something. I mean, REALLY BAD. You don't like it, well that's your problem.

So you did not find the method of extracting oil from shale, seaweed and peat. The British used these same methods during the war as they had limited supplies as well.

 

[Daniyel]

How would you want to kill an Israeli soldier?

I don't especially, but I can see why the oppressed people of occupied countries would want to do so.
Many French people wanted to kill occupying Germans - no worries.

But not take it out on the children or women like the arab muslims do. That is the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists, the terrorists go after soft targets.

That's just so wrong.

A terrorist is merely someone who is on the "wrong side".

Mandela was a terrorist to the white South Africans. To the black South Africans he was a freedom fighter. To those who hate apartheid he is a freedom fighter, to those who are racists he was a terrorist.

The IRA were terrorists to the British, freedom fighters to the Catholics.
ETA were terrorists to the Spanish, freedom fighters to the Basque separatists.

It's semantics.

A terrorist is a negative word. People hate terrorists.

Freedom fight is a positive word. People like freedom fighters.

Not according to the definition of terrorism, look it up

He was a self confessed terrorist in the name of communism. A neo Marxist butcher that had more blacks murdered than the Pretoria government killed.

The IRA were terrorist to the Catholic church as well, which is why they are still going strong. All they do is walk over the border and they are safe.

Yes people do hate terrorists and for a good reason as they are psychopaths

Depends on your definition of freedom fighter, and how they act. target children so you can force the people to force their government to surrender is not the action of a freedom fighter is it. If it was then the enemy can use the same methods.

The definition of terrorism.

terrorist: definition of terrorist in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"A person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims."

Definition of “terrorist” | Collins English Dictionary

"a person who employs terror or terrorism, esp as a political weapon"

freedom fighter: definition of freedom fighter in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"A person who takes part in a violent struggle to achieve a political goal, especially in order tooverthrow their government."

Definition of “freedom fighter” | Collins English Dictionary

"a militant revolutionary"

Who decides whether the person is using terrorism for political aim or if they're taking part in a violent struggle to achieve a political goal?

I mean, they're the same thing. Just looked at from different perspectives.

At some point you right, although, there is no absolute definition for "terrorism", the way I see this is that in order to define terrorism one must realize up to which standart we are referring to.
Observing the two you'd find both to be militants, that disobey the law of the state.
Freedom fighter is fighting for the freedom of rights we (the international community) accept, those very basic rights that are denied, in ways that sometimes are against the law of the state just like Nelson Mandela.
Terrorist is fighting for the ideology one holds, against the basic rights, just like Dzhokar Tsarnaev, that is the difference.

Since 1994, the United Nations General Assembly has repeatedly condemned terrorist acts using the following political description of terrorism:

Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.[17]


In November 2004, a Secretary-General of the United Nations report described terrorism as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act".[13]
Terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don't especially, but I can see why the oppressed people of occupied countries would want to do so.
Many French people wanted to kill occupying Germans - no worries.

But not take it out on the children or women like the arab muslims do. That is the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists, the terrorists go after soft targets.

That's just so wrong.

A terrorist is merely someone who is on the "wrong side".

Mandela was a terrorist to the white South Africans. To the black South Africans he was a freedom fighter. To those who hate apartheid he is a freedom fighter, to those who are racists he was a terrorist.

The IRA were terrorists to the British, freedom fighters to the Catholics.
ETA were terrorists to the Spanish, freedom fighters to the Basque separatists.

It's semantics.

A terrorist is a negative word. People hate terrorists.

Freedom fight is a positive word. People like freedom fighters.

Not according to the definition of terrorism, look it up

He was a self confessed terrorist in the name of communism. A neo Marxist butcher that had more blacks murdered than the Pretoria government killed.

The IRA were terrorist to the Catholic church as well, which is why they are still going strong. All they do is walk over the border and they are safe.

Yes people do hate terrorists and for a good reason as they are psychopaths

Depends on your definition of freedom fighter, and how they act. target children so you can force the people to force their government to surrender is not the action of a freedom fighter is it. If it was then the enemy can use the same methods.

The definition of terrorism.

terrorist: definition of terrorist in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"A person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims."

Definition of “terrorist” | Collins English Dictionary

"a person who employs terror or terrorism, esp as a political weapon"

freedom fighter: definition of freedom fighter in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"A person who takes part in a violent struggle to achieve a political goal, especially in order tooverthrow their government."

Definition of “freedom fighter” | Collins English Dictionary

"a militant revolutionary"

Who decides whether the person is using terrorism for political aim or if they're taking part in a violent struggle to achieve a political goal?

I mean, they're the same thing. Just looked at from different perspectives.

Only to you as the proper definition of terrorism includes the use of fear to force the people to give in to political, religious or ideological groups. That is why so many Islamic groups are seen as terrorists, because they push the islamonazi ideology

But the term terrorism includes use of force. But what do you think freedom fighters are doing?

A terrorist is a terrorist because they're the enemy. It's quite simple.

What is the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist? Both are using violence, both are trying to make a change with force.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Don't look similar? Similar enough for people to make comparisons, that's the whole point.

You're making a claim that Nazism copied stuff from Islam. Then you'd need to prove the links between Nazism and Islam. What did Hitler know about Islam? What did the Nazi bigwigs know about Islam?

You haven't bothered to even make this case. It would seem rather important when this is what you're claiming.

Enough to see islam as an ally, or at least the Suuni muslims under the Mufti. Enough to copy their laws and adapt them for their own use, Enough to know that without the support they would fail in the M.E. if they won the war. Enough to copy their tactics and implement them. Enough to say that islam would be the best state religion for Germany once they had won the war. Again full details and a link posted just today that details it all and you must have ignored it.

Well at the same time the US has the USSR as allies. Does this mean the USA was based on Communism?

They copied their laws? Which laws did they copy?

So, the Nazis needed oil to make their tanks and planes work, therefore they copied Islam?

They wanted Islam as state religion after the war? WTF?

Again, you're talking a crock of shit.

You've proven NOTHING. You've provided no links. You're making connections in such a rubbish way. This is laughable. I take it you didn't do history at degree level.

WRONG again as they were not allies just fighting for the same cause.

Dhimmi laws, sharia laws and the pact of Omar

WRONG again as they had oil aplenty, research the subject before making a fool of yourself.

Read the links provided

Only because it destroys your argument

Only in your fantasy world

The US was fighting the same cause as the Soviets.

Where did Nazi Germany get its oil from?

Germany and Oil • Axis History Forum

"In 1938, of the total consumption of 44 million barrels, imports from overseas accounted for 28 million barrels or roughly 60 percent of the total supply. An additional 3.8 million barrels were imported overland from European sources (2.8 million barrels came from Romania alone), and another 3.8 million barrels were derived from domestic oil production. The remainder of the total, 9 million barrels, were produced synthetically."

"At the outbreak of the war, Germany’s stockpiles of fuel consisted of a total of 15 million barrels. The campaigns in Norway, Holland, Belgium, and France added another 5 million barrels in booty, and imports from the Soviet Union accounted for 4 million barrels in 1940 and 1.6 million barrels in the first half of 1941. Yet a High Command study in May of 1941 noted that with monthly military requirements for 7.25 million barrels and imports and home production of only 5.35 million barrels, German stocks would be exhausted by August 1941. "

Oil aplenty. Hmm, that's why Germany's oil would be exhausted by August 1941 then... because they... er.... had so much......

As for you fantasy world and all of that... I'm sorry, you've making a really bad case for something. I mean, REALLY BAD. You don't like it, well that's your problem.

So you did not find the method of extracting oil from shale, seaweed and peat. The British used these same methods during the war as they had limited supplies as well.

Did I find this personally? Well no, seeing as I'm not in need of much oil.

However the Germans were still looking at exhausting all their oil supplies and the oil they made for themselves, they were making before the war anyway.

You've managed to ignore the point that Germany was running out of oil.

Also you've failed to make any point that is anywhere slightly convincing.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don't especially, but I can see why the oppressed people of occupied countries would want to do so.
Many French people wanted to kill occupying Germans - no worries.

But not take it out on the children or women like the arab muslims do. That is the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists, the terrorists go after soft targets.

That's just so wrong.

A terrorist is merely someone who is on the "wrong side".

Mandela was a terrorist to the white South Africans. To the black South Africans he was a freedom fighter. To those who hate apartheid he is a freedom fighter, to those who are racists he was a terrorist.

The IRA were terrorists to the British, freedom fighters to the Catholics.
ETA were terrorists to the Spanish, freedom fighters to the Basque separatists.

It's semantics.

A terrorist is a negative word. People hate terrorists.

Freedom fight is a positive word. People like freedom fighters.

Not according to the definition of terrorism, look it up

He was a self confessed terrorist in the name of communism. A neo Marxist butcher that had more blacks murdered than the Pretoria government killed.

The IRA were terrorist to the Catholic church as well, which is why they are still going strong. All they do is walk over the border and they are safe.

Yes people do hate terrorists and for a good reason as they are psychopaths

Depends on your definition of freedom fighter, and how they act. target children so you can force the people to force their government to surrender is not the action of a freedom fighter is it. If it was then the enemy can use the same methods.

The definition of terrorism.

terrorist: definition of terrorist in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"A person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims."

Definition of “terrorist” | Collins English Dictionary

"a person who employs terror or terrorism, esp as a political weapon"

freedom fighter: definition of freedom fighter in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"A person who takes part in a violent struggle to achieve a political goal, especially in order tooverthrow their government."

Definition of “freedom fighter” | Collins English Dictionary

"a militant revolutionary"

Who decides whether the person is using terrorism for political aim or if they're taking part in a violent struggle to achieve a political goal?

I mean, they're the same thing. Just looked at from different perspectives.

At some point you right, although, there is no absolute definition for "terrorism", the way I see this is that in order to define terrorism one must realize up to which standart we are referring to.
Observing the two you'd find both to be militants, that disobey the law of the state.
Freedom fighter is fighting for the freedom of rights we (the international community) accept, those very basic rights that are denied, in ways that sometimes are against the law of the state just like Nelson Mandela.
Terrorist is fighting for the ideology one holds, against the basic rights, just like Dzhokar Tsarnaev, that is the difference.

Since 1994, the United Nations General Assembly has repeatedly condemned terrorist acts using the following political description of terrorism:

Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.[17]


In November 2004, a Secretary-General of the United Nations report described terrorism as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act".[13]
Terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Often freedom fighters aren't fighting for rights, they're fighting for the ability to control their own people.

 

[Phoenall]

But not take it out on the children or women like the arab muslims do. That is the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists, the terrorists go after soft targets.

That's just so wrong.

A terrorist is merely someone who is on the "wrong side".

Mandela was a terrorist to the white South Africans. To the black South Africans he was a freedom fighter. To those who hate apartheid he is a freedom fighter, to those who are racists he was a terrorist.

The IRA were terrorists to the British, freedom fighters to the Catholics.
ETA were terrorists to the Spanish, freedom fighters to the Basque separatists.

It's semantics.

A terrorist is a negative word. People hate terrorists.

Freedom fight is a positive word. People like freedom fighters.

Not according to the definition of terrorism, look it up

He was a self confessed terrorist in the name of communism. A neo Marxist butcher that had more blacks murdered than the Pretoria government killed.

The IRA were terrorist to the Catholic church as well, which is why they are still going strong. All they do is walk over the border and they are safe.

Yes people do hate terrorists and for a good reason as they are psychopaths

Depends on your definition of freedom fighter, and how they act. target children so you can force the people to force their government to surrender is not the action of a freedom fighter is it. If it was then the enemy can use the same methods.

The definition of terrorism.

terrorist: definition of terrorist in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"A person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims."

Definition of “terrorist” | Collins English Dictionary

"a person who employs terror or terrorism, esp as a political weapon"

freedom fighter: definition of freedom fighter in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"A person who takes part in a violent struggle to achieve a political goal, especially in order tooverthrow their government."

Definition of “freedom fighter” | Collins English Dictionary

"a militant revolutionary"

Who decides whether the person is using terrorism for political aim or if they're taking part in a violent struggle to achieve a political goal?

I mean, they're the same thing. Just looked at from different perspectives.

Only to you as the proper definition of terrorism includes the use of fear to force the people to give in to political, religious or ideological groups. That is why so many Islamic groups are seen as terrorists, because they push the islamonazi ideology

But the term terrorism includes use of force. But what do you think freedom fighters are doing?

A terrorist is a terrorist because they're the enemy. It's quite simple.

What is the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist? Both are using violence, both are trying to make a change with force.

But not by targeting children in another country, or by kidnapping people from another country and murdering them. Both acts the Palestinians have taken part in over the years. The French resistance did not fire rockets at Germany targeting the German children did they. When you understand the difference then you will be better educated on the difference between Palestinians and freedom fighters.

 

[Phoenall]

But not take it out on the children or women like the arab muslims do. That is the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists, the terrorists go after soft targets.

That's just so wrong.

A terrorist is merely someone who is on the "wrong side".

Mandela was a terrorist to the white South Africans. To the black South Africans he was a freedom fighter. To those who hate apartheid he is a freedom fighter, to those who are racists he was a terrorist.

The IRA were terrorists to the British, freedom fighters to the Catholics.
ETA were terrorists to the Spanish, freedom fighters to the Basque separatists.

It's semantics.

A terrorist is a negative word. People hate terrorists.

Freedom fight is a positive word. People like freedom fighters.

Not according to the definition of terrorism, look it up

He was a self confessed terrorist in the name of communism. A neo Marxist butcher that had more blacks murdered than the Pretoria government killed.

The IRA were terrorist to the Catholic church as well, which is why they are still going strong. All they do is walk over the border and they are safe.

Yes people do hate terrorists and for a good reason as they are psychopaths

Depends on your definition of freedom fighter, and how they act. target children so you can force the people to force their government to surrender is not the action of a freedom fighter is it. If it was then the enemy can use the same methods.

The definition of terrorism.

terrorist: definition of terrorist in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"A person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims."

Definition of “terrorist” | Collins English Dictionary

"a person who employs terror or terrorism, esp as a political weapon"

freedom fighter: definition of freedom fighter in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"A person who takes part in a violent struggle to achieve a political goal, especially in order tooverthrow their government."

Definition of “freedom fighter” | Collins English Dictionary

"a militant revolutionary"

Who decides whether the person is using terrorism for political aim or if they're taking part in a violent struggle to achieve a political goal?

I mean, they're the same thing. Just looked at from different perspectives.

At some point you right, although, there is no absolute definition for "terrorism", the way I see this is that in order to define terrorism one must realize up to which standart we are referring to.
Observing the two you'd find both to be militants, that disobey the law of the state.
Freedom fighter is fighting for the freedom of rights we (the international community) accept, those very basic rights that are denied, in ways that sometimes are against the law of the state just like Nelson Mandela.
Terrorist is fighting for the ideology one holds, against the basic rights, just like Dzhokar Tsarnaev, that is the difference.

Since 1994, the United Nations General Assembly has repeatedly condemned terrorist acts using the following political description of terrorism:

Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.[17]


In November 2004, a Secretary-General of the United Nations report described terrorism as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act".[13]
Terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Often freedom fighters aren't fighting for rights, they're fighting for the ability to control their own people.

Like ISIS and AQ do you mean, or even the IRA. All looking at taking over so they could eliminate the opponents and run the nations along their extremist lines.

 

[Daniyel]

But not take it out on the children or women like the arab muslims do. That is the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists, the terrorists go after soft targets.

That's just so wrong.

A terrorist is merely someone who is on the "wrong side".

Mandela was a terrorist to the white South Africans. To the black South Africans he was a freedom fighter. To those who hate apartheid he is a freedom fighter, to those who are racists he was a terrorist.

The IRA were terrorists to the British, freedom fighters to the Catholics.
ETA were terrorists to the Spanish, freedom fighters to the Basque separatists.

It's semantics.

A terrorist is a negative word. People hate terrorists.

Freedom fight is a positive word. People like freedom fighters.

Not according to the definition of terrorism, look it up

He was a self confessed terrorist in the name of communism. A neo Marxist butcher that had more blacks murdered than the Pretoria government killed.

The IRA were terrorist to the Catholic church as well, which is why they are still going strong. All they do is walk over the border and they are safe.

Yes people do hate terrorists and for a good reason as they are psychopaths

Depends on your definition of freedom fighter, and how they act. target children so you can force the people to force their government to surrender is not the action of a freedom fighter is it. If it was then the enemy can use the same methods.

The definition of terrorism.

terrorist: definition of terrorist in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"A person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims."

Definition of “terrorist” | Collins English Dictionary

"a person who employs terror or terrorism, esp as a political weapon"

freedom fighter: definition of freedom fighter in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"A person who takes part in a violent struggle to achieve a political goal, especially in order tooverthrow their government."

Definition of “freedom fighter” | Collins English Dictionary

"a militant revolutionary"

Who decides whether the person is using terrorism for political aim or if they're taking part in a violent struggle to achieve a political goal?

I mean, they're the same thing. Just looked at from different perspectives.

At some point you right, although, there is no absolute definition for "terrorism", the way I see this is that in order to define terrorism one must realize up to which standart we are referring to.
Observing the two you'd find both to be militants, that disobey the law of the state.
Freedom fighter is fighting for the freedom of rights we (the international community) accept, those very basic rights that are denied, in ways that sometimes are against the law of the state just like Nelson Mandela.
Terrorist is fighting for the ideology one holds, against the basic rights, just like Dzhokar Tsarnaev, that is the difference.

Since 1994, the United Nations General Assembly has repeatedly condemned terrorist acts using the following political description of terrorism:

Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.[17]


In November 2004, a Secretary-General of the United Nations report described terrorism as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act".[13]
Terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Often freedom fighters aren't fighting for rights, they're fighting for the ability to control their own people.

That has a different definition, since those are definitely not people who fight for freedom but against it, you can think about dictators or fascists while terrorists is also an option depends on the situation.
Do you see the difference between Nelson Mandela and Dzhokar Tsarnaev?

 

[flacaltenn]

Meanwhile -- back at the OP --- the score is one truly pissed-off knife-wielding Pali vs most of the others who have to think of ways to kill Israelis because of peer pressure and indoctrination. Most of them --- especially the 10 year old is reachable..

You'd probably get similar answers in the American Ghettos of Baltimore, St. Louis, and Chicago, if the topic was white cops. They've ALL considered it --- but few are actually serious about being the next martyr for the cause.

BOTH cases have similar resolutions. Give them MORE EFFECTIVE leadership. Give them a vision of economic success and viability -- and then they will STILL find humor in killing soldiers or white cops -- but be too relieved to act on it..

 

[frigidweirdo]

That's just so wrong.

A terrorist is merely someone who is on the "wrong side".

Mandela was a terrorist to the white South Africans. To the black South Africans he was a freedom fighter. To those who hate apartheid he is a freedom fighter, to those who are racists he was a terrorist.

The IRA were terrorists to the British, freedom fighters to the Catholics.
ETA were terrorists to the Spanish, freedom fighters to the Basque separatists.

It's semantics.

A terrorist is a negative word. People hate terrorists.

Freedom fight is a positive word. People like freedom fighters.

Not according to the definition of terrorism, look it up

He was a self confessed terrorist in the name of communism. A neo Marxist butcher that had more blacks murdered than the Pretoria government killed.

The IRA were terrorist to the Catholic church as well, which is why they are still going strong. All they do is walk over the border and they are safe.

Yes people do hate terrorists and for a good reason as they are psychopaths

Depends on your definition of freedom fighter, and how they act. target children so you can force the people to force their government to surrender is not the action of a freedom fighter is it. If it was then the enemy can use the same methods.

The definition of terrorism.

terrorist: definition of terrorist in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"A person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims."

Definition of “terrorist” | Collins English Dictionary

"a person who employs terror or terrorism, esp as a political weapon"

freedom fighter: definition of freedom fighter in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"A person who takes part in a violent struggle to achieve a political goal, especially in order tooverthrow their government."

Definition of “freedom fighter” | Collins English Dictionary

"a militant revolutionary"

Who decides whether the person is using terrorism for political aim or if they're taking part in a violent struggle to achieve a political goal?

I mean, they're the same thing. Just looked at from different perspectives.

Only to you as the proper definition of terrorism includes the use of fear to force the people to give in to political, religious or ideological groups. That is why so many Islamic groups are seen as terrorists, because they push the islamonazi ideology

But the term terrorism includes use of force. But what do you think freedom fighters are doing?

A terrorist is a terrorist because they're the enemy. It's quite simple.

What is the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist? Both are using violence, both are trying to make a change with force.

But not by targeting children in another country, or by kidnapping people from another country and murdering them. Both acts the Palestinians have taken part in over the years. The French resistance did not fire rockets at Germany targeting the German children did they. When you understand the difference then you will be better educated on the difference between Palestinians and freedom fighters.

No, the french resistance didn't fire rockets much, and they didn't drop atomic bombs on people either. Probably because they were in France and not in Germany.

Just because someone didn't do something, doesn't mean that they're inherently good. For the Germans they were considered bad. However they were dealing with occupation where it would have been hard to get out of their occupying zone.

Palestinians are in a different position. They feel their land is being occupied, and not just by soldiers, but by families.

So you want to get all arrogant. Okay, you take your "view" and tell me...

The ANC, terrorists or freedom fighters?
the IRA, terrorists or freedom fighters? (and the Provisional IRA too)
ETA, terrorists or freedom fighters?
Chechen rebels, terrorists of freedom fighters?
KLA (Kosovan Liberation Army), terrorists or freedom fighters?
Mujaheddin, terrorists or freedom fighters?
The Taliban, terrorists or freedom fighters?
AIM (American Indian Movement), terrorists or freedom fighters?
Contras, terrorists or freedom fighters?
Iraqi Resistance Movement, terrorists or freedom fighters?
Tamil Tigers, terrorists or freedom fighters?

This should give you enough to be getting on with.

 

[frigidweirdo]

That's just so wrong.

A terrorist is merely someone who is on the "wrong side".

Mandela was a terrorist to the white South Africans. To the black South Africans he was a freedom fighter. To those who hate apartheid he is a freedom fighter, to those who are racists he was a terrorist.

The IRA were terrorists to the British, freedom fighters to the Catholics.
ETA were terrorists to the Spanish, freedom fighters to the Basque separatists.

It's semantics.

A terrorist is a negative word. People hate terrorists.

Freedom fight is a positive word. People like freedom fighters.

Not according to the definition of terrorism, look it up

He was a self confessed terrorist in the name of communism. A neo Marxist butcher that had more blacks murdered than the Pretoria government killed.

The IRA were terrorist to the Catholic church as well, which is why they are still going strong. All they do is walk over the border and they are safe.

Yes people do hate terrorists and for a good reason as they are psychopaths

Depends on your definition of freedom fighter, and how they act. target children so you can force the people to force their government to surrender is not the action of a freedom fighter is it. If it was then the enemy can use the same methods.

The definition of terrorism.

terrorist: definition of terrorist in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"A person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims."

Definition of “terrorist” | Collins English Dictionary

"a person who employs terror or terrorism, esp as a political weapon"

freedom fighter: definition of freedom fighter in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"A person who takes part in a violent struggle to achieve a political goal, especially in order tooverthrow their government."

Definition of “freedom fighter” | Collins English Dictionary

"a militant revolutionary"

Who decides whether the person is using terrorism for political aim or if they're taking part in a violent struggle to achieve a political goal?

I mean, they're the same thing. Just looked at from different perspectives.

At some point you right, although, there is no absolute definition for "terrorism", the way I see this is that in order to define terrorism one must realize up to which standart we are referring to.
Observing the two you'd find both to be militants, that disobey the law of the state.
Freedom fighter is fighting for the freedom of rights we (the international community) accept, those very basic rights that are denied, in ways that sometimes are against the law of the state just like Nelson Mandela.
Terrorist is fighting for the ideology one holds, against the basic rights, just like Dzhokar Tsarnaev, that is the difference.

Since 1994, the United Nations General Assembly has repeatedly condemned terrorist acts using the following political description of terrorism:

Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.[17]


In November 2004, a Secretary-General of the United Nations report described terrorism as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act".[13]
Terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Often freedom fighters aren't fighting for rights, they're fighting for the ability to control their own people.

Like ISIS and AQ do you mean, or even the IRA. All looking at taking over so they could eliminate the opponents and run the nations along their extremist lines.

Well, "like", sure, "like", similar to. Some groups will run the country well, others would run the country badly, just like political parties.

I'm not sure I get a point out of what you're saying.

 

[frigidweirdo]

That's just so wrong.

A terrorist is merely someone who is on the "wrong side".

Mandela was a terrorist to the white South Africans. To the black South Africans he was a freedom fighter. To those who hate apartheid he is a freedom fighter, to those who are racists he was a terrorist.

The IRA were terrorists to the British, freedom fighters to the Catholics.
ETA were terrorists to the Spanish, freedom fighters to the Basque separatists.

It's semantics.

A terrorist is a negative word. People hate terrorists.

Freedom fight is a positive word. People like freedom fighters.

Not according to the definition of terrorism, look it up

He was a self confessed terrorist in the name of communism. A neo Marxist butcher that had more blacks murdered than the Pretoria government killed.

The IRA were terrorist to the Catholic church as well, which is why they are still going strong. All they do is walk over the border and they are safe.

Yes people do hate terrorists and for a good reason as they are psychopaths

Depends on your definition of freedom fighter, and how they act. target children so you can force the people to force their government to surrender is not the action of a freedom fighter is it. If it was then the enemy can use the same methods.

The definition of terrorism.

terrorist: definition of terrorist in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"A person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims."

Definition of “terrorist” | Collins English Dictionary

"a person who employs terror or terrorism, esp as a political weapon"

freedom fighter: definition of freedom fighter in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"A person who takes part in a violent struggle to achieve a political goal, especially in order tooverthrow their government."

Definition of “freedom fighter” | Collins English Dictionary

"a militant revolutionary"

Who decides whether the person is using terrorism for political aim or if they're taking part in a violent struggle to achieve a political goal?

I mean, they're the same thing. Just looked at from different perspectives.

At some point you right, although, there is no absolute definition for "terrorism", the way I see this is that in order to define terrorism one must realize up to which standart we are referring to.
Observing the two you'd find both to be militants, that disobey the law of the state.
Freedom fighter is fighting for the freedom of rights we (the international community) accept, those very basic rights that are denied, in ways that sometimes are against the law of the state just like Nelson Mandela.
Terrorist is fighting for the ideology one holds, against the basic rights, just like Dzhokar Tsarnaev, that is the difference.

Since 1994, the United Nations General Assembly has repeatedly condemned terrorist acts using the following political description of terrorism:

Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.[17]


In November 2004, a Secretary-General of the United Nations report described terrorism as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act".[13]
Terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Often freedom fighters aren't fighting for rights, they're fighting for the ability to control their own people.

That has a different definition, since those are definitely not people who fight for freedom but against it, you can think about dictators or fascists while terrorists is also an option depends on the situation.
Do you see the difference between Nelson Mandela and Dzhokar Tsarnaev?

Of course there's a difference between Mandela and Tasrnaev. I'm not sure I'd put Tasrnaev in either terrorist or freedom fighter though.

The guy stated that what he did was in retribution for US actions in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. It wasn't necessarily to spread terror, even if it did spread terror. It was a loan action, not necessarily trying to change politics, but just making some kind of vague statement. More likely it was like many school shootings, angry people making a bang.

 

[Phoenall]

Meanwhile -- back at the OP --- the score is one truly pissed-off knife-wielding Pali vs most of the others who have to think of ways to kill Israelis because of peer pressure and indoctrination. Most of them --- especially the 10 year old is reachable..

You'd probably get similar answers in the American Ghettos of Baltimore, St. Louis, and Chicago, if the topic was white cops. They've ALL considered it --- but few are actually serious about being the next martyr for the cause.

BOTH cases have similar resolutions. Give them MORE EFFECTIVE leadership. Give them a vision of economic success and viability -- and then they will STILL find humor in killing soldiers or white cops -- but be too relieved to act on it..

Most of all give them hope for a future where they can make themselves better than all the other arabs in the M.E. and as rich as the Oil sheiks and you will have an end to the violence. But first we need to get rid of the extremists that are the cause of the problems, and the way to do that is to make them illegal and on an international warrant for arrest on charges of war crimes and genocide.

 

[Phoenall]

Not according to the definition of terrorism, look it up

He was a self confessed terrorist in the name of communism. A neo Marxist butcher that had more blacks murdered than the Pretoria government killed.

The IRA were terrorist to the Catholic church as well, which is why they are still going strong. All they do is walk over the border and they are safe.

Yes people do hate terrorists and for a good reason as they are psychopaths

Depends on your definition of freedom fighter, and how they act. target children so you can force the people to force their government to surrender is not the action of a freedom fighter is it. If it was then the enemy can use the same methods.

The definition of terrorism.

terrorist: definition of terrorist in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"A person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims."

Definition of “terrorist” | Collins English Dictionary

"a person who employs terror or terrorism, esp as a political weapon"

freedom fighter: definition of freedom fighter in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"A person who takes part in a violent struggle to achieve a political goal, especially in order tooverthrow their government."

Definition of “freedom fighter” | Collins English Dictionary

"a militant revolutionary"

Who decides whether the person is using terrorism for political aim or if they're taking part in a violent struggle to achieve a political goal?

I mean, they're the same thing. Just looked at from different perspectives.

Only to you as the proper definition of terrorism includes the use of fear to force the people to give in to political, religious or ideological groups. That is why so many Islamic groups are seen as terrorists, because they push the islamonazi ideology

But the term terrorism includes use of force. But what do you think freedom fighters are doing?

A terrorist is a terrorist because they're the enemy. It's quite simple.

What is the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist? Both are using violence, both are trying to make a change with force.

But not by targeting children in another country, or by kidnapping people from another country and murdering them. Both acts the Palestinians have taken part in over the years. The French resistance did not fire rockets at Germany targeting the German children did they. When you understand the difference then you will be better educated on the difference between Palestinians and freedom fighters.

No, the french resistance didn't fire rockets much, and they didn't drop atomic bombs on people either. Probably because they were in France and not in Germany.

Just because someone didn't do something, doesn't mean that they're inherently good. For the Germans they were considered bad. However they were dealing with occupation where it would have been hard to get out of their occupying zone.

Palestinians are in a different position. They feel their land is being occupied, and not just by soldiers, but by families.

So you want to get all arrogant. Okay, you take your "view" and tell me...

The ANC, terrorists or freedom fighters?
the IRA, terrorists or freedom fighters? (and the Provisional IRA too)
ETA, terrorists or freedom fighters?
Chechen rebels, terrorists of freedom fighters?
KLA (Kosovan Liberation Army), terrorists or freedom fighters?
Mujaheddin, terrorists or freedom fighters?
The Taliban, terrorists or freedom fighters?
AIM (American Indian Movement), terrorists or freedom fighters?
Contras, terrorists or freedom fighters?
Iraqi Resistance Movement, terrorists or freedom fighters?
Tamil Tigers, terrorists or freedom fighters?

This should give you enough to be getting on with.

You miss the whole point because you don't want to admit that the Palestinians are terrorists. There are no freedom fighters that target children in another country as an extension of their failed wars of genocide apart from the Palestinians. Not even IS or Boko Harem stoop this low and they are both accredited terrorist organisations. The only other groups that I know of were the IRA and the Philippines muslim extremists.

Take your list and put next to them all TERRORIST SCUM as they target civilians to force their ideology on others.

 

[Phoenall]

Not according to the definition of terrorism, look it up

He was a self confessed terrorist in the name of communism. A neo Marxist butcher that had more blacks murdered than the Pretoria government killed.

The IRA were terrorist to the Catholic church as well, which is why they are still going strong. All they do is walk over the border and they are safe.

Yes people do hate terrorists and for a good reason as they are psychopaths

Depends on your definition of freedom fighter, and how they act. target children so you can force the people to force their government to surrender is not the action of a freedom fighter is it. If it was then the enemy can use the same methods.

The definition of terrorism.

terrorist: definition of terrorist in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"A person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims."

Definition of “terrorist” | Collins English Dictionary

"a person who employs terror or terrorism, esp as a political weapon"

freedom fighter: definition of freedom fighter in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"A person who takes part in a violent struggle to achieve a political goal, especially in order tooverthrow their government."

Definition of “freedom fighter” | Collins English Dictionary

"a militant revolutionary"

Who decides whether the person is using terrorism for political aim or if they're taking part in a violent struggle to achieve a political goal?

I mean, they're the same thing. Just looked at from different perspectives.

At some point you right, although, there is no absolute definition for "terrorism", the way I see this is that in order to define terrorism one must realize up to which standart we are referring to.
Observing the two you'd find both to be militants, that disobey the law of the state.
Freedom fighter is fighting for the freedom of rights we (the international community) accept, those very basic rights that are denied, in ways that sometimes are against the law of the state just like Nelson Mandela.
Terrorist is fighting for the ideology one holds, against the basic rights, just like Dzhokar Tsarnaev, that is the difference.

Since 1994, the United Nations General Assembly has repeatedly condemned terrorist acts using the following political description of terrorism:

Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.[17]


In November 2004, a Secretary-General of the United Nations report described terrorism as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act".[13]
Terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Often freedom fighters aren't fighting for rights, they're fighting for the ability to control their own people.

Like ISIS and AQ do you mean, or even the IRA. All looking at taking over so they could eliminate the opponents and run the nations along their extremist lines.

Well, "like", sure, "like", similar to. Some groups will run the country well, others would run the country badly, just like political parties.

I'm not sure I get a point out of what you're saying.

Then it is time you removed your head from your arse and looked at reality. Any group that targets civilians as a means of terrorising them are scum. This does not mean that civilians killed in war have been targeted deliberately either. so don't try and blame Israel

 

[Daniyel]

Not according to the definition of terrorism, look it up

He was a self confessed terrorist in the name of communism. A neo Marxist butcher that had more blacks murdered than the Pretoria government killed.

The IRA were terrorist to the Catholic church as well, which is why they are still going strong. All they do is walk over the border and they are safe.

Yes people do hate terrorists and for a good reason as they are psychopaths

Depends on your definition of freedom fighter, and how they act. target children so you can force the people to force their government to surrender is not the action of a freedom fighter is it. If it was then the enemy can use the same methods.

The definition of terrorism.

terrorist: definition of terrorist in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"A person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims."

Definition of “terrorist” | Collins English Dictionary

"a person who employs terror or terrorism, esp as a political weapon"

freedom fighter: definition of freedom fighter in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"A person who takes part in a violent struggle to achieve a political goal, especially in order tooverthrow their government."

Definition of “freedom fighter” | Collins English Dictionary

"a militant revolutionary"

Who decides whether the person is using terrorism for political aim or if they're taking part in a violent struggle to achieve a political goal?

I mean, they're the same thing. Just looked at from different perspectives.

At some point you right, although, there is no absolute definition for "terrorism", the way I see this is that in order to define terrorism one must realize up to which standart we are referring to.
Observing the two you'd find both to be militants, that disobey the law of the state.
Freedom fighter is fighting for the freedom of rights we (the international community) accept, those very basic rights that are denied, in ways that sometimes are against the law of the state just like Nelson Mandela.
Terrorist is fighting for the ideology one holds, against the basic rights, just like Dzhokar Tsarnaev, that is the difference.

Since 1994, the United Nations General Assembly has repeatedly condemned terrorist acts using the following political description of terrorism:

Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.[17]


In November 2004, a Secretary-General of the United Nations report described terrorism as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act".[13]
Terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Often freedom fighters aren't fighting for rights, they're fighting for the ability to control their own people.

That has a different definition, since those are definitely not people who fight for freedom but against it, you can think about dictators or fascists while terrorists is also an option depends on the situation.
Do you see the difference between Nelson Mandela and Dzhokar Tsarnaev?

Of course there's a difference between Mandela and Tasrnaev. I'm not sure I'd put Tasrnaev in either terrorist or freedom fighter though.

The guy stated that what he did was in retribution for US actions in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. It wasn't necessarily to spread terror, even if it did spread terror. It was a loan action, not necessarily trying to change politics, but just making some kind of vague statement. More likely it was like many school shootings, angry people making a bang.

Every action we are taking in our lives create consequences, and has an initial reason - otherwise we simply don't do it.
When Tsarnaev committed the attack it was for the reason he believed it would bare consequences - ideologically - such as political opposition against the basic rights of innocent people - he didn't even bother to target military or political personal but innocent people - in order to achieve something by killing and delivering a statement - "terrorizing" - also note that Tsarnaev was never hurt in Iraq and Afghanistan but his ideology did.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The definition of terrorism.

terrorist: definition of terrorist in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"A person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims."

Definition of “terrorist” | Collins English Dictionary

"a person who employs terror or terrorism, esp as a political weapon"

freedom fighter: definition of freedom fighter in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"A person who takes part in a violent struggle to achieve a political goal, especially in order tooverthrow their government."

Definition of “freedom fighter” | Collins English Dictionary

"a militant revolutionary"

Who decides whether the person is using terrorism for political aim or if they're taking part in a violent struggle to achieve a political goal?

I mean, they're the same thing. Just looked at from different perspectives.

Only to you as the proper definition of terrorism includes the use of fear to force the people to give in to political, religious or ideological groups. That is why so many Islamic groups are seen as terrorists, because they push the islamonazi ideology

But the term terrorism includes use of force. But what do you think freedom fighters are doing?

A terrorist is a terrorist because they're the enemy. It's quite simple.

What is the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist? Both are using violence, both are trying to make a change with force.

But not by targeting children in another country, or by kidnapping people from another country and murdering them. Both acts the Palestinians have taken part in over the years. The French resistance did not fire rockets at Germany targeting the German children did they. When you understand the difference then you will be better educated on the difference between Palestinians and freedom fighters.

No, the french resistance didn't fire rockets much, and they didn't drop atomic bombs on people either. Probably because they were in France and not in Germany.

Just because someone didn't do something, doesn't mean that they're inherently good. For the Germans they were considered bad. However they were dealing with occupation where it would have been hard to get out of their occupying zone.

Palestinians are in a different position. They feel their land is being occupied, and not just by soldiers, but by families.

So you want to get all arrogant. Okay, you take your "view" and tell me...

The ANC, terrorists or freedom fighters?
the IRA, terrorists or freedom fighters? (and the Provisional IRA too)
ETA, terrorists or freedom fighters?
Chechen rebels, terrorists of freedom fighters?
KLA (Kosovan Liberation Army), terrorists or freedom fighters?
Mujaheddin, terrorists or freedom fighters?
The Taliban, terrorists or freedom fighters?
AIM (American Indian Movement), terrorists or freedom fighters?
Contras, terrorists or freedom fighters?
Iraqi Resistance Movement, terrorists or freedom fighters?
Tamil Tigers, terrorists or freedom fighters?

This should give you enough to be getting on with.

You miss the whole point because you don't want to admit that the Palestinians are terrorists. There are no freedom fighters that target children in another country as an extension of their failed wars of genocide apart from the Palestinians. Not even IS or Boko Harem stoop this low and they are both accredited terrorist organisations. The only other groups that I know of were the IRA and the Philippines muslim extremists.

Take your list and put next to them all TERRORIST SCUM as they target civilians to force their ideology on others.

Does it matter whether they're terrorists or freedom fighters? As I said, it's terminology which is often based on who is saying it.

Stooping low doesn't make any difference whether they're terrorists or freedom fighters. The US govt stoops low, doesn't make them either a terrorist or a freedom fighter.

So, we're discussing whether they're freedom fighters or terrorists and you choose one and yet you don't know many groups that might get into these categories. It's great having debates with people who don't much yet still tell everyone else they're wrong unless they agree with you.

 

[montelatici]

Muhajedin fighting Russians in Afghanistan were deemed freedom fighters by the U.S.

Muhajedin (Taliban sons of the above) fighting NATO in Afghanistan deemed terrorists by the U.S.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The definition of terrorism.

terrorist: definition of terrorist in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"A person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims."

Definition of “terrorist” | Collins English Dictionary

"a person who employs terror or terrorism, esp as a political weapon"

freedom fighter: definition of freedom fighter in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"A person who takes part in a violent struggle to achieve a political goal, especially in order tooverthrow their government."

Definition of “freedom fighter” | Collins English Dictionary

"a militant revolutionary"

Who decides whether the person is using terrorism for political aim or if they're taking part in a violent struggle to achieve a political goal?

I mean, they're the same thing. Just looked at from different perspectives.

At some point you right, although, there is no absolute definition for "terrorism", the way I see this is that in order to define terrorism one must realize up to which standart we are referring to.
Observing the two you'd find both to be militants, that disobey the law of the state.
Freedom fighter is fighting for the freedom of rights we (the international community) accept, those very basic rights that are denied, in ways that sometimes are against the law of the state just like Nelson Mandela.
Terrorist is fighting for the ideology one holds, against the basic rights, just like Dzhokar Tsarnaev, that is the difference.

Since 1994, the United Nations General Assembly has repeatedly condemned terrorist acts using the following political description of terrorism:

Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.[17]


In November 2004, a Secretary-General of the United Nations report described terrorism as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act".[13]
Terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Often freedom fighters aren't fighting for rights, they're fighting for the ability to control their own people.

Like ISIS and AQ do you mean, or even the IRA. All looking at taking over so they could eliminate the opponents and run the nations along their extremist lines.

Well, "like", sure, "like", similar to. Some groups will run the country well, others would run the country badly, just like political parties.

I'm not sure I get a point out of what you're saying.

Then it is time you removed your head from your arse and looked at reality. Any group that targets civilians as a means of terrorising them are scum. This does not mean that civilians killed in war have been targeted deliberately either. so don't try and blame Israel

Okay, let's look at groups that target civilians.

The USA for example.
Sanctions in Iran which are targeting the Iranian people to try and change their own government.
Sanctions against Iraq which led to many deaths.
WW2 and the bombing of places like... Rothenburg ob der Tauber which had not military reason to be bombed, yet for some reason known only to those in charge, it was.
Plenty of examples from the CIA who take out those who get in their way.

The simple fact is that for the Bush government, at the very least, civilian lives simply don't matter in the grand scheme of things. If you're sat on oil, well you can get the hell off that oil.

Your comment about civilians killed in war is a massive cop out by the way.
It means that ANY NATION which kills civilians, whether they're deliberately targeted or not, well that's okay, because it's been done by a nation. But if it's done by a group, and not a nation, then it's bad.

Sorry, I don't buy that bull. If a nation targets civilians then it's as bad as a group.
Palestine is basically a nation, it's just not recognized by all.

You're making stuff fit your agenda, rather than looking at the reality.

Someone like Ariel Sharon was scum. I'm not saying there aren't groups in Palestine who are scum, there probably are. Hell, there are scum all over the world. Scum who will **** with people's lives, like George W. Bush and they don't give a damn about the consequences. Like the emergence of ISIS. Does he care. **** off does he, he's rich and living the high life, it's others he doesn't know who are getting killed.

 

[flacaltenn]

Muhajedin fighting Russians in Afghanistan were deemed freedom fighters by the U.S.

Muhajedin (Taliban sons of the above) fighting NATO in Afghanistan deemed terrorists by the U.S.

Crappy national policy and pronouncements like "Muhjahadin in Afghan. were "freedom fighters"" --- doesn't matter. US foreign policy has NEVER been rational or fair. Popular opinion in these cases are a BETTER measure of "who's the threat" than our State Dept or CIC..