Is this terror?

[Artevelde]

Saigon feels that the terrorist attacks against US military personnel in the Middle East are legitimate and can't be considered as terrorism.

I don't think that and have never said that....I really don't know why you can't debate honestly.

You have written exactly that on this forum. You just can't face your own lies.

 

[Artevelde]

So Hezbollah are terrorists?

.

I would say they are terrorists, yes.

But I do agree that once Israeli tanks roll into Lebanese territory, Lebanese forces have a right to defend that land if they so choose.

The Lebanese Army, of course. Hezbollah however remains a terrorist organization.

And Israel of course has every right to strike back at Lebanon when Lebanon allows its territory to be used for terrorist attacks against Israel.

 

[Artevelde]

So Hezbollah are terrorists?

Let me get this straight...Hezbollah (the terrorists) defeated the Israeli Army not once, but twice?

Are you sure you don't want to change that terrorist label to something else?

Take your time...

Hezbollah has never defeated Israel. You shouldn't believe so much terrorist propaganda.

 

[Saigon]

He was fighting on behalf of the legitimate government

According to who?

The Quisling government was the legal government of Norway - and this guy fought against them.

(I'll read your responses on this thread, because I think that's only fair since I quoted you)

Why do you always keep lying? First of all, for most of World War II there wasn't a Quisling government (you need to know something about history if you're going to talk about it). Secondly, the legitimate Norwegian government representing the Norwegian state remained in existence in exile.

Ha! Wonderful response from you, as always, Arte.

For much of the time the Norwegian resistance was in action, the Quisling government was in power (1942-45), and was widely recognised as being the legitimate government. Not universally recognised, but widely recognised and most certainly in power.

The problem you face here is that you would also support the actions on resistance fighters in Belgium and Norway, but having already labeled any attack on a military target to be terrorism, you've rather painted yourself into a box.

Subjects such as the Middle East are complex, and tend to be more suited to shades of grey than black/white thinking. As soon as you try to mak the facts fit into "my team = good" and "other team = bad", you end up falling foul of reality.

Saying that all attacks against military forces is terrorism simply isn't a credible position - it really does depend on what the situation at the time, who the aggressor is, and to what extent soveriengty is threatened.

 

[Artevelde]

Another interesting example...

The use of sabotage as an effective weapon was not heavily utilized until World War II. The German Army lost thousands of trains during the war due to acts of sabotage. German units were spread throughout Europe and many smaller units were targeted by resistance fighters. Ambushes were a common tactic used. Rail lines were very often targeted to disrupt the flow of materials and men for the German Army. Stretches of track were rigged with explosive charges and would be set to explode as the train passed over them. The resistance groups cost the German Army millions of dollars worth of equipment and had a large psychological effect on the German soldiers. By stalling and delaying the German forces, the Belgian Resistance group prevented the Axis from ever establishing a stable base of operations in occupied Belgium.

Belgian Resistance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What nonsense!

 

[Saigon]

Saigon feels that the terrorist attacks against US military personnel in the Middle East are legitimate and can't be considered as terrorism.

I don't think that and have never said that....I really don't know why you can't debate honestly.

You have written exactly that on this forum. You just can't face your own lies.

Then produce the quote.

We both know it doesn't exist, but feel free to have a crack at it.

 

[Saigon]

The US never referred to the Taliban as freedom fighters. The taliban are not the same as the mujahedeen who fought the Russians. The Talibaqn emerged later and fought against the mujahedeen.

Yes, that is correct - my previous post was inaccurate.

 

[Saigon]

Another interesting example...

The use of sabotage as an effective weapon was not heavily utilized until World War II. The German Army lost thousands of trains during the war due to acts of sabotage. German units were spread throughout Europe and many smaller units were targeted by resistance fighters. Ambushes were a common tactic used. Rail lines were very often targeted to disrupt the flow of materials and men for the German Army. Stretches of track were rigged with explosive charges and would be set to explode as the train passed over them. The resistance groups cost the German Army millions of dollars worth of equipment and had a large psychological effect on the German soldiers. By stalling and delaying the German forces, the Belgian Resistance group prevented the Axis from ever establishing a stable base of operations in occupied Belgium.

Belgian Resistance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What nonsense!

What a dodge of the topic!

Were the Belgian resistance fighters terrorists?

I think your position on that is 'pretty disgusting', just frankly. You may have grown up in a Nazi state had not resistance fighters done what they did.

 

[Artevelde]

According to who?

The Quisling government was the legal government of Norway - and this guy fought against them.

(I'll read your responses on this thread, because I think that's only fair since I quoted you)

Why do you always keep lying? First of all, for most of World War II there wasn't a Quisling government (you need to know something about history if you're going to talk about it). Secondly, the legitimate Norwegian government representing the Norwegian state remained in existence in exile.

Ha! Wonderful response from you, as always, Arte.

For much of the time the Norwegian resistance was in action, the Quisling government was in power (1942-45), and was widely recognised as being the legitimate government. Not universally recognised, but widely recognised and most certainly in power.

The problem you face here is that you would also support the actions on resistance fighters in Belgium and Norway, but having already labeled any attack on a military target to be terrorism, you've rather painted yourself into a box.

Subjects such as the Middle East are complex, and tend more suited to shades of grey than black/white thinking.

So I guess the Reichskommissar Josef Terboven was only in Norway for show?

Virtually nobody recognized the Quisling regime as legitimate.

You are desperately trying to falsify history to back up your support for terrorist groups attack US military personnel in the Middle East. Really very pathetic.

 

[Artevelde]

Another interesting example...

The use of sabotage as an effective weapon was not heavily utilized until World War II. The German Army lost thousands of trains during the war due to acts of sabotage. German units were spread throughout Europe and many smaller units were targeted by resistance fighters. Ambushes were a common tactic used. Rail lines were very often targeted to disrupt the flow of materials and men for the German Army. Stretches of track were rigged with explosive charges and would be set to explode as the train passed over them. The resistance groups cost the German Army millions of dollars worth of equipment and had a large psychological effect on the German soldiers. By stalling and delaying the German forces, the Belgian Resistance group prevented the Axis from ever establishing a stable base of operations in occupied Belgium.

Belgian Resistance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What nonsense!

What a dodge of the topic!

Were the Belgian resistance fighters terrorists?

I think your position on that is 'pretty disgusting', just frankly. You may have grown up in a Nazi state had not resistance fighters done what they did.

First some facts: Belgium was a pretty stable and relaxed base for the Germans during WWII. The resistance movement was fairly ineffective. It's most effective operations were the underground press and the sheltering of Allied pilots. Not much sabotage was going on.

The Belgian resistance was controlled and directed from London by the Belgian government in exile. Some parts of it did engage in some forms of terrorism (i.e. assassinations of collaborators and their families) which provoked counter-terrorism from the collaborators (the Germans didn't really bother much with the resistance themselves). Partly for this reason the Belgian government upon its return issued a blanket amnesty for all recognized reistance fighters for all crimes they had committed.

 

[Saigon]

your support for terrorist groups attack US military personnel in the Middle East. Really very pathetic.

And it is back to lying.

Either produce the quote in which I express support for attacks on US military personnel, or apologise.

 

[Artevelde]

I don't think that and have never said that....I really don't know why you can't debate honestly.

You have written exactly that on this forum. You just can't face your own lies.

Then produce the quote.

We both know it doesn't exist, but feel free to have a crack at it.

You wrote it a couple of times. I'll see if I can find it but may take some time.

Besides, if it isn't true then why did you start up this whole thread trying to argue that attacks on military personnel can't be terrorism?

 

[Artevelde]

your support for terrorist groups attack US military personnel in the Middle East. Really very pathetic.

And it is back to lying.

Either produce the quote in which I express support for attacks on US military personnel, or apologise.

You are much worse than the avowed and open supporters of anti-semitic and anti-Western terrorism on this forum. You really support it, but try to hide yourself behind lies.

You have on numerous occasions demonstrated that all your claims about knowledge of the world are totally bogus. You're just a pathetic little liar.

 

[Saigon]

So I guess the Reichskommissar Josef Terboven was only in Norway for show?

Virtually nobody recognized the Quisling regime as legitimate.

Terboven was not the Minister-President - Qusiling was.

The Quisling government was a puppet regime, of course, but there are people out there who consider a number of governments around the world to be puppet states, and we don't encourage them to go out and blow up buildings.

I find the whole idea of trying to compress history into black/white or good/evil fantastically childish. All of these issues are complex, layered and full of ethical dilemas. Pretending otherwise only makes you look like Tin Tin in jack boots.

 

[Saigon]

your support for terrorist groups attack US military personnel in the Middle East. Really very pathetic.

And it is back to lying.

Either produce the quote in which I express support for attacks on US military personnel, or apologise.

You are much worse than the avowed and open supporters of anti-semitic and anti-Western terrorism on this forum. You really support it, but try to hide yourself behind lies.

You have on numerous occasions demonstrated that all your claims about knowledge of the world are totally bogus. You're just a pathetic little liar.

Still waiting to see the quote.

 

[Saigon]

Besides, if it isn't true then why did you start up this whole thread trying to argue that attacks on military personnel can't be terrorism?

I didn't say that either - try reading the first post in this thread.

I said they very often are terrorism - but that I don't think it is quite as black and white as you seem to need to believe.

Most of us support resistance to the Nazi regime...I disagree with your apparent belief that the resistance fighters were terrorists.

 

[Saigon]

You wrote it a couple of times. I'll see if I can find it but may take some time.

Nope. Not once, not ever.

I don't know if you are genuinely mistaken in what you think I said, or are just lying - but I must admit, I suspect it is the latter.

What I said is exactly what I say on this thread - attacks on military groups very often are absolutely terrorism, but I don't think we can make black/white judgements, because otherwise we end up branding resistance to the Nazis or as (unjustified) terrorism too.

If Communists or Nazis invaded our countries tomorrow, I dare say a few people on this board would take up arms to defend their homeland - I don't imagine we'd brand those people "terrorists".

 

[Artevelde]

And it is back to lying.

Either produce the quote in which I express support for attacks on US military personnel, or apologise.

You are much worse than the avowed and open supporters of anti-semitic and anti-Western terrorism on this forum. You really support it, but try to hide yourself behind lies.

You have on numerous occasions demonstrated that all your claims about knowledge of the world are totally bogus. You're just a pathetic little liar.

Still waiting to see the quote.

Here are some of the most recent ones I found quickly. The other ones I haven't found time to look up yet.

#33 in the thread Muslim attitudes towards terror & the US
Arte -

Please post honestly.

I don't personally find the issue of strikes against military targets as controversial or as disputed as strikes against non-military targets, so that was what I focused on.

#35 in the thread Muslim attitudes towards terror & the US

I thin terrorist attacks against military targets are less of an issue for most of us than attacks against civilian targets.

Terror attacks against military targets may be, in some cases, something I would consider completely abhorent. In other cases, they may be something I would consider a fairly legitimate act of self defense.

 

[Artevelde]

Besides, if it isn't true then why did you start up this whole thread trying to argue that attacks on military personnel can't be terrorism?

I didn't say that either - try reading the first post in this thread.

I said they very often are terrorism - but that I don't think it is quite as black and white as you seem to need to believe.

Most of us support resistance to the Nazi regime...I disagree with your apparent belief that the resistance fighters were terrorists.

Some resistance fighters in WWII obviously did engage in certain forms of terrorism. The fact that you deny that again demonstrates your ignorance. Apparently you feel that the postwar governments were idiots for issuing a blanket amnesty.

 

[Saigon]

You are much worse than the avowed and open supporters of anti-semitic and anti-Western terrorism on this forum. You really support it, but try to hide yourself behind lies.

You have on numerous occasions demonstrated that all your claims about knowledge of the world are totally bogus. You're just a pathetic little liar.

Still waiting to see the quote.

Here are some of the most recent ones I found quickly. The other ones I haven't found time to look up yet.

#33 in the thread Muslim attitudes towards terror & the US
Arte -

Please post honestly.

I don't personally find the issue of strikes against military targets as controversial or as disputed as strikes against non-military targets, so that was what I focused on.

#35 in the thread Muslim attitudes towards terror & the US

I thin terrorist attacks against military targets are less of an issue for most of us than attacks against civilian targets.

Terror attacks against military targets may be, in some cases, something I would consider completely abhorent. In other cases, they may be something I would consider a fairly legitimate act of self defense.

Ok, fine.

So do you know accept that I have never said that I support attacks against US troops, or anything even remotely close to that?