• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Anti-Freedom fighters

G

gdalton

Anti-Freedom fighters

The “insurgents” (I don’t like to call them that, I prefer terrorist but let’s continue) push their ideas through violence. The people fighting against American forces in Afghanistan and Iraq are not fighting for freedom, they are fighting against it. We gave freedom to the people of these two countries and the ones fighting against us want to take that freedom away from the people. If the “insurgents” believed in freedom they would have created a political party, gathered support and voted for their political ideals in the elections we made possible for them. But they knew that the majority of the people will no longer settle for a government that encourages ideals such as the public execution of women who commit adultery. The “insurgents” know that if the people get to choose “they” will no longer be able to rule with violence and intimidation, so instead of hitting the streets trying to get votes for their ideal political party the “insurgents” hit the streets with bombs to disrupt and hopefully prevent the people from voicing their opinion. Instead of peaceful demonstrations, debating and voting the “insurgents” fall back on their original tactics of blow up a bunch of people until they quit fighting.

The real freedom fighters are the millions who stood up to the terrorist and risked their lives to vote for what they believe in.

Freedom is the last thing the “insurgents” want. Most of the “insurgents” are coming from surrounding countries because they know freedom is contagious, they saw what was happening in Afghanistan and they knew if freedom continued to spread those that got a taste of it would no longer settle for the way they where formally governed through rule of fear and violence. The “insurgents” do not believe the people should have a voice, to them it is either do as we say or die. They want a society that does not question the leading authority, and they know freedom will not allow them to go unquestioned.

This thread is not intended to debate why we are there but rather the idea that somehow these psycho’s who blow up crowds of innocent people are fighting for freedom. If you can not understand that the last thing these “insurgents” want is the people of their countries being free to vote on how their government is run, then I don’t think there is a cure for your type of ignorance.

So I would ask of those that believe the “insurgents” are freedom fighters: What freedoms are they fighting for?

By the way the freedom from occupation argument is not going to fly, we paved the road for our removal by setting up the elections so the people could decide who they want to lead them.
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Perhaps they don't like the idea of Globalization in Iraq? Why don't you ask them?

But answer me this, why do they hate "Freedom"?

That is the most pathetic excuse for a reason to hate people that I've heard in my entire life. People don't develop fanatical hatred of you over night. You don't think that they have issues with certain things about us?

This thread is not intended to debate why we are there but rather the idea that somehow these psycho’s who blow up crowds of innocent people are fighting for freedom. If you can not understand that the last thing these “insurgents” want is the people of their countries being free to vote on how their government is run, then I don’t think there is a cure for your type of ignorance.
Is that the answer? You think they are simply psychotic? Thats the easy way out.
 
Last edited:
G

gdalton

FinnMacCool said:
Perhaps they don't like the idea of Globalization in Iraq? Why don't you ask them?

But answer me this, why do they hate "Freedom"?

That is the most pathetic excuse for a reason to hate people that I've heard in my entire life. People don't develop fanatical hatred of you over night. You don't think that they have issues with certain things about us?



Is that the answer? You think they are simply psychotic? Thats the easy way out.
I wasn't talking about the Iraqi people I was talking about the terrorist. Maybe you should pay more attention to what you read, then maybe, just maybe, it might make a little more sense to you.
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Excuse me? A lot of the "terrorists" or "insurgents" are Iraqis. You seem very misinformed.

But I'm just really curious to know why terrorists would hate freedom, as you say.
 
G

gdalton

FinnMacCool said:
Excuse me? A lot of the "terrorists" or "insurgents" are Iraqis. You seem very misinformed.

But I'm just really curious to know why terrorists would hate freedom, as you say.
I label terrorist of any origin a terrorist, if you are an Iraqi that blows up civilians you are a terrorist, sorry I guess I didn't make that clear enough in my rant.

I think what I said the first time outlines why I believe terrorist hate freedom.

gdalton said:
If the “insurgents” believed in freedom they would have created a political party, gathered support and voted for their political ideals in the elections we made possible for them.

The “insurgents” know that if the people get to choose “they” will no longer be able to rule with violence and intimidation, so instead of hitting the streets trying to get votes for their ideal political party the “insurgents” hit the streets with bombs to disrupt and hopefully prevent the people from voicing their opinion.

Most of the “insurgents” are coming from surrounding countries because they know freedom is contagious, they saw what was happening in Afghanistan and they knew if freedom continued to spread those that got a taste of it would no longer settle for the way they where formally governed through rule of fear and violence.

The “insurgents” do not believe the people should have a voice, to them it is either do as we say or die. They want a society that does not question the leading authority, and they know freedom will not allow them to go unquestioned.

So I would ask again, what freedom are these terrorist, insurgents, what ever you would like to call them, fighting for?
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Okay so basically what your saying is that the terrorists or insurgents or whomever are killing Iraqis and american soldiers because they want to set up another totalitarian state? It's an interesting theory. I suppose you might actually be right in a sense but you miss out one important factor. The fact that many of the insurgents or non supporters of America actually fought against Saddam and now are fighting against America. That doesn't really make much sense if you think about it. They love freedom and fight Saddam, they hate freedom and fight America? It is not so simple as this I'm afraid.

I'm not advocating for insurgents or terrorists or whatever you want to call them because I don't believe that killing innocent people is right. But you have to understand that there are so many different view points etc. that taking it in perspective from one side isn't an accurate way to portray them. I suppose what I'm saying is that deeper problems exist and that simplifying it as such is wrong and inaccurate and we should instead try to figure out what those problems are and try to solve them

I hope I've made some sense with this post.
 

Snoozin

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2005
Messages
97
Reaction score
0
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
gdalton said:
So I would ask again, what freedom are these terrorist, insurgents, what ever you would like to call them, fighting for?
They aren't fighting *freedom.* Most have never lived under freedom and don't know what it truly means. I think many people in Iraq feel as if the US is an imperialist invader trying to take their oil. But most don't act on that. They suck it up and hope the violence dies down, the US gets out, and they go on with their lives.

The ones who are fighting us and the new Iraqi government may be brainwashed, they may be on a power trip, they may have found something to *belong* to, they may truly think what they are doing is right, they may have been coerced into fighting, may have been paid, or they may have some religious provocation.
 

Duke

Royal Pain
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
2,595
Reaction score
108
Location
Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
gdalton said:
Anti-Freedom fighters

The “insurgents” (I don’t like to call them that, I prefer terrorist but let’s continue) push their ideas through violence. The people fighting against American forces in Afghanistan and Iraq are not fighting for freedom, they are fighting against it. We gave freedom to the people of these two countries and the ones fighting against us want to take that freedom away from the people. If the “insurgents” believed in freedom they would have created a political party, gathered support and voted for their political ideals in the elections we made possible for them. But they knew that the majority of the people will no longer settle for a government that encourages ideals such as the public execution of women who commit adultery. The “insurgents” know that if the people get to choose “they” will no longer be able to rule with violence and intimidation, so instead of hitting the streets trying to get votes for their ideal political party the “insurgents” hit the streets with bombs to disrupt and hopefully prevent the people from voicing their opinion. Instead of peaceful demonstrations, debating and voting the “insurgents” fall back on their original tactics of blow up a bunch of people until they quit fighting.

The real freedom fighters are the millions who stood up to the terrorist and risked their lives to vote for what they believe in.

Freedom is the last thing the “insurgents” want. Most of the “insurgents” are coming from surrounding countries because they know freedom is contagious, they saw what was happening in Afghanistan and they knew if freedom continued to spread those that got a taste of it would no longer settle for the way they where formally governed through rule of fear and violence. The “insurgents” do not believe the people should have a voice, to them it is either do as we say or die. They want a society that does not question the leading authority, and they know freedom will not allow them to go unquestioned.

This thread is not intended to debate why we are there but rather the idea that somehow these psycho’s who blow up crowds of innocent people are fighting for freedom. If you can not understand that the last thing these “insurgents” want is the people of their countries being free to vote on how their government is run, then I don’t think there is a cure for your type of ignorance.

So I would ask of those that believe the “insurgents” are freedom fighters: What freedoms are they fighting for?

By the way the freedom from occupation argument is not going to fly, we paved the road for our removal by setting up the elections so the people could decide who they want to lead them.

The insurgents in Iraq and Afganistan are not fighting because they hate freedom. They are fighting because they want American troops off of their holy land, and it is incredible that you are so disillusioned
that you would think that they are risking their lives because "they hate freedom". If you don't believe me, ask them yourself. People have. They don't call themselves freedom fighters anyway, so who would think they are?


Duke
 

Duke

Royal Pain
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
2,595
Reaction score
108
Location
Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Also, if you are anti freedom fighting, doesn't that make you anti-freedom?


Duke
 

kal-el

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
3,412
Reaction score
8
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Duke said:
The insurgents in Iraq and Afganistan are not fighting because they hate freedom. They are fighting because they want American troops off of their holy land, and it is incredible that you are so disillusioned
that you would think that they are risking their lives because "they hate freedom". If you don't believe me, ask them yourself. People have. They don't call themselves freedom fighters anyway, so who would think they are?
That's very true. They don't hate freedom.If that's the case, then why wasn't Switzerland or Sweden attacked? They hate us because of our interference in their lives over the last few decades.
 
G

gdalton

FinnMacCool said:
Okay so basically what your saying is that the terrorists or insurgents or whomever are killing Iraqis and american soldiers because they want to set up another totalitarian state? It's an interesting theory. I suppose you might actually be right in a sense but you miss out one important factor. The fact that many of the insurgents or non supporters of America actually fought against Saddam and now are fighting against America. That doesn't really make much sense if you think about it. They love freedom and fight Saddam, they hate freedom and fight America? It is not so simple as this I'm afraid.

I'm not advocating for insurgents or terrorists or whatever you want to call them because I don't believe that killing innocent people is right. But you have to understand that there are so many different view points etc. that taking it in perspective from one side isn't an accurate way to portray them. I suppose what I'm saying is that deeper problems exist and that simplifying it as such is wrong and inaccurate and we should instead try to figure out what those problems are and try to solve them

I hope I've made some sense with this post.
Yeah you have made some sense. I can agree that things are much more complicated then my generalization of the problem. With that said I still do not see these people fighting for freedom of the people, they want to rule with out question and that is not freedom. I made this thread because a lot of folks are trying to paint these terrorist as heroes that fight for freedom, I don’t see it that way.
 

Snoozin

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2005
Messages
97
Reaction score
0
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
gdalton said:
Yeah you have made some sense. I can agree that things are much more complicated then my generalization of the problem. With that said I still do not see these people fighting for freedom of the people, they want to rule with out question and that is not freedom. I made this thread because a lot of folks are trying to paint these terrorist as heroes that fight for freedom, I don’t see it that way.
Well, I am opposed to the war in Iraq, but I *definitely* don't consider those guys heroes. I really want peace there ASAP.
 

epr64

Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
240
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
gdalton said:
This thread is not intended to debate why we are there but rather the idea that somehow these psycho’s who blow up crowds of innocent people are fighting for freedom. If you can not understand that the last thing these “insurgents” want is the people of their countries being free to vote on how their government is run, then I don’t think there is a cure for your type of ignorance.
Once again, you have two kinds of people in Iraq..
Those who defend their country against invaders, and those that want a civil war to happen to seize power and put a "sharia" regime in place.

Of course, as the US army is targeted by the first group, they try to kill as many as possible.. leaving the other the "champ libre" to start a real civil war. The Iraqi govt (whatever it means) tries to fight the REAL terrorists, to avoid an islamist regime.

But of course, that's all the same for you.

And you dare talking 'bout ignorance? Well, at least, THAT's something you know.

Y
 
G

gdalton

epr64 said:
Once again, you have two kinds of people in Iraq..
Those who defend their country against invaders, and those that want a civil war to happen to seize power and put a "sharia" regime in place.

Of course, as the US army is targeted by the first group, they try to kill as many as possible.. leaving the other the "champ libre" to start a real civil war. The Iraqi govt (whatever it means) tries to fight the REAL terrorists, to avoid an islamist regime.

But of course, that's all the same for you.

And you dare talking 'bout ignorance? Well, at least, THAT's something you know.

Y
Enlighten me, where are the ones fighting invaders and how are they fighting? Are they using any form of military markings on their uniform? How are they fighting us, by disrupting the elections that are going to get us out of there? Are the "defenders" not targeting civilians? How can we distinguish the "defenders" from the terrorist? Have we not given the "defenders" a chance to run for political representation? Why have they decided not to actually ask the average citizen of Iraq or Afghanistan if they want to be "defended"?
If you have the ability to vote on how, and who runs your government then why would you choose to disrupt that process, unless you do not want to give choice to the people.
Let me know, I will listen to what you say, just make sure I can understand what you are saying, I haven't worn my helmet in a while and I banged my head a few times.
 

epr64

Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
240
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
gdalton said:
Enlighten me, where are the ones fighting invaders and how are they fighting? Are they using any form of military markings on their uniform? How are they fighting us, by disrupting the elections that are going to get us out of there? Are the "defenders" not targeting civilians? How can we distinguish the "defenders" from the terrorist? Have we not given the "defenders" a chance to run for political representation? Why have they decided not to actually ask the average citizen of Iraq or Afghanistan if they want to be "defended"?
If you have the ability to vote on how, and who runs your government then why would you choose to disrupt that process, unless you do not want to give choice to the people.
Let me know, I will listen to what you say, just make sure I can understand what you are saying, I haven't worn my helmet in a while and I banged my head a few times.
Please, take care of your head ;)

What i mean is that some people (those attacking the US army, mainly) are fighting the invasion. Those that blow up kids (or civilians) are not.
You need to see that there are two kinds of "terrorists" in Iraq right now.

As far as "disrupting the electoral process" is involved, I couldn't think of any iraqi patriot accepting elections during occupation. I couldn't think of YOU accepting "elections" during the invasion of your country. By definition, elections are run a free country, not one with 130 thousand strangers with arms and tanks and helicopters and.. in the country. Those that voted were very courageous, but they voted with blind eyes, as the electoral campaign was just bullshit.

CU
Y
 
G

gdalton

epr64 said:
Please, take care of your head ;)

What i mean is that some people (those attacking the US army, mainly) are fighting the invasion. Those that blow up kids (or civilians) are not.
You need to see that there are two kinds of "terrorists" in Iraq right now.

As far as "disrupting the electoral process" is involved, I couldn't think of any iraqi patriot accepting elections during occupation. I couldn't think of YOU accepting "elections" during the invasion of your country. By definition, elections are run a free country, not one with 130 thousand strangers with arms and tanks and helicopters and.. in the country. Those that voted were very courageous, but they voted with blind eyes, as the electoral campaign was just bullshit.

CU
Y
Perhaps you have some valid points, atleast I can see how your election argument makes sense. I haven't heard of many cases lately (not counting the begining of the war) where only the American military where targets, I know they take pop shots at the troops now and then but I can't be certain that guy is not on his way to blow up civilians after words. Am I making any sense with explaining how I see it?
 

epr64

Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
240
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
gdalton said:
Perhaps you have some valid points, atleast I can see how your election argument makes sense. I haven't heard of many cases lately (not counting the begining of the war) where only the American military where targets, I know they take pop shots at the troops now and then but I can't be certain that guy is not on his way to blow up civilians after words. Am I making any sense with explaining how I see it?
Yes, you are.
It's true that direct attacks against the US army were more frequent in the beginning of the war. Nevertheless, the casualties prove that there are still attacks. The second target of the resistance is of course the iraqi police and army, considered as collaborators. Quite a good percentage of the attacks are of such a type.
At the same time, you have al Zarqawi, who declares war... against the Shias. Because HIS goal is to seize power through a civil war (as the Taleban did in Afghanistan at the time) and establish a religious regime.

THERE is the difference between resistance and terrorists.

Of course, the situation is very blurred in Iraq right now. But if you look at it more closely, you definitely see two kind of attacks going on.

CU
Y
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,910
Reaction score
8,641
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Alright.....

1) Foreign insurgency that is made up of Iranian, Saudi, and Syrian Sunni.

2) A fraction of Local Sunni that merely miss the old days of power over all.

In the last two months we have discovered that their is infighting amongst these two. The fire fights are becoming more routine. They are not as united as people may think. The insurgency have come to Iraq not for the interest of peace but to punish and avenge. These "martyrs" are murdering indiscriminantly Sunni and Shi'ites as a deterent to anyone that wishes to move away from "Allah", by wanting to live out from the shadow of the Arab's version of Islam. Ironic, how they themselves are the true blaphemers of Islam. They are also there to kill Americans, because they blame us for all of their oppression and for keeping Israel a protected nation. They need to blame us to explain away the constrictive and oppressive state that they have done to themselves through their barbaric interpretations and stone age . Killing us is not as easy as killing civilians, so that is why we see "50" Iraqi's dead at a pop. They are what we consider a "soft target." The Mullahs of this movement are telling the Middle East one thing - return to the Islam of old for that is what "Allah" wants. They wish to return to the days before Muhammed condemned human sacrifice and they are developing a blood cult. These are the one's that woulod drop airplanes from the sky. A successful Iraq is not constructive to the fundamental movement. They must destroy the new Iraqi government to prove to the rest of the region that "Allah" will not tolerate "back slidden" Muslims and they must show them that "the great satan" is defeatable. (This is why Bin Laden has to be killed.)

The local Sunni that are killing Shi'ites largely in the Sunni triangle are the results of temper tantrums and lashing out at an Iraqi progressive mentality being put together by Shi'ites, peaceful Sunni, and Kurds. They are made up largely of former Baathist loyalist and, of course, some that are angry at personal loss through American action (It would be unfair and misleading to omit such things). These local Sunni that make up this "resistance" are becoming more and more seperate as more Sunni are killed by the "insurgency."

The general and majority of the population wish to have a peaceful existence under one banner. This group is the ones that turned out to vote and this is the group that is struggling against stubborn Sunni opposition to finish their constitution. This is the group of people that protesters dismiss when they declare things like "They don't want us there" and "They don't want freedom." What people don't realize, is that when they say things like "we are creating more terrorists everytime we accidentally kill a civilian", we also gain more and more friends every time these animals murder 50 a pop.
 
Last edited:

TheTruth

New member
Joined
Sep 10, 2005
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
gdalton. does the same go for the IRA? or were they truly freedom fighters in your opinion?
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,910
Reaction score
8,641
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
TheTruth said:
gdalton. does the same go for the IRA? or were they truly freedom fighters in your opinion?

The IRA used tactics of terror also, but did they target civilians? (honest question)
 

TheTruth

New member
Joined
Sep 10, 2005
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
the R.I.R.A (real IRA) did. by Real IRA was the name of them, i don't mean "the genuine IRA" or anything. they carried out a bombing/shooting campaign in london in the 70's and bombed several cities in Northern Ireland.
 

kal-el

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
3,412
Reaction score
8
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
GySgt said:
The IRA used tactics of terror also, but did they target civilians? (honest question)
Indeed they did, in some cases.
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Well the IRA isn't considered terrorists anymore by the United States but they have done some very irresponsible things and I don't particularily agree with them. The people in Ireland are getting on with their lives and trying to solve their problems militarily is a bad idea. But luckily, it seems to have calmed down in these last few years. But I think there is a problem with these protestants because they decide to march every year to celeberate a victory over the irish and thats just like rubbing their face in it. I would be pissed off if I was there also.

Actually, I have some history in the IRA. My great grandfather was a member of the IRA or some kind of republican political thing. During the parade which I was refering to, he actually jumped through one of the protestant's bass drums and he was subsequently deported from Ireland.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,910
Reaction score
8,641
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
kal-el said:
Indeed they did, in some cases.

Well, then those "some cases" were criminal. Any military or "group" that purposefully targets civilians as a military target is wrong to begin with and it doesn't matter what they claim to stand for.
 

kal-el

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
3,412
Reaction score
8
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
GySgt said:
Well, then those "some cases" were criminal. Any military or "group" that purposefully targets civilians as a military target is wrong to begin with and it doesn't matter what they claim to stand for.
Agreed. They targeted mostly British Government and military.
 
Top Bottom