Russian school siege: 200+ hostages
- Thread starter Faithless
- Start date
FirstFreedom
Moderator
Fighting for Chechnyan independence just like us in 1776. Different tactics though.
They handled the whole Chechnyan thing poorly from the beginn ing . At that time there were just those that wanted independance. Now there are various wacko outsiders that have made things much worse. Terrorism [instilling terror by going after innocent third parties] is terrorism regardless of the stated reason.
FirstFreedom
Moderator
As I said, different tactics. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. I'd agree though that the line should be drawn at children. Adults citizens from the controlling regime are arguably not "innocent" if they support the gov't that oppresses the independence. But children, c'mon....
In other words mete, your definition of terrorism, (and the apparent implication that it necessarily follows that 'terrorism' is always bad/unfair/immoral), *might* be accurate *if* we could agree on the definition of a word within your definition, that being the word "innocent". But I don't think all would agree on the definition of innocent. After all, the people of Russia voted for Putin and the others in his gov't, which are responsible for the quelling of the indepdence movement. 'Terrorism' against civilians who may or may not be "innocent" is an ugly unfortunate necessity when the freedom fighters cannot defeat the overwhelming armed forces of the controlling regime in battle (assuming you agree with the end goals of the freedom fighters - you may or may not, but obviously they do). Were we wrong - we were terrorists - in WWII to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians by bombing german and japanese cities and sinking german and japanese merchant vessels with civilians on board? It's all a matter of perspective.
In other words mete, your definition of terrorism, (and the apparent implication that it necessarily follows that 'terrorism' is always bad/unfair/immoral), *might* be accurate *if* we could agree on the definition of a word within your definition, that being the word "innocent". But I don't think all would agree on the definition of innocent. After all, the people of Russia voted for Putin and the others in his gov't, which are responsible for the quelling of the indepdence movement. 'Terrorism' against civilians who may or may not be "innocent" is an ugly unfortunate necessity when the freedom fighters cannot defeat the overwhelming armed forces of the controlling regime in battle (assuming you agree with the end goals of the freedom fighters - you may or may not, but obviously they do). Were we wrong - we were terrorists - in WWII to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians by bombing german and japanese cities and sinking german and japanese merchant vessels with civilians on board? It's all a matter of perspective.
Ben Swenson
New member
Ah yes - the ol' wishy-washy moral relativism. Nobody's wrong when everybody's right.
*shudder*
Little scarier than someone who truly believes evil is just another way of looking at good.
*shudder*
Little scarier than someone who truly believes evil is just another way of looking at good.
fyrestarter
New member
No, no...it never happened. You see, it's all elaborate propoganda perpetrated by Russian officials hell-bent on sullying the good name of the Chechen people.....
One man's radical, lunatic terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, eh?
One man's radical, lunatic terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, eh?
Ben Swenson
New member
By the way, I in no way claim that American revolutionaries were saints, but they certainly don't deserve the comparison that FirstFreedom wants to make.
Fred Hansen
New member
I'm gonna have to :barf: on that one. I'm sure that if you really believe that, there is no problem I could ever help you with. Too far gone.
"If you could just see facts flat on without that horrible moral squint."
Orson Welles as Cardinal Wolsey in "A Man For All Seasons"
Anyone know how my country got this way?
Shooter 973
New member
Russian school siege.
Let put the real name on the "revolutionaries" MUSLIM extermests! Now does that make a differance as to how you look at them? This is just another PC labeling job by the Media. In Fact these "people" are Muslims. Just another peace loving group of the same type that hit us on 9-11.
Let put the real name on the "revolutionaries" MUSLIM extermests! Now does that make a differance as to how you look at them? This is just another PC labeling job by the Media. In Fact these "people" are Muslims. Just another peace loving group of the same type that hit us on 9-11.
fyrestarter
New member
But, but....Islam preaches peace! It can't be....must be a Russian conspiracy to make muslims look bad in the eyes of the world....
Fred Hansen
New member
Many Muslims do preach peace. The problem is with fundamentalist loons and the countries that unleash them on the world. Peaceful Muslims are even more likely than we are to be killed or injured by these maniacs.
The problem is that - for whatever reason - the peaceful Muslims of the world have not come to grips with their need to help the world get rid of the animals among them once and for all. I suppose that after a time they will get the necessary clue. I pray they do every day.
The problem is that - for whatever reason - the peaceful Muslims of the world have not come to grips with their need to help the world get rid of the animals among them once and for all. I suppose that after a time they will get the necessary clue. I pray they do every day.
Jamie Young
New member
I think these are the tactics that we need to worry about.
Shooter973,
Radical Muslims (Islamofascists), Sikh militants, jeezo-nazis, Commie revolutionaries, IRA, UDA, whatever... People who are ready to kill, enslave, or imprison innocents in the name of some nebulous metaphysical cause are my enemies. Yeah, the Islamofascists seem to be the flavor du jour, but that don't make the less fashionable ones smell any sweeter to me. Can't speak for anybody else, though...
Radical Muslims (Islamofascists), Sikh militants, jeezo-nazis, Commie revolutionaries, IRA, UDA, whatever... People who are ready to kill, enslave, or imprison innocents in the name of some nebulous metaphysical cause are my enemies. Yeah, the Islamofascists seem to be the flavor du jour, but that don't make the less fashionable ones smell any sweeter to me. Can't speak for anybody else, though...
Denny Hansen
Staff Emeritus
You can speak for me, Tamara.
I pray all those kids will be OK.
I hope the Russians kill every mother's son of the kidnappers.
Denny
I pray all those kids will be OK.
I hope the Russians kill every mother's son of the kidnappers.
Denny
FirstFreedom
Moderator
Fred Hansen
Fortunately I don't need help. Now if YOU don't believe that statement is true, then you don't know the first thing about history, and are way too far of a closed-minded person for me to help YOU with any kind of understanding, just like the blissninny anti-gunners are dead-set against guns, facts be damned. You don't think that the american revolutionists were freedom-fighters? That's exactly what you're saying when you reject that statement as truth - that the Founding Fathers were not Freedom Fighters- because they were certainly viewed as "terrorists" or in their terms "rebels" by the Brit gov't at the time. Lookit guys, I SAID that taking schoolchildren is going too far (did you actually read what I wrote?). That doesn't change the fact that you're a mental ostrich if you don't accept the unequivocal, indisputable FACT/axiom/truism that "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". That is a fact as stated - nothing more or less than exactly what it says and is. It doesn't place any normative judgment upon the fact itself or the specific examples of the fact, on either side. But to attack the statement itself is quite silly. I'm actually vehemently opposed to the spread of Muslimism, and radical Muslimism in particular, since my understanding is that it preaches that you must not rest until the gov't imposes the religion on everyone in the country and ultimately on the globe - and since theocracies have proved a dismal failure in terms of human rights both in the middle ages and in current islamic theocracies, I'm wholeheartedly against the spread of extremist zealot muslimisn if possible. But I was merely pointing out the fact that the terrorists/rebels are in fact fighting for independence very much like the american revolutionaries did, albeit with more radical tactics (and morally reprehensible ones in my and most people's view, when you cross the line to endangering/killing children). Lookit, nevermind, it's off-topic to guns really.
Fortunately I don't need help. Now if YOU don't believe that statement is true, then you don't know the first thing about history, and are way too far of a closed-minded person for me to help YOU with any kind of understanding, just like the blissninny anti-gunners are dead-set against guns, facts be damned. You don't think that the american revolutionists were freedom-fighters? That's exactly what you're saying when you reject that statement as truth - that the Founding Fathers were not Freedom Fighters- because they were certainly viewed as "terrorists" or in their terms "rebels" by the Brit gov't at the time. Lookit guys, I SAID that taking schoolchildren is going too far (did you actually read what I wrote?). That doesn't change the fact that you're a mental ostrich if you don't accept the unequivocal, indisputable FACT/axiom/truism that "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". That is a fact as stated - nothing more or less than exactly what it says and is. It doesn't place any normative judgment upon the fact itself or the specific examples of the fact, on either side. But to attack the statement itself is quite silly. I'm actually vehemently opposed to the spread of Muslimism, and radical Muslimism in particular, since my understanding is that it preaches that you must not rest until the gov't imposes the religion on everyone in the country and ultimately on the globe - and since theocracies have proved a dismal failure in terms of human rights both in the middle ages and in current islamic theocracies, I'm wholeheartedly against the spread of extremist zealot muslimisn if possible. But I was merely pointing out the fact that the terrorists/rebels are in fact fighting for independence very much like the american revolutionaries did, albeit with more radical tactics (and morally reprehensible ones in my and most people's view, when you cross the line to endangering/killing children). Lookit, nevermind, it's off-topic to guns really.
Ben Swenson
New member
I'm sorry, I'm stuck on this comparison.
If they are using more "radical" tactics, and fighting for very different principles how are they similar? In that they're fighting a war against a world power?
The statement "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" can be accurate depending on how it is used. If used to show that some people are so morally bankrupt as to see the intentional targeting specifically of noncombatants as valid tactics in war then it can be correct. When used to try to make good look like evil and evil look like good, it fails.
Combining it with "See! These guys are just like George Washington! except for slight differences in tactics" is where you're running into problems.
FF, this is your opening post, in its entirerty:
So even though you do some gyrations with the "children, c'mon" schtick later, you're opening post sure makes your priorities clear. You seem to see the two as more alike than different. Maybe that isn't what you intended, but it sure looks like your first instinct was to defend the actions of the Chechans, and you only backed down when called on it.
If I were you I'd be much more inclined to edit and retract, rather than argue the point. That opening boo-boo is a little much for any reasonable person to take. Some things are relative, this isn't one of them.
So even though you do some gyrations with the "children, c'mon" schtick later, you're opening post sure makes your priorities clear. You seem to see the two as more alike than different. Maybe that isn't what you intended, but it sure looks like your first instinct was to defend the actions of the Chechans, and you only backed down when called on it.
If I were you I'd be much more inclined to edit and retract, rather than argue the point. That opening boo-boo is a little much for any reasonable person to take. Some things are relative, this isn't one of them.