• 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.

epr64 says, "Terrorists = WWII French Resistance"

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There has been no reply to my questions about the post I will quote here:

QUOTE VERBATIM FROM epr64:

Well, you could say the same in France during WWII. They murdered innocent people (not a lot, for sure). But they bombed trains, murdered collaborators, etc...

History is written by the victor. Nazi Germany was defeated, so the French resistants are no terrorists. What will happen in Iraq is still to be seen.

I think the fatwa is quite balanced. Military: legitimate. Civilians: illegitimate. Unfortunately enough, this fatwa was issued in the US, not in Iraq. THAT'S the place where issuing such a fatwa.

Just my 0.02€
Y

END QUOTE.

I've asked twice on another thread for this poster to explain where this comes from and have seen no answer. Of course, maybe the poster comes to the forum infrequently; I'm not implying any reason for the lack of an answer. I am patient.

I am posting this thread so that epr64 can be reminded on occasion by me that the question stands about this quoted post. I am very interested in where the information and rationalization for this post came from. I see a potential debate here. I'll be patiently waiting.
:duel :cool:
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
...and off we go to the War on Terror Forum
 

ILikeDubyah

Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
172
Reaction score
0
Location
Phx
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I'm not the poster you're looking for, but after reading that, I can agree with what they said.
 

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ILikeDubyah said:
I'm not the poster you're looking for, but after reading that, I can agree with what they said.
So you think the French Resistance was a terrorist organization? :duel :cool:
 

superskippy

Active member
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Messages
377
Reaction score
2
Location
Tel'Aviv (when not on duty.)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
If your sick enough to view people killing Nazi's and their Collaberator's as terrorists than sure.

I do not, the Nazi's were the incarnation of evil, their leader was as good as an Amalakite, fighting them and killing them was as good a deed as many could do at the time, and if the French Underground could only achieve that goal through covert operations such as ambushes, bombings of Nazi munitions, and their trains then so be it. Their is a significant difference between fighting an Evil regime like Hitler's and blowing yourself up amongst a group of children. There is a difference between collateral damage and intended damage.
 

nkgupta80

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
1,720
Reaction score
59
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
WWII French resistance was against a military occupation, not innocent German children running down the streets of Paris. And secondly the Nazi's were an unparalelled evil. Terrorists may be targeting the US because they believe us to be evil (and yes some of the things the we do, does foster much hate against us), but these guys blow up innocent children. They blow up for the sake of instilling fear. To compare the two is just plain ****iing retarded. Some of us really starting to lose a sense of how horrible the Nazis were.
 

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It's good to see that some understand. I know there are Hitler lovers around the world but usually they are outside society so far you can't smell em. You know how to spell atrocity? HITLER. :duel :cool:
 

ILikeDubyah

Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
172
Reaction score
0
Location
Phx
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
nkgupta80 said:
WWII French resistance was against a military occupation, not innocent German children running down the streets of Paris. And secondly the Nazi's were an unparalelled evil. Terrorists may be targeting the US because they believe us to be evil (and yes some of the things the we do, does foster much hate against us), but these guys blow up innocent children. They blow up for the sake of instilling fear. To compare the two is just plain ****iing retarded. Some of us really starting to lose a sense of how horrible the Nazis were.

(Before you read this, please know that I support this war & the USA, 110%. I'm just saying how I can see how comparing the French resistance & the Muslim Extremeists makes sense to me.)


You almost made my point, until you went the opposite way with it. In the eyes of the Muslim Extremists, the US, and ANYONE who acts or believes diffrently than themselves (other less extreme Muslims included) see us as worse than Nazis...Nazis were totally evil, but not as evil as "Satan"....what is is that the Muslim nations call the US????? "The Great Satan."

Now, the people actually orchestrating these bombings that kill innocents and out soldiers are about 1000% more crazy than the leaders that are telling them that America is the "Great Satan. Therefore, they're using "whatever means necessary" to end our "occupation" of their land.

The US blows up for the sake of installing fear as well....remember "shock & awe??? What were we doing? Dropping boquets of flowers? Think some of those bombs may have hit civilians? I believe we made Saddam afraid for his life, which is why we found him in a 3' X 5' hole...... Fear works.

Anyhow, back to the analogy at hand....The Muslim extremists are exactly like the French Resistance of WW2. They do see the US as an occupying force, and they will stop at nothing to get the "Great Satan" off of their land. I believe if there were German children in France during the war, the French would have killed them, or at lease used them as bartering chips...wouldn't put it past the french, especially since they had already been humiliated by having to surrender.


Look at it from a perspective other than your own, and the analogy makes sense....to the people commiting the attacks, The US = Nazi Germany, the US & England = the "Axis of Evil"... Saddam's fallen regime = surrendered France, and the extremists themselves = the french resistance....Lets just hope that Iran & others don't become the "Allies", or we may get into some deep doo-doo.

Please forgive all typos....wrote this in about 5 minutes.:lol:
 
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
1,011
Reaction score
306
Location
Geelong, Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Yes, the French resistance would be like the Iraqi 'freedom' fighters if:

If a democratic Germany had invaded France to get rid of a violent dictator.

If the French resistance started bombing other ethnic groups in France.

If the French resistance started bombing religious leaders.

If the French resistance were fighting to bring back their hypothetical dictator.

If the French resistance started to kill innocent civilians to generate fear.

Yes, I suppose the French Resistance and the Iraqi 'freedom' fighters have so much in common!

Just shows you how moronic some Islamoapologists are in their thinking.

I know the difference between a freedom fighter and a mudering coward. Just a shame that other people don't.
 

Mancunian

Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
72
Reaction score
2
Location
Manchester, England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I take the point that both the Muslim extremists and the French resistance are/were both fighting for their freedom in their own land against an occupation that they do/did not desire but I agree with nkgupta80 on this one. The French resistance did not “terrorise” anyone but only defended themselves. The extremists are defending themselves by terrorising everyone!

Superskippy’s point about collateral and intentional damage is a big one. The US and UK can say that they are not terrorists because they do not intentionally kill civilians but how much care is taken on our part to leave civilians out of it. Hypothetical example: If you have a building which holds 10 known terrorists and 10 civilians, do you try to rescue the civvies and capture the terrorists and risk losing some of your troops or do you blow the building out of existence and write the civilians off as collateral damage? I think policy would choose the latter but I would hope that some effort would be made to get the civvies out of the way.
 

epr64

Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
240
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I see that fair-play isn't part of Gordon's game..

1/ every question you asked WAS answered.
2/ I mainly keep myself in the today's news forum.

Of course, if lying by implying I didn't answer your questions, and doing that in a thread buried in another part of the forum, seems acceptable by you.. that's YOUR problem.

But you also seem to have a very limited capacity to read and understand arguments. Maybe that's the reason of your hit-and-run tactics.

So, for the benefit of those on this forum who CAN read and understand, I stated that, as the nazis called the french terrorists, the label would have sticked if they had won the war.

To be more precise:
AS THE GERMANS LOST, it's the French (among others) who wrote history. So, they are NOT labelled terrorists. IF the Gremans had won, they would have been labelled terrorists. As you stated correctly, the German invaders called the French resistance terrorists.

In Iraq, the invasion army is the US-led coalition. The Iraqi army and police are helping the invadors. If you take the situation in France during WWII, the French police was a legitimate target, as they helped the nazis. So, the fatwa condeming attacks against civilians but accepting attacks against the military and their allies is understandable.
Y

History:

This thread posted today 04:16 PM
My answers on Today's news:
Yesterday, 06:49 PM
Yesterday, 10:52 AM

etc.. etc..
 

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ILikeDubyah said:
(Before you read this, please know that I support this war & the USA, 110%. I'm just saying how I can see how comparing the French resistance & the Muslim Extremeists makes sense to me.)


You almost made my point, until you went the opposite way with it. In the eyes of the Muslim Extremists, the US, and ANYONE who acts or believes diffrently than themselves (other less extreme Muslims included) see us as worse than Nazis...Nazis were totally evil, but not as evil as "Satan"....what is is that the Muslim nations call the US????? "The Great Satan."

Now, the people actually orchestrating these bombings that kill innocents and out soldiers are about 1000% more crazy than the leaders that are telling them that America is the "Great Satan. Therefore, they're using "whatever means necessary" to end our "occupation" of their land.

The US blows up for the sake of installing fear as well....remember "shock & awe??? What were we doing? Dropping boquets of flowers? Think some of those bombs may have hit civilians? I believe we made Saddam afraid for his life, which is why we found him in a 3' X 5' hole...... Fear works.

Anyhow, back to the analogy at hand....The Muslim extremists are exactly like the French Resistance of WW2. They do see the US as an occupying force, and they will stop at nothing to get the "Great Satan" off of their land. I believe if there were German children in France during the war, the French would have killed them, or at lease used them as bartering chips...wouldn't put it past the french, especially since they had already been humiliated by having to surrender.


Look at it from a perspective other than your own, and the analogy makes sense....to the people commiting the attacks, The US = Nazi Germany, the US & England = the "Axis of Evil"... Saddam's fallen regime = surrendered France, and the extremists themselves = the french resistance....Lets just hope that Iran & others don't become the "Allies", or we may get into some deep doo-doo.

Please forgive all typos....wrote this in about 5 minutes.:lol:
You leave out something important. In 1948 the U.N. created Palestine as a home for Jews and Arabs. The Arabs attacked the Jews as soon as the British left. We support both an Arab and Jewish state to be lived in in peace and democracy. There is where the Muslim Fundamentalists come in.

According to the Fundamentalists, Jews and those of he west, in particular Christians must come to Islam or be put to the sword. So say we weren't in Iraq or even Europe of South Korea. Do you think al Quaida would not be a terrorist organization carrying out their perverted definition of Islam?

Wake up, they use the weapon of terror not because they want us out of a country but because they are Islamic Fundamentalists. Fundamentalism is there regardless of military matters and since it is a extremeist position of the Islamic Fundamentalists they will seek martyrdom. Spain pulled out of Iraq because their new government said they would after Spain was bombed. That was what al Quaida said had to happen. Spain did pull out and has suffered bombings since.

Fundamentalism in Islam is the enemy whether there is war in Iraq or not.
:duel :cool:
 

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
epr64 said:
I see that fair-play isn't part of Gordon's game..

1/ every question you asked WAS answered.
2/ I mainly keep myself in the today's news forum.

Of course, if lying by implying I didn't answer your questions, and doing that in a thread buried in another part of the forum, seems acceptable by you.. that's YOUR problem.

But you also seem to have a very limited capacity to read and understand arguments. Maybe that's the reason of your hit-and-run tactics.

So, for the benefit of those on this forum who CAN read and understand, I stated that, as the nazis called the french terrorists, the label would have sticked if they had won the war.

To be more precise:


Y

History:

This thread posted today 04:16 PM
My answers on Today's news:
Yesterday, 06:49 PM
Yesterday, 10:52 AM

etc.. etc..
Sorry if you missed my other posts to the forum so I will say it here for you.

I served in the military so those who agree and those who disagree can do it in a free country. Protesters have every right to peacefully protest in this country and a biased media who should report instead of provide commentary unlabeled, are free to do as they wish. I fought for that. Many didn't volunteer like me or weren't drafted. They kept this country going while I was away and it was here when I came home. Everyone does their part whether they agree with one side of politics or not. That's what I fought for; their rights as well as mine.

It doesn't make any difference whether Germany won the war or not. It is only germain that they didn't. I believe you list your posts under the label of "history"? Aside from the name calling, I think australianlibertarian has some good points.

You can say "if" all you want but the Germans never would have won that war and even when they were losing, the Nazis were calling the French Resistance terrorists. It's like the kid laying in the dirt after the fight yelling, "I'll get you!" What Adolph Hitler or his minions said or didn't say is only calculated by the actual words; perverted words from a perversion of idiology. Calling someone a name doesn't make it so. Even if you want to keep citing the Nazis for their take on world history I suggest you actually do read some of what I proposed and maybe find for yourself that they were that perversion of ideals and words both. You will read what a Nazi thought of the Nazis.

Yes. Read.
:duel :cool:
 

ILikeDubyah

Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
172
Reaction score
0
Location
Phx
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
gordontravels said:
Sorry if you missed my other posts to the forum so I will say it here for you.

I served in the military so those who agree and those who disagree can do it in a free country. Protesters have every right to peacefully protest in this country and a biased media who should report instead of provide commentary unlabeled, are free to do as they wish. I fought for that. Many didn't volunteer like me or weren't drafted. They kept this country going while I was away and it was here when I came home. Everyone does their part whether they agree with one side of politics or not. That's what I fought for; their rights as well as mine.

It doesn't make any difference whether Germany won the war or not. It is only germain that they didn't. I believe you list your posts under the label of "history"? Aside from the name calling, I think australianlibertarian has some good points.

You can say "if" all you want but the Germans never would have won that war and even when they were losing, the Nazis were calling the French Resistance terrorists. It's like the kid laying in the dirt after the fight yelling, "I'll get you!" What Adolph Hitler or his minions said or didn't say is only calculated by the actual words; perverted words from a perversion of idiology. Calling someone a name doesn't make it so. Even if you want to keep citing the Nazis for their take on world history I suggest you actually do read some of what I proposed and maybe find for yourself that they were that perversion of ideals and words both. You will read what a Nazi thought of the Nazis.

Yes. Read.
:duel :cool:

Yes, The Nazis were calling the French resistance terrorists, much as we're calling the Muslim Extremists terrorists....it's all point of view....
 

ILikeDubyah

Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
172
Reaction score
0
Location
Phx
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
gordontravels said:
You leave out something important. In 1948 the U.N. created Palestine as a home for Jews and Arabs. The Arabs attacked the Jews as soon as the British left. We support both an Arab and Jewish state to be lived in in peace and democracy. There is where the Muslim Fundamentalists come in.

According to the Fundamentalists, Jews and those of he west, in particular Christians must come to Islam or be put to the sword. So say we weren't in Iraq or even Europe of South Korea. Do you think al Quaida would not be a terrorist organization carrying out their perverted definition of Islam?

Wake up, they use the weapon of terror not because they want us out of a country but because they are Islamic Fundamentalists. Fundamentalism is there regardless of military matters and since it is a extremeist position of the Islamic Fundamentalists they will seek martyrdom. Spain pulled out of Iraq because their new government said they would after Spain was bombed. That was what al Quaida said had to happen. Spain did pull out and has suffered bombings since.

Fundamentalism in Islam is the enemy whether there is war in Iraq or not.
:duel :cool:

And creating a state for displaced Arabs has nothing to do with this argument....the extremists see us as an invading & conquering force in THEIR
land.....Here's another analogy....I believe the way the see the situation is if the Nazis were aroung in the 1770's & invaded the American colonies to free them from the British....I hope that made sense, because it does in my head.
 

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ILikeDubyah said:
Yes, The Nazis were calling the French resistance terrorists, much as we're calling the Muslim Extremists terrorists....it's all point of view....
To equate this country, it's leadership or it's people with the Nazis or to associate this country, it's leadership or citizens like me who do call the Islamic Fundamentalists terrorists as doing the same as the Nazis did is pure ignorance and is all I need to know. If it's all a point of view then I am proud not to share it.

The only thing I see that the Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists and the Nazis have in common is that they indescriminately murder children and civilians. Now I suppose you will say I did in war for my country what my country is doing now but that would just add to the ignorance. Your "much as" comment is deplorable.

By the way, if the Nazis had taken over the world you might not have been here to argue your "point of view". They murdered millions just because they were of a different race. Not too hard to murder your folks if they got out of line.
:duel :cool:
 

ILikeDubyah

Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
172
Reaction score
0
Location
Phx
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
gordontravels said:
To equate this country, it's leadership or it's people with the Nazis or to associate this country, it's leadership or citizens like me who do call the Islamic Fundamentalists terrorists as doing the same as the Nazis did is pure ignorance and is all I need to know. If it's all a point of view then I am proud not to share it.

The only thing I see that the Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists and the Nazis have in common is that they indescriminately murder children and civilians. Now I suppose you will say I did in war for my country what my country is doing now but that would just add to the ignorance. Your "much as" comment is deplorable.

By the way, if the Nazis had taken over the world you might not have been here to argue your "point of view". They murdered millions just because they were of a different race. Not too hard to murder your folks if they got out of line.
:duel :cool:


Not saying that I agree with the point of view, just saying how I can see how some people can equate the 2....calm down there....breathe....breathe.
 

nkgupta80

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
1,720
Reaction score
59
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
people sometimes don't like hearing different points of views objectively. I understand what ILikeDubyah is saying. In the terrorist's point of view, we are the Nazis and they are like the french resistance.
 

ILikeDubyah

Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
172
Reaction score
0
Location
Phx
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
nkgupta80 said:
people sometimes don't like hearing different points of views objectively. I understand what ILikeDubyah is saying. In the terrorist's point of view, we are the Nazis and they are like the french resistance.
.


THANK YOU!!! someone else with an objective mind! (I agree with the US & this war 110%, but can also think about & understand what the other side may be thinking....it doesn't mean I'm agreeing with them....just that I understand!)
 

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ILikeDubyah said:
Yes, The Nazis were calling the French resistance terrorists, much as we're calling the Muslim Extremists terrorists....it's all point of view....
You begin your post with "Yes". Now you say it's just a point of view you understand. I don't understand it at all because it has no basis in fact or history. I only read what you say. Pitiful. Don't worry about my breathing. After being shot 3 times I still breathe fine. Just play your word game - I say - I didn't say - and then just write it off to someone else reading it.

The Nazis were an aberation on the body of history. I don't think you understand that. The Islamic Fundamentalist is an aberation on the body of history. I don't think you understand that.

I've said before. If we never went to war against Osama, the Taliban or Saddam we would still be a target of Islamic Fundamentalists. It's not because of the war so why should we care if we kill them there.
:duel :cool:
 

ILikeDubyah

Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
172
Reaction score
0
Location
Phx
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
gordontravels said:
You begin your post with "Yes". Now you say it's just a point of view you understand. I don't understand it at all because it has no basis in fact or history. I only read what you say. Pitiful. Don't worry about my breathing. After being shot 3 times I still breathe fine. Just play your word game - I say - I didn't say - and then just write it off to someone else reading it.

The Nazis were an aberation on the body of history. I don't think you understand that. The Islamic Fundamentalist is an aberation on the body of history. I don't think you understand that.

I've said before. If we never went to war against Osama, the Taliban or Saddam we would still be a target of Islamic Fundamentalists. It's not because of the war so why should we care if we kill them there.
:duel :cool:
I'm not playing word games, you're just reading and interpreting things the wrong way.

You call the Nazis & the Islamic Extremists aberrations on the body of history....What about Attila the Hunn & the Mongolian hordes (World Domination), What about Alexander the Great (World Domination), and the Romans (World Domination), or Colonial Americans (Fighting for what they believe is right) for that matter....There have always been groups people bent on total world domination at any cost, and people bent on defending what they believe is right, no matter what the cost. So, to say that the Nazis (World Domination) or Muslims (Defending what THEY believe is right) are outside of the expected course of history is, again, not looking at things objectivly.

I did begin my post with "Yes", because the Germans DID see the French resistance as terrorists. The tone and meaning of that post were lost in translation from spoken word to typeset. I NEVER once said that I agree with the P.O.V, and if you Take a look at an excerpt (below) from one of my original posts, you'll see that:

(Before you read this, please know that I support this war & the USA, 110%. I'm just saying how I can see how comparing the French resistance & the Muslim Extremeists makes sense to me.)


I said that it makes sense, NOT that I agree with it.

Your last paragraph makes absolutely NO sense to me, as we are still a target for Fundamentalists. As for where they are taken care of...Better there than here (though that has nothing to do with this debate.)

On a totally different note, How were you shot & which war were you in? (Not to be mean, but even if you were in a war, it has no bearing on this debate either...Just because you may have been, doesn't mean you have all the answers....Look at Kerry & McCain....totally clueless about most things.)
 

epr64

Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
240
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
gordontravels said:


Wake up, they use the weapon of terror not because they want us out of a country but because they are Islamic Fundamentalists. Fundamentalism is there regardless of military matters and since it is a extremeist position of the Islamic Fundamentalists they will seek martyrdom. Spain pulled out of Iraq because their new government said they would after Spain was bombed. That was what al Quaida said had to happen. Spain did pull out and has suffered bombings since.

:duel :cool:
A bit of information could help you in here.

Zapatero said DURING THE WHOLE CAMPAIGN, and even before (since Aznar sent Spanish soldiers in Iraq) that the war was illegal and that, if elected, he would take the troops out of Iraq.
At the very end of the campaign, Madrid's bombings occured. Aznar tried to blame the ETA, although everyone tought it was AQ. He lied, he lost. The Spaniards didn't forgive him lying to them at such a time for political gain.
Since Zapatero leads the country, and that spanish troops are out of Iraq, there have been no attacks in Spain.

I think you have a problem with your timeline.

Now, as far as terrorism is concerned, there will ALWAYS be terrorists. Right now, you have them in different flavours. Islamists (a bit everywhere), nationalists (Basque country, Ireland since not that long ago, Brittons, Chechens, just to cite a few), Maoists (Nepal, if I'm not mistaken, South america..), and a few others. The point is to isolate them, to suppress the recruiting and financing. Then, you can catch them if they're a tiny cell, like during the 70s and 80s in Europe, or work on dissolving the "army" like what's tried against some of those groups in Asia. But, as long as you HELP them recruit (let's say, by invading Iraq :doh ), you're making the situation worse, not better. And the studies on terrorism show that there are MORE terrorist attacks in the world since 2003, not less. And this is only for fighting the terror networks. Now, if you want to suppress the root cause of terrorism, that deserves a thread of its own.

If you want to keep your elephant blinders on, be my guest. But don't be surprised if something happens that you didn't see coming because of them.

CU
Y
 

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ILikeDubyah said:
I'm not playing word games, you're just reading and interpreting things the wrong way.

You call the Nazis & the Islamic Extremists aberrations on the body of history....What about Attila the Hunn & the Mongolian hordes (World Domination), What about Alexander the Great (World Domination), and the Romans (World Domination), or Colonial Americans (Fighting for what they believe is right) for that matter....There have always been groups people bent on total world domination at any cost, and people bent on defending what they believe is right, no matter what the cost. So, to say that the Nazis (World Domination) or Muslims (Defending what THEY believe is right) are outside of the expected course of history is, again, not looking at things objectivly.

I did begin my post with "Yes", because the Germans DID see the French resistance as terrorists. The tone and meaning of that post were lost in translation from spoken word to typeset. I NEVER once said that I agree with the P.O.V, and if you Take a look at an excerpt (below) from one of my original posts, you'll see that:

(Before you read this, please know that I support this war & the USA, 110%. I'm just saying how I can see how comparing the French resistance & the Muslim Extremeists makes sense to me.)

I said that it makes sense, NOT that I agree with it.

I'm not playing word games, you're just reading and interpreting things the wrong way.

On a totally different note, How were you shot & which war were you in? (Not to be mean, but even if you were in a war, it has no bearing on this debate either...Just because you may have been, doesn't mean you have all the answers....Look at Kerry & McCain....totally clueless about most things.)
If you want to discuss Atilla the Hun or Alexander the Great then start another thread. I believe those were direct wars and not insurgents on a terror campaign. Not that there isn't terror in war but there is a difference in terror, all out war and resistance. No, you say:

(Before you read this, please know that I support this war & the USA, 110%. I'm just saying how I can see how comparing the French resistance & the Muslim Extremeists makes sense to me.)

Since I don't see how this can make sense; meaning it is not a reasonable way to look at things, I say you don't understand. This is closer to fantasy than reality and that is what Hitler's mind was all about. "If Hitler had won!" Some will confuse fantasy with a political agenda but I certainly try not to be one of them. Believe what you want. I know that when someone with your take on history or "understanding" says:

"I'm not playing word games, you're just reading and interpreting things the wrong way."

I'm doing exactly what I should be doing and your opinion is to build a defense or explanation after the fact. I will repeat, I read your words and respond. So I'm not only interpreting wrong but reading wrong as well? Gosh, I'd better be more careful when reading and interpreting what you write; especially when comparing Osama to Atilla or Alexander the Great.

Have Christians and Muslims killed each other in history? Of course. Do Christians say it is a tenet of their religion to convert or kill? Do Muslims say it is a tenet of their religion to convert or kill? One answer is no and one is yes. Then comes the terrorism. Iraq has a government and everyone, including the terrorists, could work within that government as a means to their end. That is democracy. Terrorists want to impose, not debate. Hitler wanted to impose, not to debate. Alexander tried to debate, then imposed.


Your last paragraph makes absolutely NO sense to me, as we are still a target for Fundamentalists. As for where they are taken care of...Better there than here (though that has nothing to do with this debate.)

Really? Didn't you say you support the war 110%. I expressed what I thought was a good reason to support that war. Let's tie up the terrorists in Iraq or Afghanistan and kill them there rather than having to kill them here. What's your reason for supporting the war?

On a totally different note, How were you shot & which war were you in? (Not to be mean, but even if you were in a war, it has no bearing on this debate either...Just because you may have been, doesn't mean you have all the answers....Look at Kerry & McCain....totally clueless about most things.)

You won't ever find me saying I have all the answers, far from it. I want to debate and I always hope that debate leads to more learning on my part either from being taught or by realizing my own purpose and determination.

You asked me to "breathe, breathe" in a post acting as if I were out of control. I referenced being shot in Vietnam because that's what the medic was saying to me on the battlefield. Because I actually fought in war doesn't give me more "understanding" than you. It may give me a different perspective on where that understanding comes from, that's all. Those that don't go to war are just as important as those who do. The term is "keeping the home fires burning".

Otherwise, I read what you write and only interpret what I read; your words. Your history and understanding of it is bogus in my eyes being based on "ifs". Terrorism and all out war are two different things. Terrorists and resistance fighters are two different things. Islamic Fundamentalists interpreting the Koran and what the Koran actually says are two different things. You thinking it makes sense and any agreement from me are two different things. Your cohort in agreement says I only see things in Black and White. I say "good".
:duel :cool:
 

nkgupta80

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
1,720
Reaction score
59
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
all he's doin is lookin in the eyes of the Nazis here. The Nazis officially conquered France. However there was the French resistance. That is the same as the Iraqi-Resistance. We happen to call the Iraqi-Resistance terrorism. Thus by logic French-Resistance = Iraqi Terrorism. I, however, don't see the Iraqi resistance as terrorism.
 

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
nkgupta80 said:
all he's doin is lookin in the eyes of the Nazis here. The Nazis officially conquered France. However there was the French resistance. That is the same as the Iraqi-Resistance. We happen to call the Iraqi-Resistance terrorism. Thus by logic French-Resistance = Iraqi Terrorism. I, however, don't see the Iraqi resistance as terrorism.
Ok. So the Nazis conquered France "officially". And that was to turn the French government over to the French? Or could it have been to expand the Third Reich?

The French Resistance is the same as the terrorists in Iraq? Here's another one but you notice I take a moment to reply anyway. Let's see. There is an Iraqi government, a democracy, voted in by the Iraqi people by the millions and how many terrorists are there? Time and again the Iraqi people want the terrorists to stop killing civilians that include children taking candy. You think it is resistance killing these children? Or maybe they just got in the way?

As to your "logic"? I can understand with your logic how you don't see the Iraqi Resistance that is led by a Saudi and Jordanian as terrorism. And I am accused of spin, lol, lol.
:duel :cool:
 
Top Bottom