egafd.com

No. It is just that I am about 3 steps ahead of you.

1. Are ISIL freedom fighters or terrorists? I (Sam Slater) would like an opportunity to blather on about Islam on this forum yet again as only a lapsed Muslim obsessed with Islam would.

2. Average forum answer. ISIL are wonderful and I would invite them to tea and apple crumble any time. Err, perhaps not.

3. Sam Slater "Why do you think then, that ISIL view themselves as freedom fighters"?

4. Forum answer as hoped for by Sam Slater. I think it is because they are brain washed by cruel Islam and unless we crush Islam we will never be able to safely have a kebab in Bradford without being decapitated because we all know that Allah might think that that is a very sensible thing to do - decapitation rather than eat a kebab.

Disagreeing with Sam Slater = "very confused"

Disagreeing more than once with Sam Slater = "making the post all about me".

I think you're in the right area, Max.

For me it's simple. If you're oppressed and fight the government and military responsible for oppressing you, then you're a freedom fighter. If you're oppressed and purposely target innocent civilians in cafe, clubs and at bus stops, you're a terrorist.

Why I asked about ISIS is that now they are more than just terrorists. They have created a rogue state that rounds up and kills or imprisons non-sunnis. They are the modern equivalent of Nazis in that they want to create a 'master race' based on religion rather than ethnicity.

David's now telling me what I think and my own motives.

Who'd have thought asking people's opinions on ISIS would get him so annoyed.

I suppose with Anjem Choudary's arrest, it's just been one of those days and he'll be much chirpier after a good night's sleep.

"For me it's simple. If you're oppressed and fight the government and military responsible for oppressing you, then you're a freedom fighter. If you're oppressed and purposely target innocent civilians in cafe, clubs and at bus stops, you're a terrorist."

For you Sam, it is simplistic. I agree with airstrikes on ISIL with reservations which I haven't got time to explain at the moment.

However clearly according to your definition, ISIL are both freedom fighters and terrorists. ISIL has considerable support from the Sunni population in Iraq. The reason for this, is that the Allies installed a sectarian Shia leader that oppressed the Sunni population by disenfranchising them from key positions and making them vulnerable to the Shia militias.

Without that Sunni support there is no way that ISIL would have had the results that they did in taking over so much Sunni territory in Iraq.

However, ISIL are clearly terrorists in accordance with your other definition.

In short, as usual, things are more complex than you appear to grasp, Sam

The biggest issue with all this sort of thing is that most people involved are very religious, and that is what causes problems. I'm not religious at all, people who are hold the view that 'god' is on their side and they can kill as many people as they want and it's right to do so because the people they're going after aren't doing right in the eyes of 'god' and therefore can be done-away with. Osama Bin Laden, George W Bush, ISIS, it's all the same. It is claimed, if one believes in this kind of thing, that 'god created man in his own image'. Religious people, whether they realise it or not, create god in THEIR image, and that is where the problems lie. Religion has caused more problems for this world than anything else, ever. Ironic really when one considers that religion is meant to be a force for good.

Despite all your irrelevant blah, blah, you still can't cope with my posts, eh

While not wanting to get bogged down in semantics its important I think to
look at the words. "Terrorist" is clearly someone who wishes to or is inflicting
"terror". A "freedom fighter" has to be fighting for freedom from something,
usually a regime, but not imposing a totally new regime, with all its myriad
penalties and punishments, as ISIS is. There also has to be a requirement
for freedom. From what one reads it seems as if the ISIS fighters are launching
a jihad or "holy war" in their eyes, but I do not see the citizenry of that area
saying "Please, please come and free us" in any large numbers !! ISIS are,
unquestionably, terrorists and should be treated as such.

You do know that blaming religion will leave you open to repeated online bullying from David Johnson, don't you, Max? Have you not learnt anything from the way he treats me?

Now you've said the same things I've been saying for a while, we'll find something out about David. Is this a principled stance from him or a personal thing about me? We shall see.

"The biggest issue with all this sort of thing is that most people involved are very religious,"

Not sure what exactly you mean by "this sort of thing" Max but if you set the current uprisings in a historical context, it is worth pointing out that the biggest genocides of the 20th century were carried out by the regimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Kamal Ataturk and Pol Pot, none of whom were noted for their religious fanaticism.

In addition, the more recent genocide in Rwanda had a tribal rather than a religious fanaticism basis.

It is also worth pointing out that in the case of Iraq the situation has been made much, much, much worse by an illegal war aimed at it by the irreligious West. And the Allies interventions in Afghanistan and Libya have hardly been run away successes either have they, despite heavy loss of life?

Lol. Religion has a lot to be blamed for, as I've said above.

Also among the ranks of people in religious orders worldwide, be it nuns, monks, priests, those people who call themselves 'the Christin Brothers', and others, you will find a higher proportion of weirdos, oddballs, perverts, child-molesters, money-orientated individuals, etc, than in any other grouping of people in any other area of life. Religion is bad in my view.