Glory of Persepolis' goes on screen in response to insulting movie `300'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K COSSAK

Not pro war on terror?!?!

---

No - definatly not. To "War on Terror" belongs the war in iraq, Guatanamo and the patriot act...
How could I be pro the "War on Terror" campeign?

However - this is getting off-topic...

theres no such thing as a "war on terror"

Was I the only one who kept thinking *Time for Faramir captain of Gondor to prove his worth* in a very silly way, everytime he started the voice over..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miles Sueborum

No - definatly not. To "War on Terror" belongs the war in iraq, Guatanamo and the patriot act...
How could I be pro the "War on Terror" campeign?

However - this is getting off-topic...

---

No, please this interests me, as how someone would not support defeating terrorism, slightly out of topic but still in the catogory of "Iran V. West".

the patriot act seems reasonable to me, have you taken a look at it?

The Iraq war...plz, this topic is soo worn out, better not discuss it.

Guatanamo, they are there for suspicions of terrorism, I'd rather have them graoning there than having them throw rocks at me for supporting a war on terror.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K COSSACK

No, please this interests me, as how someone would not support defeating terrorism, slightly out of topic but still in the catogory of "Iran V. West".

the patriot act seems reasonable to me, have you taken a look at it?

The Iraq war...plz, this topic is soo worn out, better not discuss it.

Guatanamo, they are there for suspicions of terrorism, I'd rather have them graoning there than having them throw rocks at me for supporting a war on terror.

---

Doesn't belong on the EB forum, please take this to the backroom where it does belong.

Foot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K COSSACK

No, please this interests me, as how someone would not support defeating terrorism, slightly out of topic but still in the catogory of "Iran V. West".

the patriot act seems reasonable to me, have you taken a look at it?

The Iraq war...plz, this topic is soo worn out, better not discuss it.

Guatanamo, they are there for suspicions of terrorism, I'd rather have them graoning there than having them throw rocks at me for supporting a war on terror.

---

Everyone is against terrorism and would be glad to rid the world of it. How you can make that a synonym with the current state of affairs in the middle-east is beyond me, just like the whole tendency to polarize opinions (in the gospel sense - with me or against me). Another example is that if you don't agree with everything the president says, you're automatically against the troops.

And I have read the patriot act and one of your founding fathers said it best...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr.Ben

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

---

On Guantanamo, are you serious? You condone Human Rights violations in US soil? On anyone? Even terrorists (which btw, we have no way to know who they are or what they did, since they got no trial)?

Borderline fascism.

Indeed, Sarcasm speaks wisely .:2thumbsup:

Of course I would violate a terrorsits "right".


"MR. BEN" lived in a different time, how could he have possibly known what to do now? Desparate times call for desparate measures, and if these terrorists were caught in the act, why have them on trial?

Current state of affairs and the mid east, really... where does the majority of muslim extremist come from. And how did I "polorize entire opinions".



You offer criticisms but no solution.

The majority of people in Guantanamo are just there because someone said they are suspicious of terrorism and there was no need for evidence. You get the idea what I mean?
And, wait a minute, what does the sentence "desperate times call for desperate measures"? Ah, yes, it's a small austrian, like 70 years ago. He said something similiar.

:stop:
Wrong subforum for that, guys.

Ya but he was just plain mean!

But they are there because they were suspected, they cant just be thrown into there for no reason.

yeah, start a thread in the backroom id love to discuss this. food for thought there, Cossack--what is a terrorist? and how do you conduct a "war" on criminal organizations?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

:stop:
Wrong subforum for that, guys.

---

Oh comon this thread is talkin' about a movie and everyone else suddenly talks about mid east policies. Might as well go with the flow.

Well, it's kinda debatable if this whole thread actually belongs in this subforum to begin with. Still, until now the debate has touched on current politics only in passing - specifically debating them, unconnected with EB or the original topic of the thread, is however definitely in the wrong place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

yeah, start a thread in the backroom id love to discuss this. food for thought there, Cossack--what is a terrorist? and how do you conduct a "war" on criminal organizations?

---

Oh no you dont! I know the draw backs of "war on terror" !!

Terrorist- A person(s) that wages unconventional warfare to harm others physicaly for religion,and or personal gain.

Very specific huh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Well, it's kinda debatable if this whole thread actually belongs in this subforum to begin with. Still, until now the debate has touched on current politics only in passing - specifically debating them, unconnected with EB or the original topic of the thread, is however definitely in the wrong place.

---

So you're saying this whole thread is in the wrong place?

If one were to be strict, quite possibly. Somewhat irrelevant though.

Please stop double-posting, and reciting passages of your encyclopedia won't make us believe you are right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Basileus Seleukeia

Please stop double-posting, and reciting passages of your encyclopedia won't make us believe you are right.

---

Nah it wasnt from an encyclopedia, the post was a quick response! sry I should've used EDIT.

Watchman, this whole thing is dedicated to discussing terrorism and the east. So it doesnt have anything to do with EB, but it wont hurt anyone...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K COSSACK

Terrorist- A person(s) that wages unconventional warfare to harm others physicaly for religion,and or personal gain.

Very specific huh?

---

Hm, I'll agree with the personal gain part. The founding fathers of the United States were terrorists in this regard. But not always religion. There are in fact some terrorists who are fighting for altruistic purposes, though in nicer times we would call them 'freedom fighters' or 'the resistance'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

Hm, I'll agree with the personal gain part. The founding fathers of the United States were terrorists in this regard. But not always religion. There are in fact some terrorists who are fighting for altruistic purposes, though in nicer times we would call them 'freedom fighters' or 'the resistance'.

---

Yes, Terrorists also like to harm innocent civilians, hoping to capitulate the enemy. While freedom fighters want the occupier out.

civilians aren't innocent if they are a part of the military-industrial complex that orchestrates and funds these wars. What was the Boston Tea Party? a terrorist attack on civilian commercial intrests, much like the attacks on oil pipelines or facilities in modern times. It's all relative and cyclical.

In recent history my country has made some experiences what can happen if a police-institution is able to arrest without out any evidence and to lock up without trial - we had the Gestapo (Secret Netional Police) in the Nazi-germany and the Stasi (National Security) in Eastern Germany...
No good experiences were made...
Human rights should be untouchable - that is freedom, that is something worth fighting for. What is gained when they are sacraficed?

And tell me the difference between an American Freedom fighter of the 18th century, hiding in the woods and killing British soldiers whenever possible, and an iraqui terrorist, hiding in the city and killing Western soldiers, whenever possible?

there is no difference save religion. Even the motivations of the few powerful men that are forcing others to fight for them is the same, look at the leaders of the American revolution and their financing of the war against their own country, many times during which they had to press the poor into fighting for their cause by intimidation and violence.

I would say that the main diference, is that the American freadom were not obliwiouse if children or woman were killed whitin the fighting, unlike the terorist in iraq who are obliviou to how many Iraqies (sp?) they take dow in the atack, sometime only directing attack on non-soldiers only.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ower

I would say that the main diference, is that the American freadom were not obliwiouse if children or woman were killed whitin the fighting, unlike the terorist in iraq who are obliviou to how many Iraqies (sp?) they take dow in the atack, sometime only directing attack on non-soldiers only.

---

that's what you think. research it a little and you may be suprised.

or, try looking into Andrew Jackson and his genocidal campaigns against the native american tribes of the south. that makes al-qaeda look benign in comparison. :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

that's what you think. research it a little and you may be suprised.

or, try looking into Andrew Jackson and his genocidal campaigns against the native american tribes of the south. that makes al-qaeda look benign in comparison. :dizzy2:

---

I think he meant in modern times.

I didn't talk about american military actions generalz, the question was:
And tell me the difference between an American Freedom fighter of the 18th century, hiding in the woods and killing British soldiers whenever possibleand, and an iraqui terrorist, hiding in the city and killing Western soldiers, whenever possible
I ansewred to this :P for me the way the americans used on the Indians or the ways thez use today are not a crime:book:

In France, the Netherlands and Russia directly after the Liberation the Freedomfighters executed all they could find who had sided with the Germans - I'm not completely sure about the revolutionary war in America - but has there never been any cruelty done by the freedomfighters to those who they considered to be traitors? If there was none - I'd be impressed...
btw - afaik many of those guys who blow up themselves in iraq are foreigners - most of those fighting with guns, attacking soldiers are however iraqis...

Oh - and no General in WWII did care wether Civillians were harmed during a bombing raid - sometimes exactly that was even the aim...

And another thing concerning K COSSACK's defintion of terrorists: At the end of the medieval the swiss peasants, who wanted to seperate from the holy roman empire (personal gain) used very unconventional warfare (pikemen) - would you consider them terrorists as well?

But this is way off-topic anyways...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miles Sueborum

In France, the Netherlands and Russia directly after the Liberation the Freedomfighters executed all they could find who had sided with the Germans - I'm not completely sure about the revolutionary war in America - but has there never been any cruelty done by the freedomfighters to those who they considered to be traitors? If there was none - I'd be impressed...
btw - afaik many of those guys who blow up themselves up in iraq are foreigners - most of those fighting with guns, attacking soldiers are however iraqis...

Oh - and no General in WWII did care wether Civillians were harmed during a bombing raid - sometimes exactly that was even the aim...

And another thing concerning K COSSACK's defintion of terrorists: At the end of the medieval the swiss peasants, who wanted to seperate from the holy roman empire (personal gain) used very unconventional warfare (pikemen) - would you consider them terrorists as well?

But this is way off-topic anyways...

---

Possibly, but the Federal government outlawed killing them in order to prevent a civil war.