• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
26,272
Reaction score
11,626
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
FinnMacCool said:
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.



The Israelis pulled out of the Gaza strip in the interest of peace. The Palestinian leadership and the Iranian leadership declared to the world that this was an "Islamic victory against the zionistic nation" and that their pull out was merely an "act of desperation and defeat."

The Protestants in Ireland are equally wrong and counter productive with their marches.
 

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
You also have to remember that there are several different versions of the IRA. Some them are obviously terrorist organizations while others like the IRA (not the REAl IRA or the Old IRa or whatever they call themselves now) are more legit. I think they actually give warnings to civillians before they attack which I can't really understand the reason for that because you lose the element of surprise but whatever.

The Israelis pulled out of the Gaza strip in the interest of peace. The Palestinian leadership and the Iranian leadership declared to the world that this was an "Islamic victory against the zionistic nation" and that their pull out was merely an "act of desperation and defeat."

The Protestants in Ireland are equally wrong and counter productive with their marches.

Exactly. The protestants over there seem to like violence because they go through so much trouble of trying to instigate violence. All they have to do is not march in that stupid parade and people wouldn't get pissed but noooooooooo. they have to celebrate their little obscure victory over the catholics.

I also knew that pulling out of the gaza strip was a bad idea. Its stupid because the palestinians want the whole damn thing back. The only way this is gonna get solved is if Israel trys to pull all their people out, which will never happen, or to fight a war and win but there will still be more violence. I dunno. Its really a mess over there
 
Last edited:
G

gdalton

TheTruth said:
gdalton. does the same go for the IRA? or were they truly freedom fighters in your opinion?

This thread is not about the IRA, and I do not have enough knowledge about them to make an informed decision either way. I will say I agree with Gunny when he says, "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."
 

TheTruth

New member
Joined
Sep 10, 2005
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
FinnMacCool said:
Exactly. The protestants over there seem to like violence because they go through so much trouble of trying to instigate violence. All they have to do is not march in that stupid parade and people wouldn't get pissed but noooooooooo. they have to celebrate their little obscure victory over the catholics.

its not really a protestant -v- catholic thing, its loyalists -v- republicans. some great republican heroes were protestant. but substitute protestant with loyalist and i agree with your point. republicans are fighting for equality, while loyalists are fighting for supremacy.
 

TheTruth

New member
Joined
Sep 10, 2005
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
gdalton said:
This thread is not about the IRA, and I do not have enough knowledge about them to make an informed decision either way. I will say I agree with Gunny when he says, "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."

fair enough.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
26,272
Reaction score
11,626
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
TheTruth said:
its not really a protestant -v- catholic thing, its loyalists -v- republicans. some great republican heroes were protestant. but substitute protestant with loyalist and i agree with your point. republicans are fighting for equality, while loyalists are fighting for supremacy.

Sounds like the same scenario in Iraq with regards to the Shi'ite and Kurds vs. the Sunni.
 

kal-el

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
3,412
Reaction score
8
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
gdalton said:
This thread is not about the IRA, and I do not have enough knowledge about them to make an informed decision either way. I will say I agree with Gunny when he says, "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."

I am in total agreement here.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
26,272
Reaction score
11,626
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
To anyone that has tried to subscribe to the nonsense that the insurgency are "freedom fighters" and wants a more intimate reading of the infighting going on among the insurgency and the disruptive Sunni that I wrote about earlier..read this. It finally got media attention today.

"I call for a meeting ... of all the country's religious and political leaders to take a stand against the bloodshed," al-Sumaidaei said during his sermon at Baghdad's Um al Qura Sunni mosque. "We don't need others to come across the border and kill us in the name of defending us," he declared, a reference to foreign fighters who have joined the insurgency under the banner of al-Qaida. "We reject the killing of any Iraqi."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050917/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
 

IValueFreedom

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
168
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
gdalton said:
The “insurgents” (I don’t like to call them that, I prefer terrorist but let’s continue) push their ideas through violence.


LOL.

You're right. Iraqis are the ones who "[pushed] their ideas through violence." The U.S. could never be considered the initiator in this conflict. That would be outlandish. The states invaded and are now occupying a previously soverign state who had done nothing to us to warrant action on this level, but we probably invaded to spread democracy and harmony right?

Bull****.

If some other state came and invaded the U.S. I would be out in the streets fighting to keep and protect what I possess and value. I would put the second amendment to good use.

It's funny how simple things can be.

We invaded Iraq.
Iraqis fought back.
Those who fought back are dubbed "terrorists."

LOL.

Sometimes our country just seems to be going in the wrong direction :\
 
G

gdalton

IValueFreedom said:
If some other state came and invaded the U.S. I would be out in the streets fighting to keep and protect what I possess and value. I would put the second amendment to good use.

I would be with you, but I hope neither of us would target other American civilians as a way of fighting against the invaders.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
26,272
Reaction score
11,626
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
IValueFreedom said:
LOL.

You're right. Iraqis are the ones who "[pushed] their ideas through violence." The U.S. could never be considered the initiator in this conflict. That would be outlandish. The states invaded and are now occupying a previously soverign state who had done nothing to us to warrant action on this level, but we probably invaded to spread democracy and harmony right?

Bull****.

If some other state came and invaded the U.S. I would be out in the streets fighting to keep and protect what I possess and value. I would put the second amendment to good use.

It's funny how simple things can be.



We invaded Iraq.
Iraqis fought back.
Those who fought back are dubbed "terrorists."

LOL.

Sometimes our country just seems to be going in the wrong direction :\

This is where you don't know what you are talking about and choose to pretend that you don't understand, because denying what is really going on allows you the critical voice you seem to love.

1) The Iraqi army members that chose to fight and die were following orders from Saddam during our initial assault in country.

2) After Saddam's Regime fell, the Iraqi army was gone. We put the Iraqi army back together and have been training them ever since.

3) The "insurgency" (terrorists) are coming from Syria and Iran to kill Americans. The majority of the population decided that they will vote in their new government and thus defied this insurgency. The "insurgency" then switched tactics, since killing us proved too difficult, and started punishing 'back-slidden' Muslims in Iraq. A fraction of the local Sunni (former Baath Party loyalists who do not wish an equal Iraq) slowly joined with this insurgency along with any Sunni that have suffered personal loss due to American action. They along with the insurgency have been targeting and slaughtering civilians. They are terrorists.

4) Over the last two months, the "insurgency" and the local Sunni resistance have begun fighting amongst themselves because of the insurgency targeting of Sunni civilians. In the mean time, the Iraqi army (made up of mostly Shi'ites, but involve Kurds and Sunni members) along with American Marines have made a major assault into a stronghold and killed just over 250 insurgency members. As a result, the "insurgency" (Al-Queda) has declared war on all Shi'ites. Since this Al-Queda declaration, the local Sunni resistance has unanimously voiced among their religious leaders a demand that all foreign fighters cease from killing any Iraqi citizen.

Through all of this, the majority of Iraq is trying to put a constitution together for what they voted for; equality amongst the religious sects. Welcome to the Middle East. Not so simple is it? But what would I know..right?
 
Last edited:
G

gdalton

GySgt said:
1) This is where you don't know what you are talking about and choose to pretend that you don't understand. The Iraqi army memebers that chose to fight and die were following orders from Saddam.

2) After Saddam's Regime fell, the Iraqi army was gone. We put the Iraqi army back together and have been training them ever since.

3) The "insurgency" (terrorists) are coming from Syria and Iran to kill Americans and to punish 'back-slidden' Muslims in Iraq. A fraction of the local Sunni (former Baath Party loyalists who do not wish an equal Iraq) slowly joined with this insurgency along with any Sunni that have suffered personal loss due to American action. They along with the insurgency have been targeting and slaughtering civilians. They are terrorists.

4) Over the last two months, the "insurgency" and the local Sunni resistance have begun fighting amongst themselves because of the insurgency targeting of Sunni civilians. In the mean time, the Iraqi army (made up of mostly Shi'ites, but involve Kurds and Sunni members) along with American Marines have made a major assault into a stronghold and killed just over 250 insurgency members. As a result, the "insurgency" (Al-Queda) has declared war on all Shi'ites. Since this Al-Queda declaration, the local Sunni resistance has unanimously voiced among their religious leaders a demand that all foreign fighters cease from killing any Iraqi citizen.

Not so simple is it? But what would I know..right?


Thanks, I was afraid if I tried to explain it in detail I would just screw it up.
 

kal-el

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
3,412
Reaction score
8
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
IValueFreedom said:
Those who fought back are dubbed "terrorists."

Exactly. Just like before WW11, the Nazi's labeled the French resistance terrorists too.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
26,272
Reaction score
11,626
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
kal-el said:
Exactly. Just like before WW11, the Nazi's labeled the French resistance terrorists too.


You're right. People that target women and children with car bombs and give praise to their God to the tune of millions of cheering Muslims are purely misunderstood as American troops are herding Muslims into ovens.

There is a real world under the clouds. Join us.

What is your definition of a terrorist?
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom