So you call these freedom fighters?

[Patriot]

Posted: November 25, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern



© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

The mother of a Muslim who died as a terrorist "martyr" battling Israel celebrated her son's death on Lebanese TV, while other "martyr moms" hoped more of their children could be sacrificed for Allah's cause.

Interviewed on Al-Manar TV on "Martyr's Day," Umm Said spoke as a de facto representative of other mothers of martyrs.


"I cannot begin to explain what this day means to me, how great and significant it is for me and for all martyrs' mothers," Said stated. "I am talking about the martyrs' mothers and all mothers in Lebanon. Whatever I could say about them would not be enough, especially since they paid the price in blood, liberated southern Lebanon and brought us closer to victory. They granted us a great reward."

Continued Said: " I wish a good year to all the martyrs' mothers and our children, may Allah honor them. Allah be praised for having granted us our sons. Allah be praised."


The interview was translated and posted on the Internet by the Middle East Media Research Institute TV Monitor Project, or MEMRI TV.

Said explained she gets special respect from non-martyr mothers, saying, "I walk about with my head high."

Rather than cause sadness, Martyr's Day buoys the mother's spirits.

"I am very happy, especially on this occasion," Said stated, breaking down in tears. "This is a blessed day, the day my son gave me reason to hold my head high."

The clip also includes other statements from martyr moms:

"I am prepared to sacrifice my life. All I want is martyrdom. I'm willing for all my children to become martyrs. May my husband also become a martyr, and Allah willing, may I die as a martyr."

Another stated: "Compared to others, what I sacrificed is nothing. It's true I sacrificed a son, but others have sacrificed two or three. I hope more of my sons will become martyrs."

"Allah be praised," said another. "I thank Allah for all the good He has bestowed upon us. He has blessed us with martyrdom. Allah willing, we too will be martyred, just as they did."



http://www.memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=371#

 

[Doc Holiday]

Yep, Peace in the Middle East is right around the corner. With that attitude, there will never be peace in the Middle East. All the Palestinians want to do is blow things up and kill people.

Q: What's the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists?

A: Freedom fighters don't target women and children.

 

[dumphauler]

Yep all those people we incinerate from on high in comfort have got mom's and pop's- And boy are they pissed.

 

[theim]

Is it something in the water down there or what? Seriously.

"I am prepared to sacrifice my life. All I want is martyrdom. I'm willing for all my children to become martyrs. May my husband also become a martyr, and Allah willing, may I die as a martyr."

please do. Maybe we can finally be rid of your pathetic kind.

 

[NightTrain]

Yep all those people we incinerate from on high in comfort have got mom's and pop's- And boy are they pissed.

How very insightful.

Those peace loving people were living the good life before the evil Americans came along and started carpet bombing Lebanon.

Read the article and understand it before you gleefully and ignorantly start blaming your country.

Dumbass.

 

[Avatar4321]

"I am prepared to sacrifice my life. All I want is martyrdom. I'm willing for all my children to become martyrs. May my husband also become a martyr, and Allah willing, may I die as a martyr."

This kind of sick disregard to human life is repulsive. They send their children to blow up others and wonder why people have problems with them. Look if you dont blow people up no one is going to try to destroy you and your twisted faith.

 

[Huckleburry]

Were this a western mother the article might read.....
Veterans Day.....
I am honored that my son was able to die for freedom. His country called on him and he paid the ultimate price, to defend our way of life. He fought and died so that the rest of us would not have to. May god bless his soul, and may god see this strong nation to victory.

My point is that everyone wants to believe that the death of child was for some greater good. Americans routinely honor those who fought and died in Vietnam, even though we routinely and indiscriminately carpet bombed areas with large civilian populations. Did we only kill Vietcong? No. Did we loose much sleep over the death of civilians? No. Should we have? No. We were in the midst of a war, an intrinsically evil act, thus we should have been doing all we could to win that war.
Both the Israelis and the Palestinians employ terrorist tactics to further their cause. This has made for a particularly nasty conflict with no end in sight. Before abhorring the declarations of a bereft mother it would be advantageous to consider the context. Israeli crack downs are brutal and indiscriminate. Palestinian responses are equally despicable. If peace is to prevail we must, to a certain extent, ignore earlier trespasses, both sides have waged total war for a very long time, and both sides are guilty of terrible acts. Before writing these people off as sickos it is important that we consider the context in which they exist. Can any one honestly say that they would not use any means available to defend their home from outside invaders (perceived or otherwise)? Would anyone out there honestly not be proud of a family member who died defending our home? Peace depends on our ability to put ourselves in the context of those who live with war in their daily lives.

 

[Doc Holiday]

Since when have the Israelis used terrorist tactics? How many busloads of civilians has the Israelis blown up? The Palestinians have tried to make Yasser Arafat sound like the Palestinian George Washington but the main thing that they (and Huckleburry) don't get is that GEORGE WASHINGTON NEVER TARGETED CIVILIANS!!!!!!!!

Even when his troops were starving and freezing at Valley Forge because no one would give them any assistance, George Washington did not attack civilians. Even when he was reeling from losses and on the run, George Washington did not target civilians. How many times does it have to be said before you fucking morons figure out the difference?

 

[dilloduck]

Since when have the Israelis used terrorist tactics? How many busloads of civilians has the Israelis blown up? The Palestinians have tried to make Yasser Arafat sound like the Palestinian George Washington but the main thing that they (and Huckleburry) don't get is that GEORGE WASHINGTON NEVER TARGETED CIVILIANS!!!!!!!!

Even when his troops were starving and freezing at Valley Forge because no one would give them any assistance, George Washington did not attack civilians. Even when he was reeling from losses and on the run, George Washington did not target civilians. How many times does it have to be said before you fucking morons figure out the difference?

Trust me doc--they are trying to get the weapons they need to attack the Israeli military. They would be MUCH happier to take out a tank than a bus. They have been beaten down to what little they now have and the resulting terrorism is due to the fact that they REFUSE to surrender . If Israel gets to the point of near defeat they will have no qualms in using a nuke no matter how many civilian arabs are killed.

 

[Doc Holiday]

Trust me doc--they are trying to get the weapons they need to attack the Israeli military. They would be MUCH happier to take out a tank than a bus. They have been beaten down to what little they now have and the resulting terrorism is due to the fact that they REFUSE to surrender . If Israel gets to the point of near defeat they will have no qualms in using a nuke no matter how many civilian arabs are killed.

George Washington was beaten down as well. He was at his lowest point just before he launched the attack on Trenton and routed a sleeping Hessian regiment. George Washington REFUSED to surrender as well and REFUSED to attack civilians.
They are taken the cheap and easy way out and then blaming the Israelis for all of their problems. Are the Israelis perfect, not by a long shot. But why is it the only time liberals acknowledge Palestinian terrorism is when they also mention the so called Israeli terrorism? How come no one has come out and stated that Arafat was a terrorist and the peace process could be better off with him dead?

 

[Huckleburry]

Doc,
Of course the peace process will be better off with Arafat dead. He was certainly an impediment to peace, and neither the Israelis nor the Americans were willing to deal with him. This however does not negate the fact that both groups are using terrorist tactics. Bulldozing the houses of every family member of a suspected terrorist can not by any means be called a legitimate military action. Nor can showering random city blocks with missiles, or blowing up schools and orphanages with tanks. Because the Israelis are using better weapons with regular soldiers does not mean that they are not using the tactics of terrorists. The stated aim of these actions is in fact to invoke a state of terror so that the attacks will stop. As for the media, they generally keep a tight lip during Israeli crack downs, so arguing that we have a Palestinian loving media does not hold much water. When was the last time the New York Times denounced Israeli action? As for the comparison between George Washington and Arafat it is of course bullshit. These were two very different men in fighting two very different wars. All I would say is this, Washington fought an invading force on home soil. Targeting civilians would have targeted his own support base, and finally the tactics employed by the revolutionaries were seen by most as cowardly and guerilla, and what is terrorism but the logical, albeit extreme, extension of guerilla warfare??

 

[Doc Holiday]

Doc,
Of course the peace process will be better off with Arafat dead. He was certainly an impediment to peace, and neither the Israelis nor the Americans were willing to deal with him. This however does not negate the fact that both groups are using terrorist tactics. Bulldozing the houses of every family member of a suspected terrorist can not by any means be called a legitimate military action. Nor can showering random city blocks with missiles, or blowing up schools and orphanages with tanks. Because the Israelis are using better weapons with regular soldiers does not mean that they are not using the tactics of terrorists. The stated aim of these actions is in fact to invoke a state of terror so that the attacks will stop. As for the media, they generally keep a tight lip during Israeli crack downs, so arguing that we have a Palestinian loving media does not hold much water. When was the last time the New York Times denounced Israeli action? As for the comparison between George Washington and Arafat it is of course bullshit. These were two very different men in fighting two very different wars. All I would say is this, Washington fought an invading force on home soil. Targeting civilians would have targeted his own support base, and finally the tactics employed by the revolutionaries were seen by most as cowardly and guerilla, and what is terrorism but the logical, albeit extreme, extension of guerilla warfare??

Standard military practice is to deny a base of operations to the enemy, that would explain the bulldozing of houses used in terrorist operations.
As for the NY Times, since I'm not a subscriber, I couldn't tell you. Bet you it was in the past month though.
With George Washington, he was not fighting an invading army on his home turf. He was fighting the legal army of the time. And not all of the colonists were supportive of the war, in fact, there were numerous people that felt George Washington should have been hung from the nearest tree. There were plenty of civilians in the area that were pro British that could have been attacked. George Washington did not do it because he was an honorable man. That is the difference between George Washington and Yasser Arafat. Arafat had no honor. And just recently the Palestinian minister to the UN was on television during Arafat's funeral stating that Arafat was the Palestinian version of George Washington. Fortunately he was on Fox News and they called him on it.
Terrorism is not a logical extension of guerilla warfare because guerilla warfare still plays by the rules of wr, although its a looser version of the rules. Terrorism does not play by the rules at all.

 

[ajwps]

It seems that the US and its allies continue destroying the so-called insurgents from the sky. When seen from the night vision equipment, their demise seems like a game but in reality, everyone of these Islamic terrorists in Iraq that die means that there are fewer to attempt to kill American men and women both in Iraq and the United States.

Turn on your speakers to see and hear this one.

http://www.ropma.net/videos/AC130_GunshipMed.WMV

 

[Doc Holiday]

All I can say is "Good Shooting Tex!!"

 

[Huckleburry]

First, these houses are not used in terrorist operations. These are the homes of people who are in some way shape or form related to terrorists. Some may be terrorists themselves but most are not. Second blowing up schools and orphanages, killing women and children, and spreading general chaos are not standard military practice; they are by definition terrorist acts.
I do subscribe and read the New York Times and I assure you they have not published a pro Palestinian column in quite some time, if ever.
Finally, war the only rules to war are win. If the US was faced with an overwhelmingly powerful invading army would we really stick to some pre-conceived rules. Fuck no. Washington certainly didn't. Ultimately any war makes clear one rule and one rule only, survival. Armies and the people fighting in them do what is necessary to assure victory. In the case of the Palestian/Isreali conflict that means the prolific use of terrorist methods. Both groups are driven by a desperate need to survive, a natural instinct, what I am arguing is that both sides must be willing to forgive the past actions of the other if peace is to be achieved.

 

[Doc Holiday]

First, these houses are not used in terrorist operations. These are the homes of people who are in some way shape or form related to terrorists. Some may be terrorists themselves but most are not. Second blowing up schools and orphanages, killing women and children, and spreading general chaos are not standard military practice; they are by definition terrorist acts.
I do subscribe and read the New York Times and I assure you they have not published a pro Palestinian column in quite some time, if ever.
Finally, war the only rules to war are win. If the US was faced with an overwhelmingly powerful invading army would we really stick to some pre-conceived rules. Fuck no. Washington certainly didn't. Ultimately any war makes clear one rule and one rule only, survival. Armies and the people fighting in them do what is necessary to assure victory. In the case of the Palestian/Isreali conflict that means the prolific use of terrorist methods. Both groups are driven by a desperate need to survive, a natural instinct, what I am arguing is that both sides must be willing to forgive the past actions of the other if peace is to be achieved.

First of all, the Palestinians don't have any schools for the Israelis to blow up. If they do, all the schools there teach is reverance for the Jihad and how to become a matyr. So they are involved in terrorist operations.
And there are rules for war called the Geneva Conventions, although we seem to be the only ones that follow them. And you still do not target innocent civilians and call yourself a warrior, soldier or freedom fighter. If you specifically target innocent civilians, you are a terrorist.
And the Palestinians had a chance for peace and 98% of what they had asked for and Arafat turned it down and the Palestinian people backed him. The Palestinian people willing enjoyed going into the intifada and seem to revel in killing themselves. The Israelis just want to live in peace.

 

[Huckleburry]

The Geneva Conventions are quite new to the history of warfare and we only follow them when it may be convenient for us to do so. In the case of Iraq we have chosen a different label for those we are fighting and therefore feel no obligation to adhere to the rules of the Geneva Convention. Moreover the torture of Iraqi prisoners is most certainly prohibited in the Geneva Conventions yet we did so any way.
Finally, and this is a digression, as the leader of the free world do we not have a moral obligation to fight our wars according to a higher ethical standard?
The British, at the height of their power, were forced to ask this same question, they answered yes and the result was the birth of a nation that came to be a beacon of hope and democracy. My point here is this; I think the means are as important as the ends. If we are to bring democracy to Iraq, if we are to usher in peace in the Middle East, then we must be ethical and honorable in all of our actions. We must hold ourselves to a higher standard in all aspects of our action.

 

[Doc Holiday]

First of all the rules of war allow for the distinction between different categories. They always have, even back to the day when the British hanged Nathan Hale, who was a captain in the Continental Army, for spying because he was not in a uniform. The formal convention is new but the rules are the same as they have been for centuries.
Secondly, there is a difference between torture and abuse. Look them up in the dictionary. We didn't do anything permanent to them so that's abuse. When you start cutting off fingers and toes or stuff like that, it's torture.
Lastly, we do hold ourselves to a higher standard. We do follow the rules. There are also some situations where the rules are open to interpatation and your version may differ from mine which may differ from the Marine or Soldier on patrol. Perception is reality.

 

[ajwps]

First, these houses are not used in terrorist operations. These are the homes of people who are in some way shape or form related to terrorists. Some may be terrorists themselves but most are not.

How do you know so much about those Iraqi houses not used in terrorist operations? How do you know how many of those destroyed from the sky are terrorists are not? Where do you get your information?

Second blowing up schools and orphanages, killing women and children, and spreading general chaos are not standard military practice; they are by definition terrorist acts.

You failed to mention two very important words in your statement. "Second selective targeting of schools and orphanges, killing women and children, and spreading general chaos are not standard military practice; they are by definition terrorist acts."

Wouldn't it be nice to selectively avoid killing innocents and just stick to killing those who shoot or blow up your own soldiers? But you know what, that is the hell of war. We found that out on 09/11.

I do subscribe and read the New York Times and I assure you they have not published a pro Palestinian column in quite some time, if ever.
Finally, war the only rules to war are win. If the US was faced with an overwhelmingly powerful invading army would we really stick to some pre-conceived rules. Fuck no. Washington certainly didn't. Ultimately any war makes clear one rule and one rule only, survival. Armies and the people fighting in them do what is necessary to assure victory. In the case of the Palestian/Isreali conflict that means the prolific use of terrorist methods. Both groups are driven by a desperate need to survive, a natural instinct, what I am arguing is that both sides must be willing to forgive the past actions of the other if peace is to be achieved.

Who cares what the blue States socialist newspaper declares about the unalienable rights of Arabs in Israel to the land of the Jewish people?

You say that in the Palestine/Israel ( a misnomer) conflict both sides are driven by a desparate need to survive, a natural instinct......

The Arabs (you call palestinians) are driven not by a need to survive but more like a need to be Shahida or marytrs and die for their god allah. The various Arab groups living in Israel don't care one wit for a land of palestine or for a seat on the planet Uranus.

Their corrupt Arab leaders and the Arab countries that support them financially and also by Qur'anic edict desire only to kill the Jews. Arabs (pals included) don't care about a tiny strip of land against the edge of the Mediterranian Sea. The PLO Arabs have been buffeted and tossed out of every Arab country in the entire middle east. They are just pawns in the war of life and death of the Jewish people and Israel.

The Geneva Convention in a fighting war is not valid when only one side tries to adhere to them. Give me one major war in which the Geneva Accords were used to a final decisive victory?

America is quickly learning that the only rules of war are the ones your antagonists use against you. Did you notice that in the video in my initial post on this thread, the Americans carefully avoided blowing up their Mosques even though they know that the Arabs (Iraqi, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian and other foreigners) use as weapon storage sites and places to hide knowing that the moral Americans will not attack them in their churches which are off limits.

Any real fighting war has its own rules and cannot be played like the Queensbury Rules.

 

[Doc Holiday]

Any real fighting war has its own rules and cannot be played like the Queensbury Rules.

Actually there are a few rules that soldiers live by. Do not target civilians and try to limit civilian casualties. But, even with precision guided munitions shit happens. All you can do is try your best and hope the civilians are smart enough to stay away from the targets.