What's your perception - Jihadist vs American 'Freedom Fighters' ?

reply to post by ChrisCrikey

I added the following to the OP

Edit For Clarification: In this case, Jihadist = Islamic Extremist (death to the big Satan.) American 'Freedom Fighters' = modern day revolutionaries (anti-Fed, politicians ignoring the constitution and eroding rights should be removed by any means)

reply to post by asmeone2



So then in the case on the 'Freedom Fighters', if the Fed, IRS, or members of Congress were victims of angry Americans you feel...?

Second line here.

reply to post by Wolf321


I thought that was what we were talking about. Figured it was better to make sure than try to answer without knowing for certain.

Honestly I would probably be just as bothered, but I'm odd like that. I would have the "serves them right" moment, but I would still be upset that they lost their life over it. It's completely against my nature to be the first to attack, so while I can understand the reasoning behind your statements in the OP I would still see an attack against a politician, building, etc. as an act of terrorism. Whether the attacker was American or not would not make a difference to me.

reply to post by Jenna


Thanks for the input. Now if I could only get more people to give their opinions.

reply to post by Wolf321


Yeah, people tend to run away when they see my name on a thread I think... Sorry 'bout that!

Well, you called for more opinions, but I'm sorry to say that I find your premise to be highly naive. You have fallen into a common trap, perpetuated by the MSM: that there are only two options of interpretation when pondering terrorist acts:"freedom fighter" or "terrorist."

As the globalists like to say (and they should know as they are often the actual sponsors of this terror) there is also a "third way:" state sponsored false-flag terrorism. That is, state security forces infiltrate existing cells of malcontents, and use them as "patsies" to carry out plots that they themselves have created and planned, to serve specific political purpose.

The July 7th bombings in London, the Red Brigade reign of terror in Italy, the OKC bombings of the Murrah Building, and the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center have all been exposed as this kind of operation.

You may think that this is tinfoil-hat paranoia, but far from it. Abundant proof exists in the public record to prove each claim.

You can--and should--Google my assertions. To wit:

*the London bombings: a security consultant twice announced on the BBC that he was war-gaming the actual events of 7/7 in London, in real time, when the war game "went real" and actual bombs went off.

*Initial, live, onsite reports from the Murrah Bldg in OKC reported overwhelmingly that bomb squads had discovered several small charges inside the non-collapsed part of the bldg. This is corroborated by testimony of the participants themselves. I personally remember that day and seeing several of those reports. None of this appeared afterward in the trial of McVey, who was the classic patsy. Fuel-fertilizer bombs simply cannot produce the intensity of blast effects--the "overpressure," or psi of force--necessary to destroy half of the concrete reinforced building in question. The gov't's case is simply a physical impossibility.

*The FBI supplied the actual bomb that exploded in the WTC in 1993. Yes this is true. It is proven by actual court transcripts of the trial of the "jihadists" carried out in Manhattan afterward. Find them and read them. It is also corroborated by one of the jihadists themselves, who taped a conversation with his FBI handler, because the mole/patsy himself was shocked that the FBI had given the terrorist cell a real bomb, and not the fake that he was led to believe they were going to supply them. Incredulous, and furious at the FBI, this informant taped his conversation, and released it to the public. It has never been debunked.

Summation: wake up. You're being lied to and manipulated to push an agenda of creeping fascism and the loss of civil liberties for the sake of "security."

But security from whom is the real question.


[edit on 21-2-2009 by gottago]

reply to post by gottago


You assert that my claim is naive. I sadly assert that your understanding is ignorant. In reality, especially in such matters as violent attacks, there can be infinite possibilities. I have considered the idea you discuss, but it wasn't what I was asking. My post gave two scenarios. One was an Islmic jihadist attack and the other whom I called Freedom fighters and I gave my definition of both. All I wanted, was to get individuals to say how they might feel about those targets being attacked.

Clearly, either I made the post too complex, used the wrong title for the post subject, people are afraid to respond, or no one cares.

Gotta give this a bump. I'm really interested in getting some opinions on this. I just hope people read what it is I am asking and not get caught up on the terminology in the title.