Yeah, I really am astonished. Not something I thought I would see.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Google "Taliban Atrocity"Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
Firstly, did I miss the memo when the Taliban were terrorists?
The video of a brainwashed 12 year old Taliban child beheading an 'infidel' seems to be popular in some circles.
They 'ruled' by fear, hence the 'Terrorist' moniker.
Things like genocide, stoning women to death, honor killings, acid on faces, cutting off noses, burning people alive, hypocritically growing drugs for sale to fuel their religious theocracy.
They did not rule through popular mandate, they did not believe in freedom of speech, equality, equitable treatment.
No, they were of the mind 'believe as I believe, or live in fear of my wrath'
There was no respectful standoff between differing factions - there was their rule, or damnation.
They were a scourge on the people they dominated.
Most simply put, they were Terrorists of the truest sense.
They weren't terrorists. They were simply religious extremists. End result is the same. That word is thrown around far too often now. Was Henry VIII a terrorist because he chopped off his wives heads? Were absolute monarchs terrorists? Seriously, stupid term that really has no meaning anymore.rdx-fx wrote:
Google "Taliban Atrocity"Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
Firstly, did I miss the memo when the Taliban were terrorists?
The video of a brainwashed 12 year old Taliban child beheading an 'infidel' seems to be popular in some circles.
They 'ruled' by fear, hence the 'Terrorist' moniker.
Things like genocide, stoning women to death, honor killings, acid on faces, cutting off noses, burning people alive, hypocritically growing drugs for sale to fuel their religious theocracy.
They did not rule through popular mandate, they did not believe in freedom of speech, equality, equitable treatment.
No, they were of the mind 'believe as I believe, or live in fear of my wrath'
There was no respectful standoff between differing factions - there was their rule, or damnation.
They were a scourge on the people they dominated.
Most simply put, they were Terrorists of the truest sense.
Is the US government a terrorist organization because it exacts tribute on pain of prison? Some would say yes.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-08-29 21:51:56)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
QFEJohnG@lt wrote:
Whodathunkit. People that swore to defend the Constitution actually believe in freedom of speech while the one that didn't would happily piss on it.
"Freedom has a taste, and for those who have fought for it, the taste is so sweet the protected will never know ..." - General George S. Patton
I think it has more to do with having been in a situation where we had no rights. Freedom tastes sweet when you've had your every waking moment scheduled out for you by someone else and to speak out results in punishment.rdx-fx wrote:
QFEJohnG@lt wrote:
Whodathunkit. People that swore to defend the Constitution actually believe in freedom of speech while the one that didn't would happily piss on it.
"Freedom has a taste, and for those who have fought for it, the taste is so sweet the protected will never know ..." - General George S. Patton
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Wow John, I thought I shared quite different views than you but everything of yours I've read in the past couple weeks I'm in complete agreeance. The point made about freedom of speech is of particular note.
Yes, I agree the word terrorist is thrown about so freely it has lost most meaning. Like Hero, or Tragedy.JohnG@lt wrote:
They weren't terrorists. They were simply religious extremists. End result is the same. That word is thrown around far too often now. Was Henry VIII a terrorist because he chopped off his wives heads? Were absolute monarchs terrorists? Seriously, stupid term that really has no meaning anymore.
Is the US government a terrorist organization because it exacts tribute on pain of prison? Some would say yes.
Though, in this case, I'm using it in line with a proper definition;
Terrorism - the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear
Princeton WordNet for a quick bit of GoogleFu for an articulate definition.
Henry VIII wasn't chopping off wives heads in a calculated bid to instill fear in English womenfolk. No, he was done with that woman and wanted a new one. Evil, nasty, brutish behavior - but not 'calculated' to strike fear into the English womenfolk.
I think thats the last of harmor we've seen in this thread
Tu Stultus Es
"Freedom has a taste, and for those who have fought for it, the taste is so sweet the protected will never know ..." - General George S. Patton
That, and having seen a bit of what a world without those values looks like, and the truism 'A thing earned is more valued than a thing given'JohnG@lt wrote:
I think it has more to do with having been in a situation where we had no rights. Freedom tastes sweet when you've had your every waking moment scheduled out for you by someone else and to speak out results in punishment.
There are still a million examples from history where instilling fear was the desired goal. Queen Mary comes to mind, and that was about religion as well.rdx-fx wrote:
Yes, I agree the word terrorist is thrown about so freely it has lost most meaning. Like Hero, or Tragedy.JohnG@lt wrote:
They weren't terrorists. They were simply religious extremists. End result is the same. That word is thrown around far too often now. Was Henry VIII a terrorist because he chopped off his wives heads? Were absolute monarchs terrorists? Seriously, stupid term that really has no meaning anymore.
Is the US government a terrorist organization because it exacts tribute on pain of prison? Some would say yes.
Though, in this case, I'm using it in line with a proper definition;
Terrorism - the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear
Princeton WordNet for a quick bit of GoogleFu for an articulate definition.
Henry VIII wasn't chopping off wives heads in a calculated bid to instill fear in English womenfolk. No, he was done with that woman and wanted a new one. Evil, nasty, brutish behavior - but not 'calculated' to strike fear into the English womenfolk.
Was the Christian faith run by terrorists when it was burning pagans and heretics at the stake? Was Pope Urban a terrorist when he called for the Crusades? Do we need to go back and rewrite our history books now since that is the definition now?
Whatever, it's not even the main point. The Taliban today have no real power, but they were the power in charge. We've pushed them into the role of freedom fighters. How about dem apples?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Wouldn't take much to convince me the old Catholic church was as bad as the modern Taliban, in many ways.JohnG@lt wrote:
Was the Christian faith run by terrorists when it was burning pagans and heretics at the stake? Was Pope Urban a terrorist when he called for the Crusades? Do we need to go back and rewrite our history books now since that is the definition now?
Whatever, it's not even the main point. The Taliban today have no real power, but they were the power in charge. We've pushed them into the role of freedom fighters. How about dem apples?
Then again, I've got one friend's death I lay squarely at the feet of the Catholic Church - so i am not exactly a member of their fan club either.
And calling them 'freedom fighters' would be ironic at best, as their belief system has absolutely nothing to do with freedom.
Edit: though much of the Taliban's history is loaded with ironic events. Sponsored and formed from elements of our allies in the region. Saudi and Pakistani funding, Wahabbiist Sunni in origin, mostly populated by Pashtun tribals (who are usually the more easy to deal with of the Afghanis), military training from many of the same commanders we funded in the 1970's and 1980's, etc, etc...
Last edited by rdx-fx (2010-08-29 22:21:26)
They still fit the bill of classical freedom fighters. The French Resistance, Russian Partisans etc. I wonder if the Germans labeled those groups terrorists in WWII because I know we glorify them in our own history books... Just take a moment and flip your perspective. The world is an interesting place when you dordx-fx wrote:
Wouldn't take much to convince me the old Catholic church was as bad as the modern Taliban, in many ways.JohnG@lt wrote:
Was the Christian faith run by terrorists when it was burning pagans and heretics at the stake? Was Pope Urban a terrorist when he called for the Crusades? Do we need to go back and rewrite our history books now since that is the definition now?
Whatever, it's not even the main point. The Taliban today have no real power, but they were the power in charge. We've pushed them into the role of freedom fighters. How about dem apples?
Then again, I've got one friend's death I lay squarely at the feet of the Catholic Church - so i am not exactly a member of their fan club either.
And calling them 'freedom fighters' would be ironic at best, as their belief system has absolutely nothing to do with freedom.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
recording the reality of war is treason?Harmor wrote:
This, to me, is not free speech, this is treasonous. You don't, for example, have the right to yell fire in a crowded movie theater nor should should have the right to aid our enemies as they kill American citizens (or anyone in NATO), in the convoy.
Damn Harmor. I'd call you Orwellian but you might take that as a compliment.
there is a difference between yelling fire in a crowded theater and recording the actions of combantants as a non participating neutral observer. one is a part of the exhchange of information in the market place of ideas, the other is just used to create chaos.
Tu Stultus Es
A Partisan force perhaps. Not a Freedom Fighter.JohnG@lt wrote:
They still fit the bill of classical freedom fighters. The French Resistance, Russian Partisans etc. I wonder if the Germans labeled those groups terrorists in WWII because I know we glorify them in our own history books... Just take a moment and flip your perspective. The world is an interesting place when you do
And I do spend a fair bit of time trying to see things from differing perspectives.
Last book I finished was Vali Nasr - The Shia Revival
Last website i was looking at was Ayatollah Sistani's
In 3+ years in the Army Engineers, I was always part of the OpFor team in field exercises (that had an OpFor component), precisely because of my knowledge of OpFor order of battle and languages. (okay, so I was MI before I was an Engineer too. There's that.)
Though I think we have wandered a bit off the OP now...
I think that may be because the OP's assertions have well and truly been buried.rdx-fx wrote:
A Partisan force perhaps. Not a Freedom Fighter.JohnG@lt wrote:
They still fit the bill of classical freedom fighters. The French Resistance, Russian Partisans etc. I wonder if the Germans labeled those groups terrorists in WWII because I know we glorify them in our own history books... Just take a moment and flip your perspective. The world is an interesting place when you do
And I do spend a fair bit of time trying to see things from differing perspectives.
Last book I finished was Vali Nasr - The Shia Revival
Last website i was looking at was Ayatollah Sistani's
In 3+ years in the Army Engineers, I was always part of the OpFor team in field exercises (that had an OpFor component), precisely because of my knowledge of OpFor order of battle and languages. (okay, so I was MI before I was an Engineer too. There's that.)
Though I think we have wandered a bit off the OP now...
Last edited by Spark (2010-08-29 22:33:53)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
'They've got a beautifully rich culture and storied history. Shame we're going to have to waste 'em all 'cause they can't play well with others'
- Anon, from another nearby location in a different era.
The exaggerated hubris of an English speaking soldier is intentional and ironic.
Another thing we inherited from our English side.
- Anon, from another nearby location in a different era.
The exaggerated hubris of an English speaking soldier is intentional and ironic.
Another thing we inherited from our English side.
They certainly did terrorize their own populace and I'm not arguing they didn't (previous post was poor wording on my behalf), but they did not terrorize the west, so they were only the enemy once the coalition invaded... But anyway, whether or not they did terrorize the Afghan people is irrelevant to this argument. This is about a reporter documenting the Taliban's fight against the coalition, who in their minds is a legitimate enemy.rdx-fx wrote:
Google "Taliban Atrocity"Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
Firstly, did I miss the memo when the Taliban were terrorists?
The video of a brainwashed 12 year old Taliban child beheading an 'infidel' seems to be popular in some circles.
They 'ruled' by fear, hence the 'Terrorist' moniker.
Things like genocide, stoning women to death, honor killings, acid on faces, cutting off noses, burning people alive, hypocritically growing drugs for sale to fuel their religious theocracy.
They did not rule through popular mandate, they did not believe in freedom of speech, equality, equitable treatment.
No, they were of the mind 'believe as I believe, or live in fear of my wrath'
There was no respectful standoff between differing factions - there was their rule, or damnation.
They were a scourge on the people they dominated.
Most simply put, they were Terrorists of the truest sense.
Last edited by Little BaBy JESUS (2010-08-29 22:45:01)
You just edited out the most important part of what you wroteLittle BaBy JESUS wrote:
They certainly did terrorize their own populace and I'm not arguing they didn't (previous post was poor wording on my behalf), but they did not terrorize the west, so they were only the enemy once the coalition invaded... But anyway, whether or not they did terrorize the Afghan people is irrelevant to this argument. This is about a reporter documenting the Taliban's fight against the coalition, who in their minds is a legitimate enemy.rdx-fx wrote:
Google "Taliban Atrocity"Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
Firstly, did I miss the memo when the Taliban were terrorists?
The video of a brainwashed 12 year old Taliban child beheading an 'infidel' seems to be popular in some circles.
They 'ruled' by fear, hence the 'Terrorist' moniker.
Things like genocide, stoning women to death, honor killings, acid on faces, cutting off noses, burning people alive, hypocritically growing drugs for sale to fuel their religious theocracy.
They did not rule through popular mandate, they did not believe in freedom of speech, equality, equitable treatment.
No, they were of the mind 'believe as I believe, or live in fear of my wrath'
There was no respectful standoff between differing factions - there was their rule, or damnation.
They were a scourge on the people they dominated.
Most simply put, they were Terrorists of the truest sense.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
haha oops. I don't even remember what it wasJohnG@lt wrote:
You just edited out the most important part of what you wroteLittle BaBy JESUS wrote:
They certainly did terrorize their own populace and I'm not arguing they didn't (previous post was poor wording on my behalf), but they did not terrorize the west, so they were only the enemy once the coalition invaded... But anyway, whether or not they did terrorize the Afghan people is irrelevant to this argument. This is about a reporter documenting the Taliban's fight against the coalition, who in their minds is a legitimate enemy.rdx-fx wrote:
Google "Taliban Atrocity"
The video of a brainwashed 12 year old Taliban child beheading an 'infidel' seems to be popular in some circles.
They 'ruled' by fear, hence the 'Terrorist' moniker.
Things like genocide, stoning women to death, honor killings, acid on faces, cutting off noses, burning people alive, hypocritically growing drugs for sale to fuel their religious theocracy.
They did not rule through popular mandate, they did not believe in freedom of speech, equality, equitable treatment.
No, they were of the mind 'believe as I believe, or live in fear of my wrath'
There was no respectful standoff between differing factions - there was their rule, or damnation.
They were a scourge on the people they dominated.
Most simply put, they were Terrorists of the truest sense.
Something about the Taliban terrorizing their own populace not qualifying them as terrorists.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
haha oops. I don't even remember what it wasJohnG@lt wrote:
You just edited out the most important part of what you wroteLittle BaBy JESUS wrote:
They certainly did terrorize their own populace and I'm not arguing they didn't (previous post was poor wording on my behalf), but they did not terrorize the west, so they were only the enemy once the coalition invaded... But anyway, whether or not they did terrorize the Afghan people is irrelevant to this argument. This is about a reporter documenting the Taliban's fight against the coalition, who in their minds is a legitimate enemy.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
They were heavily intertwined with Al Quaeda starting around 1996. Taliban provided territory for Al Quaeda to headquarter and train, in return the Taliban got funding, protection, and training from Osama bin Laden. Cozy little arrangement, up until Osama thought it a good idea to stage 9/11.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
They certainly did terrorize their own populace and I'm not arguing they didn't (previous post was poor wording on my behalf), but they did not terrorize the west, so they were only the enemy once the coalition invaded... But anyway, whether or not they did terrorize the Afghan people is irrelevant to this argument. This is about a reporter documenting the Taliban's fight against the coalition, who in their minds is a legitimate enemy.
Shortly after that, the good Muslim tradition of protecting your houseguests caused the Taliban a world of grief.
We knew OBL was in Afghanistan, we asked the Taliban to hand him over, they would not. We went in after him.
Sounds rather similar to America's arrangement with the current Afghan "government".rdx-fx wrote:
They were heavily intertwined with Al Quaeda starting around 1996. Taliban provided territory for Al Quaeda to headquarter and train, in return the Taliban got funding, protection, and training from Osama bin Laden. Cozy little arrangement, up until Osama thought it a good idea to stage 9/11.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
They certainly did terrorize their own populace and I'm not arguing they didn't (previous post was poor wording on my behalf), but they did not terrorize the west, so they were only the enemy once the coalition invaded... But anyway, whether or not they did terrorize the Afghan people is irrelevant to this argument. This is about a reporter documenting the Taliban's fight against the coalition, who in their minds is a legitimate enemy.
someone should do harmor a favor and cut off his internet
Tu Stultus Es
Now now, free speech, remember?eleven bravo wrote:
someone should do harmor a favor and cut off his internet
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat