 |
| |
|
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:35
|
|
"I think the Iraqi freedom fighters merely want to flaunt their authority , such that, much later on, they will be looked up to."
"Terrorism is just guerilla act of war between parties (whether recognised or not). Therefore it should be treated like war. Now, we don't go, "We will never sign a peace treaty with you! We will fight to the death!", now do we?"
People kidnapping journalists and threatning to execute them if they don't change some school policies in some other country IS NOT FREEDOM FIGHTING. I think by definition you can't be a freedom fighter if you cross the line of what is freedom fighting. Thus, these men who did this are NOT freedom fighters, but criminals.
I don't think a lot of people can judge freedom figthing, the true one. However, we should not mix up criminals, terrorists and freedom fighters. If one claims to be one, it doens't make it so.
Second of all, terrorism and guerilla warfare are two different things, and though they have simularities, they still are two different things and should be treated as ones. There might be terrorists that execute some guerilla tactics, and there might be guerillas that act like terrorists, but the fact remains, those two are different things. That's why they have different words to call them.
If we fail to recognize these facts, we can never win anything. We must know what we're fighting in order to defeat it. Just my 2 cents, but should be treated as golden advice.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Comrade Tassadar
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sirotnikov
quote:
End Headscarf Ban, Iraq Hostage Takers Warn France
By Miral Fahmy
DUBAI (Reuters) - An Iraqi militant group has kidnapped two French journalists and given the French government 48 hours to end its ban on Muslim headscarves in school, Arabic television station Al Jazeera said Saturday.
Jazeera identified the hostages as reporters George Malbrunot and Christian Chesnot. Last week, the French Foreign Ministry said the two men had gone missing in Iraq.
The channel aired a brief video showing what it said were the two journalists standing in front of a black banner bearing the name of the Islamic Army in Iraq. One man told the camera: "I would like to tell my family that everything is OK."
[...]
The Al Jazeera announcer said the Islamic Army in Iraq issued an ultimatum to France to abandon its "unfair and aggressive" ban on Muslim headscarves in state schools within 48 hours. It did not say whether the group threatened to kill its captives if France did not comply.
[...]
Activist groups have branded the headscarf law discriminatory and defended what they said was the religious obligation of all Muslim women to cover their hair.
Earlier this year, senior al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri lambasted France's ban on Muslim headscarves, saying in an audio tape that Paris was displaying "Crusader hatred" toward Islam.
[...] |
I always warned that once you give in to terrorist demands, you legitimize the use of terrorist tactics in their eyes.
I always claimed that terrorism must be disclaimed inllegitimate and no demands must be ever met.
Some here have claimed that terrorism will stop once we take away its justification. I always warned, that terrorism must be stopped regardless of justification, because it will end up using as a political tool regardless of justification.
Some here have even claimed that terrorism is a legitimate measure because of the justification the groups exclaimed cause gives them. "Freedom fighting" it was called.
Well how is this any different?
These are just "poor opressed muslems" fighting against "european colonialist opression".
Next we will see anti-globalization activists kidnapping and executing people during WTO meetings. And this will also be labled "freedom fighting" against "evil capitalist opression".
as I always claimed:
Terrorism is just another method of political bartering.
It is wrong and should be clearly made illegitimate.
It should always be condemned. It should always be fought.
Demands by terrorists should never - ever be met. This only legitimizes terrorism as "a method that works".
The same people that use terrorism today to demand things which you think they deserve, will end up demanding what ever they think they can achieve.
STOP TOUTING TERRORISM NOW. |
This man speaks as an Israeli, a nation very experienced with pacifying terrorism 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tattila the Hun
|
 |
Tornio
Oct 2002
time: 07:35
|
|
IIRC, there was pressure towards the French Gov to end this (idiotic) ban anyways... But now, they can not do it, without it lookin like giving in...
I can see, that the extremists are fighting against US, UK, and western values/influence in general, but I still haven't figured out, who are they fighting for ?
And a quote from someone, on the tactics of terrorism:
"A terrorist is someone with a bomb, but no air-force"
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MrWhereItsAt
|
 |
New Year's Resolution: 2005 is the year of Where It's At - come get some.
Nov 2001
time: 17:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by VJ
Now, what has the article which you posted to do with Spain? |
Seconded, thirded, fourthed.....
Although, one could make a leap of logic and say that threats were being levied against France because the terrorists looked at Spain as an example of a Western nation that aquiesced to their demands.
However, Spain did not acquiesce to any terrorist demands. They pulled out of a war seen by many billions and many nations as illegally started. Are the nations who never supported the war considered as appeasing terrorists? What about those who support anti-terrorist activities in places like Afghanistan? Also, what have these terrorists to do with Iraq? Nothing that I can see, beyond the base religion of both sets of people, which means a big fat nothing.
I agree that acquiescing to the demands of terrorists is not the best way to hope to eliminate these threats. However, that does not mean that we should always do the opposite of whatever a terrorist says either. If a terrorist threatened to blow up a certain building unless everyone moved out of it, you'd be crazy to not evacuate the building until it was deemed safe. A government stubborn enough to oppose such a case of 'appeasing a terrorist' would be just plain stupid.
So in short I'm not sure what the point is being made here. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
edit:
wow everything i write is deleted at the speed of light!!!!
big brother retail reached a new level!!!!!
mingy mingy 
Last edited by Bereta_Eder on 29-08-2004 at 21:53
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dauphin
|
 |
Caught in a tuna net
Jan 1970
time: 05:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
That's correct.
Afterall, they used terrorism succcessfully against the Brits. |
You refering to 1916 or the current Northern Ireland? (Or Israeli terrorism against Britain?)
In the first case Eire got independence not because of terrorism per se, but rather the Germans were causing a bit of a stink - attending to that was far more important than policing Dublin.
In the current Northern Ireland situation the IRA and other terrorist organisations had to declare a cessation of violence before their political wings were accepted in policy making.
Last edited by Dauphin on 29-08-2004 at 20:17
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-08-2004 08:42
|