egafd.com

....freedom fighter.

Given the first thread on this subject, with a few still confused as to how we should ascertain one from the other, I'd like to ask the forum's opinions on ISIS/ISIL.

So....terrorists or freedom fighters? And how do you come to your conclusions?

"So....terrorists or freedom fighters?"

Clearly neither according to Sam Slater. According to Sam, Allah alone can decide whether the interpretation of the Koran used by ISIL is correct or not.

I would define a terrorist as someone doing something most reasonable people would regard as abhorent. A freedom fighter is, in my view, someone who carries out militant acts that most reasonable-thinking people would regard as justified because their situation is so bad they have no other option than to take up arms against their oppressor.

A lot of the views people have on these sorts of things are developed by listening to the media in whichever part of the world they are in. For example: Osama Bin Laden was viewed as the world's biggest bogeyman, the biggest manhunt in the history of the world was organised to find him. He was eventually found and killed. George W Bush killed vastly more innocent people during his time as President than Bin Laden did during his lifetime, yet nothing happens to Bush. Most people in the West regarded Bin Laden as an evil guy and Bush as a buffoon, where as in reality Bush killed hundreds of thousands of people in the middle east, people are aware of this but don't seem to hate Bush as much as they did Bin Laden.

Bin Laden killed less than 5,000 people (the attack on the USS Cole, the two embassy attacks in Africa, and 9/11). The media reported the western-alliance as the good guys and Bin Laden as the evil guy. Bin Laden was certainly an evil guy but if the more bad you do the more bad a person you are then Bush was clearly much much worse.

The coverage Bashar al-Assad gets - that haunting photo of him on TV news programmes and the description of him and his deputies as "the Assad regime" could just as easily have been used to describe George W Bush and what he did in Iraq. We never heard things on the news of how "the Bush regime blew up a school today in down-town Baghdad killing over a hundred children" or "last night the Bush regime bombed a residential suburb of Baghdad killing hundreds of men, women and children". It was more like: "in the ongoing campaign in Iraq this week an estimated high-number of civilian casualties occurred following a mission on the city by American fighters".

I really believe there is a different attitude to deaths amongst westerners than to any other people in the world. This is not a view I hold but a lot of people across the Western world seem to.

So to define 'a terrorist' I would say look past the media rhetoric, form your own view based on the facts, try and see whether what that person is doing seems justified considering their circumstances, then decide. Nelson Mandela was a freedom fighter, he was militant but not a terrorist in my view. The IRA were mostly freedom fighters and part-terrorists. Bin Laden was certainly a terrorist. George W Bush certainly was/is a terrorist aswell. Had he just gone after al-Qaeda, rather than bombing the crap out of civilian areas of Iraq and causing huge numbers of problems for the country and its people, for years to come, then that would have been fine. To do what he did however makes him a bad guy. African leaders have been put before international courts and jailed for less things than what George W Bush did.

If you are a friend of America you are a freedom fighter. If you don't like Apple Pie, Uncle Sam and Pick Up Trucks you are a terrorist. Simples.

So.......3 replies and only Max bothered answering the question.

A little cowardly really.

I don't know why you are asking this question, given you have already made your mind up.

Did you or did you not state the following?

"David is in NO position to call Wahhabism 'extreme'. Only Allah could possibly know that for sure and everyone else is just guessing. Until Allah comes and tells us what's what, we do not know if anything ISIS or the Saudis do is 'extreme' or not. It might be perfectly acceptable and the only 'extremists' are us for being 'extremely' tolerant and liberal."

Clearly in your view, to state that beheading people is extreme is nonsense because only Allah can decide. And therefore, only Allah can decide if the ISIL perceived view that they are fighting a just war against the infidel is really justified in the Koran or not.

Hence Dave756's rather surprised riposte "So you don't think cutting someones head off is in slightest an 'extreme interpretation' of some words in a book, OK then thanks no need to reply I understand and respect your view."

So for the West to take offence to a beheading or two, is according to you just letting our cultural mores carry us away to a wrong conclusion based on inaccurate interpretations of the Koran. Cameron is not Allah.

Note: I realise you will not reply to this post in any meaningful way because harassing Argie is more your thing rather than answering specific questions about your nonsensical beliefs. I post it for other forumites.

David seems confused. Very confused.

I'm asking for people's opinions about how they're judging someone's actions, not people's opinions on whether God/Allah really wants those actions to happen.

He also wants to make this (again) about me. He's obsessed with me.

That quote you have after every post was never stated by Chris Hitchens

This post explains how it was misattributed to Hitchens.

Any views on my comment above?

I guess that's true to some extent. That moron George W Bush did say "if you're not with us you're against us" after all...