How would you kill him?

[montelatici]

Popular opinion regarded the Muhajedin as Freedom Fighters and no one disagreed with pundits that wanted to help the "Holy Warriors". Millions of dollars of aid were given to them. Read the whole piece, it is quaint looking back.

".....Moscow also has made cosmetic changes in the quisling communist regime that it props up in Kabul in a vain effort to undermine the Mujahideen and defuse international criticism than it was in 1979 Since Soviet tanks rolled into Afghanistan on Yet the Afghan Mujahideen (Holy Warriors) fight on. But Moscow is no closer to winning its Afghan war today far from giving up, however, the Soviets are settling in for the long haul of attrition, to depopulate key resistance strongholds and undercut the Mujahideen's base of support, and compel Pakistan and Iran to choke off external assistance to the resistance. Unless the Afghan resistance improves its military effectiveness and political unity it is in danger of succumbing to exhaustion in the long run Moscow seeks to wear down the resistance in a grinding war. Final Soviet victory in Afghanistan would destabilize Southwest Asia. Fully understanding this, the United States and other nations have extended aid to the Afghan resistance related to the Iranian controversy indicate that the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, for instance, each contributed $250 million in aid to the Afghans in 1986...."

Updating U.S. Strategy for Helping Afghan Freedom Fighters

 

[Phoenall]

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.

Yes it does as there is a chasm between the ideology of a freedom fighter and that of a terrorist.

But it does as it shows that terrorists are not concerned about how the world perceives them just in the impact of their murders

I gave you answers to the only ones I know of that stoop so low as to be pariahs, can you say the same thing. Or are you defending their methods and actions because they use them against those who oppose your POV

 

[Phoenall]

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.

Did they deliberately fire weapons at children to instill terror in them so they would force their government to give in ?

yes during WW2 there were deliberate targeting of civilians by all sides, which is why afterwards it was made illegal and a war crime.
Are those who the CIA "take out" criminals by any chance, because if they are then they are not innocents.

And the eyes of the world were on the USA and they saw nothing of this so what do you say now ?

No not at all what I said was if the civilians decide to become human shields then under current international laws they lose the protection afforded to civilians. In effect they become militia and as such valid targets. The laws are not perfect but they will have to do until we get new ones. But any nation that deliberately targets children faces having their leaders arrested and tried fir war crimes. And as the Islamic leaders found out they cant leave their own country because they are on international arrest warrants.


It is recognised by enough nations for their leaders to face arrest on war crimes if they travel outside of palestine

No I am posting the reality of the situation and you don't like it because it go against all you believe

I see the Jew hatred is strong in this one.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Yes it does as there is a chasm between the ideology of a freedom fighter and that of a terrorist.

But it does as it shows that terrorists are not concerned about how the world perceives them just in the impact of their murders

I gave you answers to the only ones I know of that stoop so low as to be pariahs, can you say the same thing. Or are you defending their methods and actions because they use them against those who oppose your POV

Well.... you don't seem to know very many groups that might be considered freedom fighters or terrorists, so how the hell would you know?

Go back and tell me which of those groups are terrorist groups and which are freedom fighters.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Did they deliberately fire weapons at children to instill terror in them so they would force their government to give in ?

yes during WW2 there were deliberate targeting of civilians by all sides, which is why afterwards it was made illegal and a war crime.
Are those because if they are then they are not innocents.

And the eyes of the world were on the USA and they saw nothing of this so what do you say now ?

No not at all what I said was if the civilians decide to become human shields then under current international laws they lose the protection afforded to civilians. In effect they become militia and as such valid targets. The laws are not perfect but they will have to do until we get new ones. But any nation that deliberately targets children faces having their leaders arrested and tried fir war crimes. And as the Islamic leaders found out they cant leave their own country because they are on international arrest warrants.


It is recognised by enough nations for their leaders to face arrest on war crimes if they travel outside of palestine

No I am posting the reality of the situation and you don't like it because it go against all you believe

I see the Jew hatred is strong in this one.

So you're saying deliberately firing a weapon at a child = terrorist.
But making a child die due to hunger isn't a terrorist?

Are those who the CIA take out "criminals"? Well, usually these people they take out are not under the jurisdiction of the USA. Which means the CIA are the criminals. The US has a principle, this is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

The CIA's history of torturing innocent people

"The CIA’s torture program detained and interrogated innocent people for a combined total of 11 years, according to the Senate report released last week."

Many of the killings by the CIA, innocent people who get in the way, for example, will simply not be available on the internet.

But one of the problems is this. If Palestine makes a policy of getting what it wants, and an individual then does something that is bad, why does this make all Palestinians terrorists?
If a US soldier does something similar, doesn't that make the US a terrorist state?

If it's about high level policy, and the Palestinian government or Hamas or whoever are ordering such things that lead to the killing of innocent people, then the US policy is much, MUCH worse.

How many innocent people died in Iraq? How many innocent people died in all the wars the CIA instigated during the Cold War and since?

Americas Third World War: How 6 million People Were killed in CIA secret wars against third world countries

"He estimates that over 6 million people have died in CIA covert actions, and this was in the late 1980's."

As for Jew hating. You know nothing about me.

However, how about this. I once worked in one of the most exclusive Jewish golf clubs in the USA. Does that make me a Jew hater? I don't think so.

 

[Phoenall]

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.

Yes it does as there is a chasm between the ideology of a freedom fighter and that of a terrorist.

But it does as it shows that terrorists are not concerned about how the world perceives them just in the impact of their murders

I gave you answers to the only ones I know of that stoop so low as to be pariahs, can you say the same thing. Or are you defending their methods and actions because they use them against those who oppose your POV

Well.... you don't seem to know very many groups that might be considered freedom fighters or terrorists, so how the hell would you know?

Go back and tell me which of those groups are terrorist groups and which are freedom fighters.

Read my reply to the same question, it is there for all to see.

A clue for you any group that uses violence is not freedom fighters but cold blooded terrorist killers.

 

[Humanity]

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.

Yes it does as there is a chasm between the ideology of a freedom fighter and that of a terrorist.

But it does as it shows that terrorists are not concerned about how the world perceives them just in the impact of their murders

I gave you answers to the only ones I know of that stoop so low as to be pariahs, can you say the same thing. Or are you defending their methods and actions because they use them against those who oppose your POV

Well.... you don't seem to know very many groups that might be considered freedom fighters or terrorists, so how the hell would you know?

Go back and tell me which of those groups are terrorist groups and which are freedom fighters.

Read my reply to the same question, it is there for all to see.

A clue for you any group that uses violence is not freedom fighters but cold blooded terrorist killers.

You would call the French resistance during WWII "cold blooded terrorist killers"?

 

[Phoenall]

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.

Did they deliberately fire weapons at children to instill terror in them so they would force their government to give in ?

yes during WW2 there were deliberate targeting of civilians by all sides, which is why afterwards it was made illegal and a war crime.
Are those because if they are then they are not innocents.

And the eyes of the world were on the USA and they saw nothing of this so what do you say now ?

No not at all what I said was if the civilians decide to become human shields then under current international laws they lose the protection afforded to civilians. In effect they become militia and as such valid targets. The laws are not perfect but they will have to do until we get new ones. But any nation that deliberately targets children faces having their leaders arrested and tried fir war crimes. And as the Islamic leaders found out they cant leave their own country because they are on international arrest warrants.


It is recognised by enough nations for their leaders to face arrest on war crimes if they travel outside of palestine

No I am posting the reality of the situation and you don't like it because it go against all you believe

I see the Jew hatred is strong in this one.

So you're saying deliberately firing a weapon at a child = terrorist.
But making a child die due to hunger isn't a terrorist?

Are those who the CIA take out "criminals"? Well, usually these people they take out are not under the jurisdiction of the USA. Which means the CIA are the criminals. The US has a principle, this is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

The CIA's history of torturing innocent people

"The CIA’s torture program detained and interrogated innocent people for a combined total of 11 years, according to the Senate report released last week."

Many of the killings by the CIA, innocent people who get in the way, for example, will simply not be available on the internet.

But one of the problems is this. If Palestine makes a policy of getting what it wants, and an individual then does something that is bad, why does this make all Palestinians terrorists?
If a US soldier does something similar, doesn't that make the US a terrorist state?

If it's about high level policy, and the Palestinian government or Hamas or whoever are ordering such things that lead to the killing of innocent people, then the US policy is much, MUCH worse.

How many innocent people died in Iraq? How many innocent people died in all the wars the CIA instigated during the Cold War and since?

Americas Third World War: How 6 million People Were killed in CIA secret wars against third world countries

"He estimates that over 6 million people have died in CIA covert actions, and this was in the late 1980's."

As for Jew hating. You know nothing about me.

However, how about this. I once worked in one of the most exclusive Jewish golf clubs in the USA. Does that make me a Jew hater? I don't think so.

You can cause starvation as a means of terrorism so you have that wrong don't you. This is what happened in Biafra and Ethiopia when the muslims destroyed the crops as an act of terrorism.

So does this make the islamonazi murders in the west acceptable then because the CIA target those the world sees as criminals ?

Because the Palestinian is acting on the commands of a terrorist leader that invented islam as a terrorist organisation. It is all written down in the koran. He is not a soldier he is a terrorist. Or cant you see the difference.
If a US soldier deliberately targeted a child then they would be arrested and sentenced for the crime

BULLSHIT the Palestinian leadership incites terrorism openly and publicly against Jews and Americans.

That was war for all the wrong reasons, but still war. And how many Jews died when Iraq fired scud missiles at them ?

Because you worked for the Jews does not in any way make you a Jew lover, in fact it could have made you even worse.

 

[Phoenall]

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.

Yes it does as there is a chasm between the ideology of a freedom fighter and that of a terrorist.

But it does as it shows that terrorists are not concerned about how the world perceives them just in the impact of their murders

I gave you answers to the only ones I know of that stoop so low as to be pariahs, can you say the same thing. Or are you defending their methods and actions because they use them against those who oppose your POV

Well.... you don't seem to know very many groups that might be considered freedom fighters or terrorists, so how the hell would you know?

Go back and tell me which of those groups are terrorist groups and which are freedom fighters.

Read my reply to the same question, it is there for all to see.

A clue for you any group that uses violence is not freedom fighters but cold blooded terrorist killers.

You would call the French resistance during WWII "cold blooded terrorist killers"?

No as they were armed forces and carried their weapons openly

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Yes it does as there is a chasm between the ideology of a freedom fighter and that of a terrorist.

But it does as it shows that terrorists are not concerned about how the world perceives them just in the impact of their murders

I gave you answers to the only ones I know of that stoop so low as to be pariahs, can you say the same thing. Or are you defending their methods and actions because they use them against those who oppose your POV

Well.... you don't seem to know very many groups that might be considered freedom fighters or terrorists, so how the hell would you know?

Go back and tell me which of those groups are terrorist groups and which are freedom fighters.

Read my reply to the same question, it is there for all to see.

A clue for you any group that uses violence is not freedom fighters but cold blooded terrorist killers.

But freedom fighters use violence.

The war of independence against the British used violence.

So the US is a terrorist nation then? Built upon terrorism because they used violence, and sometimes a lot of violence, cold, calculated violence.

But I see you still can't tell me which of those groups are terrorist groups and which ones are freedom fighters.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You can cause starvation as a means of terrorism so you have that wrong don't you. This is what happened in Biafra and Ethiopia when the muslims destroyed the crops as an act of terrorism.

So does this make the islamonazi murders in the west acceptable then because the CIA target those the world sees as criminals ?

Because the Palestinian is acting on the commands of a terrorist leader that invented islam as a terrorist organisation. It is all written down in the koran. He is not a soldier he is a terrorist. Or cant you see the difference.
If a US soldier deliberately targeted a child then they would be arrested and sentenced for the crime

BULLSHIT the Palestinian leadership incites terrorism openly and publicly against Jews and Americans.

That was war for all the wrong reasons, but still war. And how many Jews died when Iraq fired scud missiles at them ?

Because you worked for the Jews does not in any way make you a Jew lover, in fact it could have made you even worse.

I'm confused here. You're saying that starvation can be an act of terrorism. So when the US starved the Iraqis, does this mean the US were terrorists?

Does this make Muslims acceptable because the CIA goes around killing? No, it makes the CIA, basically the US government unacceptable and it makes these Muslims unacceptable.

I'm not sure what you think my views on Palestine are, but no doubt you're making a lot of assumptions based on what you're coming out with. I don't think I've stated my views to you on what I think of Palestinians, Hamas and other such groups within Palestine. Nor have I stated my views on Israel, nor on the right wing in Israel.

So Palestinians incite "terrorism" against Jews and Americans, and Americans invade Muslim countries, and the Israelis use US money and support to pound away at Muslims.
Who's right here? The answer is no one. They're all bad, all causing problems for their own political goals.

As for your other assumptions about me. Let's just say they're unfounded assumptions and such things are probably best kept inside your brain, as you have no ******* idea what I'm thinking UNLESS I TELL YOU. It's not a hard concept to understand, is it?

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Yes it does as there is a chasm between the ideology of a freedom fighter and that of a terrorist.

But it does as it shows that terrorists are not concerned about how the world perceives them just in the impact of their murders

I gave you answers to the only ones I know of that stoop so low as to be pariahs, can you say the same thing. Or are you defending their methods and actions because they use them against those who oppose your POV

Well.... you don't seem to know very many groups that might be considered freedom fighters or terrorists, so how the hell would you know?

Go back and tell me which of those groups are terrorist groups and which are freedom fighters.

Read my reply to the same question, it is there for all to see.

A clue for you any group that uses violence is not freedom fighters but cold blooded terrorist killers.

You would call the French resistance during WWII "cold blooded terrorist killers"?

No as they were armed forces and carried their weapons openly

Do you know anything about the French resistance?

 

[Phoenall]

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.

Yes it does as there is a chasm between the ideology of a freedom fighter and that of a terrorist.

But it does as it shows that terrorists are not concerned about how the world perceives them just in the impact of their murders

I gave you answers to the only ones I know of that stoop so low as to be pariahs, can you say the same thing. Or are you defending their methods and actions because they use them against those who oppose your POV

Well.... you don't seem to know very many groups that might be considered freedom fighters or terrorists, so how the hell would you know?

Go back and tell me which of those groups are terrorist groups and which are freedom fighters.

Read my reply to the same question, it is there for all to see.

A clue for you any group that uses violence is not freedom fighters but cold blooded terrorist killers.

But freedom fighters use violence.

The war of independence against the British used violence.

So the US is a terrorist nation then? Built upon terrorism because they used violence, and sometimes a lot of violence, cold, calculated violence.

But I see you still can't tell me which of those groups are terrorist groups and which ones are freedom fighters.

Go back and read my reply it is in there, or was it the wrong answer that you did not want to see.

Freedom fighters fight for the freedom of thier country, they don't target innocent people only their enemies soldiers. Once they start to do that they become murderering terrorist scum

 

[Phoenall]

Yes it does as there is a chasm between the ideology of a freedom fighter and that of a terrorist.

But it does as it shows that terrorists are not concerned about how the world perceives them just in the impact of their murders

I gave you answers to the only ones I know of that stoop so low as to be pariahs, can you say the same thing. Or are you defending their methods and actions because they use them against those who oppose your POV

Well.... you don't seem to know very many groups that might be considered freedom fighters or terrorists, so how the hell would you know?

Go back and tell me which of those groups are terrorist groups and which are freedom fighters.

Read my reply to the same question, it is there for all to see.

A clue for you any group that uses violence is not freedom fighters but cold blooded terrorist killers.

You would call the French resistance during WWII "cold blooded terrorist killers"?

No as they were armed forces and carried their weapons openly

Do you know anything about the French resistance?

Did they target German children with Illegal weapons, or did they target German soldiers ?

 

[Humanity]

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.

Yes it does as there is a chasm between the ideology of a freedom fighter and that of a terrorist.

But it does as it shows that terrorists are not concerned about how the world perceives them just in the impact of their murders

I gave you answers to the only ones I know of that stoop so low as to be pariahs, can you say the same thing. Or are you defending their methods and actions because they use them against those who oppose your POV

Well.... you don't seem to know very many groups that might be considered freedom fighters or terrorists, so how the hell would you know?

Go back and tell me which of those groups are terrorist groups and which are freedom fighters.

Read my reply to the same question, it is there for all to see.

A clue for you any group that uses violence is not freedom fighters but cold blooded terrorist killers.

But freedom fighters use violence.

The war of independence against the British used violence.

So the US is a terrorist nation then? Built upon terrorism because they used violence, and sometimes a lot of violence, cold, calculated violence.

But I see you still can't tell me which of those groups are terrorist groups and which ones are freedom fighters.

Go back and read my reply it is in there, or was it the wrong answer that you did not want to see.

Freedom fighters fight for the freedom of thier country, they don't target innocent people only their enemies soldiers. Once they start to do that they become murderering terrorist scum

Let's see, your reply was....

"any group that uses violence is not freedom fighters but cold blooded terrorist killers."

So, let's wait for the back peddling and squirming from this zionut!

It's going to be fun, as always!

 

[Humanity]

Well.... you don't seem to know very many groups that might be considered freedom fighters or terrorists, so how the hell would you know?

Go back and tell me which of those groups are terrorist groups and which are freedom fighters.

Read my reply to the same question, it is there for all to see.

A clue for you any group that uses violence is not freedom fighters but cold blooded terrorist killers.

You would call the French resistance during WWII "cold blooded terrorist killers"?

No as they were armed forces and carried their weapons openly

Do you know anything about the French resistance?

Did they target German children with Illegal weapons, or did they target German soldiers ?

Are you REALLY that dumb or is it just your zionut brainwashing that makes you this way?

You simply cannot answer a question can you without trying to find some way of deflecting your ignorance with a dumbass questions in response!

Just what DO you know about the French resistance?

So far you have proven, well, not very much!

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Yes it does as there is a chasm between the ideology of a freedom fighter and that of a terrorist.

But it does as it shows that terrorists are not concerned about how the world perceives them just in the impact of their murders

I gave you answers to the only ones I know of that stoop so low as to be pariahs, can you say the same thing. Or are you defending their methods and actions because they use them against those who oppose your POV

Well.... you don't seem to know very many groups that might be considered freedom fighters or terrorists, so how the hell would you know?

Go back and tell me which of those groups are terrorist groups and which are freedom fighters.

Read my reply to the same question, it is there for all to see.

A clue for you any group that uses violence is not freedom fighters but cold blooded terrorist killers.

But freedom fighters use violence.

The war of independence against the British used violence.

So the US is a terrorist nation then? Built upon terrorism because they used violence, and sometimes a lot of violence, cold, calculated violence.

But I see you still can't tell me which of those groups are terrorist groups and which ones are freedom fighters.

Go back and read my reply it is in there, or was it the wrong answer that you did not want to see.

Freedom fighters fight for the freedom of thier country, they don't target innocent people only their enemies soldiers. Once they start to do that they become murderering terrorist scum

What do you think Palestinians are doing exactly?

However their tactics are one where they will have to use lots of tactics in order to achieve their goals.

You talk about innocent people. What is an innocent person?
If you can vote, then you are responsible for the politicians who are making war. Therefore you're not innocent.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well.... you don't seem to know very many groups that might be considered freedom fighters or terrorists, so how the hell would you know?

Go back and tell me which of those groups are terrorist groups and which are freedom fighters.

Read my reply to the same question, it is there for all to see.

A clue for you any group that uses violence is not freedom fighters but cold blooded terrorist killers.

You would call the French resistance during WWII "cold blooded terrorist killers"?

No as they were armed forces and carried their weapons openly

Do you know anything about the French resistance?

Did they target German children with Illegal weapons, or did they target German soldiers ?

How many German children were in France during the occupation? Probably not many, if none at all.

So what's your point?

 

[Phoenall]

Yes it does as there is a chasm between the ideology of a freedom fighter and that of a terrorist.

But it does as it shows that terrorists are not concerned about how the world perceives them just in the impact of their murders

I gave you answers to the only ones I know of that stoop so low as to be pariahs, can you say the same thing. Or are you defending their methods and actions because they use them against those who oppose your POV

Well.... you don't seem to know very many groups that might be considered freedom fighters or terrorists, so how the hell would you know?

Go back and tell me which of those groups are terrorist groups and which are freedom fighters.

Read my reply to the same question, it is there for all to see.

A clue for you any group that uses violence is not freedom fighters but cold blooded terrorist killers.

But freedom fighters use violence.

The war of independence against the British used violence.

So the US is a terrorist nation then? Built upon terrorism because they used violence, and sometimes a lot of violence, cold, calculated violence.

But I see you still can't tell me which of those groups are terrorist groups and which ones are freedom fighters.

Go back and read my reply it is in there, or was it the wrong answer that you did not want to see.

Freedom fighters fight for the freedom of thier country, they don't target innocent people only their enemies soldiers. Once they start to do that they become murderering terrorist scum

What do you think Palestinians are doing exactly?

However their tactics are one where they will have to use lots of tactics in order to achieve their goals.

You talk about innocent people. What is an innocent person?
If you can vote, then you are responsible for the politicians who are making war. Therefore you're not innocent.

They are targeting children in another country with illegal weapons that the UN have declared to be war crimes. They have tunneled under Israeli schools and mined the tunnels with H.E. in an attempt at mass murdering thousands of Jewish children, little realising that only pro terrorists would see that as a valid form of self defence.

So you are now saying that a person who votes against war is not innocent and must bear the cost of their leaders going to war. Does this mean that because the Palestinians elected a known terrorist organisation that they are all terrorists so no longer innocent in your eyes ? So making them valid military targets under international law ?

You do realise that the Palestinians have had it in their power to build a nation in peace and with the help of Israel since 1923 and have constantly turned down the chance because they refuse to share anything with anyone

 

[Phoenall]

Read my reply to the same question, it is there for all to see.

A clue for you any group that uses violence is not freedom fighters but cold blooded terrorist killers.

You would call the French resistance during WWII "cold blooded terrorist killers"?

No as they were armed forces and carried their weapons openly

Do you know anything about the French resistance?

Did they target German children with Illegal weapons, or did they target German soldiers ?

How many German children were in France during the occupation? Probably not many, if none at all.

So what's your point?

How many Israeli children were in Palestine when the Palestinians were targeting them ? That is my point the Palestinians target children in another country because that is how they are and don't care about international laws or IHL as they don't see them applying to their terrorism.