It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

freedom fighter or insurgent ?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 08:17 AM
link   
I would like to ask for the opinions of our members on here 2 questions.

1/ when we hear reports of insurgents and or rebels in Iraq or Afghanistan
are they refering to resistance groups and freedom fighters ?

2/ During WW2 did the german news papers reporting on the war refer to the French resistance as rebels or insurgents ?.




posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 08:43 AM
link   
If someone came "here" and invaded us and imposed their will against us and we resisted:

Here we would be freedom fighters.
There, on their news we would be insurgents.

The dead would be:
Here=dead
There=dead

The profits unaffected.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 09:02 AM
link   
This thread reminds me of this song, which sums up how I feel about the situation pretty much.
Agnostic Front "peace" Lyrics

A choice must be made!

In these times of war today
A choice must be made that no one wants to make
The result is inevitable
No one wins but a side must be taken

It's them or us, we don't want it this way
Death is certain and lives are at stake
Whose children must die? Whose buildings must fall?
No one can see eye to eye, all we see is hate

Our freedom fighters are their terrorists
Their heroes are our nemesis


Peace! Is! Not!
Peace is not an option!



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by tom.farnhill
I would like to ask for the opinions of our members on here 2 questions.

1/ when we hear reports of insurgents and or rebels in Iraq or Afghanistan
are they refering to resistance groups and freedom fighters ?

2/ During WW2 did the german news papers reporting on the war refer to the French resistance as rebels or insurgents ?.



Oh, good grief, you conspiracy people really have gone off the deep end with this antiestablishment hangup of yours. Do you even KNOW what the Taliban represents?

-Women can only be educated until the age of eight
-Women aren't allowed to hold jobs
-Women must be covered from head to toe to "prevent their beauty from putting unclean thoughts into men's heads". Whoever refuses faces flogging.
-If a woman is raped, she is required to provide one male non-relative as a witness. If she doesn't, she faces execution for adultery
-All other religions (or any non-conformance to Sunni Islam) are outawed and will not be tolerated. in 1998 five to six thousand people of the opposing shi'ite muslim sect were massacred, and in 2001 two 1500 year old Buhdda statues were destroyed by tank fire
-All television, all movies, all liquor, all music, and even western games like chess and kite flying are banned. Even stuffed animals were banned becuase it was forbidden to possess anything inanimate that depicted a living thing
-Men not having a beard is punishable by ten day's imprisonment
-Only two nations in the world ever recognized the Taliban gov't. Even Iran is glad to see the Taliban gone and fully support Karzai, and they don't like us either.
-Your even posting this on the internet on a computer would have sent you to prison under Taliban law.

I know you're in love with these 9/11 conspiracy stories, but to side in with these brutal, intolerant zealots who force everyone back into the stone age at the point of a gun and consider them "freedom fighters" is being uninformed and ignorant, and you're not makign them look good; you're only making yourself look bad. Please tell me I'm misunderstanding your point and this is NOT what you meant to say.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


So we didn't attack Afghanistan because of 9/11? We just went over there to do those poor misguided folks a favor?

I thought it was to exterminate Bin Laden and Al Qaida.

Remember the story with the 19 hijackers? Just because most of them were Saudi Arabian, doesn't mean we attacked the wrong country.

What about Iraq? I know that they had nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorists, but Bush said they were making some nukes to kill us all, I guess really we just needed to help them out with their womens liberation movement as well.





I know you're in love with these 9/11 conspiracy stories, but to side in with these brutal, intolerant zealots who force everyone back into the stone age at the point of a gun and consider them "freedom fighters" is being uninformed and ignorant, and you're not makign them look good; you're only making yourself look bad. Please tell me I'm misunderstanding your point and this is NOT what you meant to say.


So, when some other country has a brutal, intolerant regime, the US taxpayer is on the hook to go over there and fix it at all costs? What about the U.S. soldiers that are getting killed over there?

Do you know how many people have gotten killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, you know the ones that were alive under the brutal, intolerant regimes that were in place before we got there?

How many Iraqi women do you think we should kill before we determine that they are free enough that we can leave?

How many American soldiers do you think we should sacrifice in Afghanistan before it isn't worth it?

History has shown that Afghanistan is what it is, and no one has been able to change it. Ask the Soviets.

I am afraid that you may need to get rid of your TV in order to see what is really happening.

[edit on 27-4-2010 by downtown436]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Question 1
the confusion might lie with the fact that an awful lot of people are happier to use the meaning an news caster implies than the actual meaning of a word.

there is no such thing as a freedom fighter. you can only secure freedom through non-violence, violence always robs someone of their freedom.

a resistance usually resists something in particular, an enemy state or whatever, the fighters in the ME seem to be fighting to control or to set up a particular type of state, so resistance doesn't really fit.

an insurgent is someone who is involved in an insurrection, rebelling against civil authority, the name doesn't really convey weather a person is justified or not, it's just a broad term, so insurgent fits.

Question 2
i think, at worst, they called them "rebel scum". hitler was really annoyed by the whole death star thing but, surprisingly enough, he never really resorted to name calling in the press.

[edit on 27/4/10 by pieman]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by downtown436
So we didn't attack Afghanistan because of 9/11? We just went over there to do those poor misguided folks a favor?

I thought it was to exterminate Bin Laden and Al Qaida.


I must tell you that strawman arguments do not work on me. The topic of the OP was whether the Taliban insurgents were freedom fighters, and it's ridiculously absurd to the point of being surreal to refer to their motives as "fighting for freedom". A better analogy would be that they're more like the Khmer Rouge- a bunch of fanatics willing to flush their country down the toilet in the long term in order to achieve short term goals.

BUT, if you insist, we didn't even invade to overthrow the Taliban or even to "exterminate Bin Laden". We invaded becuase there was a clear trail of evidence showing that Bin Laden and his bunch was behind it and the US demanded the Taliban gov't hand over Bin Laden for trial, and they refused. The US had just suffered the worst terrorist attack in all of human history so we had no intention of playing nice, particularly to a bunch of religious idiots that it didn't recognize as a legitimate gov't.

This all only happened eight years or so ago so you can't NOT know this.


What about Iraq? I know that they had nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorists, but Bush said they were making some nukes to kill us all, I guess really we just needed to help them out with their womens liberation movement as well.


The legitimacy or illigitimacy of the war in Iraq has nothign to do with the legitimacy of the war in Afghanistan.


I am afraid that you may need to get rid of your TV in order to see what is really happening.


...which is literally what the Taliban believes, in their goal to force their religion down other people's throats. Talk about irony.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


yes you have totally misunderstood the post .

the point i was trying to put forward was that we are invading counties
and when they resist the invasion we call them rebels or insurgents .
and you are deluding yourself if you think for one minute that we are over there for anything less than controlling the resources .



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Why would you want to control the resources of Afghanistan? It's a dump. And don't bother with that pipeline nonsense, it's total bunk.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by tom.farnhill

yes you have totally misunderstood the post .

the point i was trying to put forward was that we are invading counties
and when they resist the invasion we call them rebels or insurgents .
and you are deluding yourself if you think for one minute that we are over there for anything less than controlling the resources .


You are the one overlooking the fact that the current gov't (first the parliament, then the presidency) has been elected by the people of Afghanistan. There are accusations of voter fraud, but it's still a far sight more legitimate than the Taliban's siezing power at gunpoint. Not that it matter since the entire international community (even Iran) recognizes the new Afghanistan gov't, This means the Taliban *are* rebels and insurgents becuase they're trying to overthrow a legitimate and recognized gov't. Besides, you didn't call them insurgents. You called them FREEDOM FIGHTERS, a term that even the Afghani people themselves (particularly the women) would hold in disgust.

Not that it matters, since this whole "we've invaded Afghanistan for the resources" bit is conspiracy monger rubbish. The west ignored Afghanistan ever since the Soviets left proving that Afghanistan doesn't have anything the west wants, and if the war was over resources we'd have invaded Iran or Venezuela, not some toilet of a country that makes North Korea look like Buck Rogers in the 25th century by comparison.

If you want to subscribe to these conspiracy stories, fine, but that doesn't give you license to be making things up.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by HappilyEverAfter
If someone came "here" and invaded us and imposed their will against us and we resisted:

Here we would be freedom fighters.
There, on their news we would be insurgents.

The dead would be:
Here=dead
There=dead

The profits unaffected.


100% accurate and well stated



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman

there is no such thing as a freedom fighter. you can only secure freedom through non-violence, violence always robs someone of their freedom.



Pieman , no offense but, if youre holding a loved one or friend against their will and harming them and youre armed,
youve pretty much taken away their freedom.

When I create an opportunity to slam a round into your skull, I have freed them.

I could sit outside and write you letters, I could cross my legs and pray, but you've pretty much shown me already youre a few steps off the sidewalk and I'm not dealing with a rational mind.
So sometimes, I'm thinking sometimes, people just need a good old fashioned killing.

(and you realize the reference to "you" doesnt mean you per se)



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


There's no mention of Taliban, you read that into it with your own mind.
It wasnt edited out either.
Strawman argument its not.
Doesnt matter if we are the aggressor or are being invaded the postition is accurate.
It's the MARKETED perspective.
Media creates villians and heros every day, it called propoganda and spin and lies and leading and trickery.
Youre not a novice or yearling, it is what it is and you know that.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Why would you want to control the resources of Afghanistan? It's a dump. And don't bother with that pipeline nonsense, it's total bunk.


Poppy Fields and Karzai's brother.
Yet a bigger resource to control is the population and religious fervor itself.
They NEED combatants (tptb) they need division on top of their profits from drug sales to further the religious war, and that's what this is about, fostering division, and it's working very very well.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 02:20 PM
link   
All things are relative: while a few in the US opine the taliban represent "evil do'ers" or whatever dumb TV talking point, that isn't how they see themselves... they're just people who happen to adhere to ancient religious beliefs.. their culture and land pre-dates the united states by 1000s of years and they're not interested in our opinions, nor do they give a F what we think about of how they live.

Iraqis and afghanis are just people fighting to 'free' themselves from deadly military occupations that enabled the US to install puppet govts.. many would rather die than have a violent foreign empire dictate "new rules" at gun-point to drastically change their 1000s year old way of life .. and I don't blame them.

They are freedom fighters... not fighting for "american freedom", rather "freedom" FROM america... they don't want to be saved by america either, more like saved FROM america.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 




Oh, good grief, you conspiracy people really have gone off the deep end with this antiestablishment hangup of yours. Do you even KNOW what the Taliban represents?



Were do you get your data at? You contunually quote MSM sources. Have you been too been to the country, have you done anthropological studies of the culture?

Do you even know without MSM sources? Most likely not!

The picture painted of this culture is to support the INVASION, that is it!

I don't hear quotes about the US military supplying 3 billion in weapons during the Russia-afghanistan conflict. Plus given them a communication satellite too.

Now were are the accuate reports of the situatiosn at hand?





[edit on 27-4-2010 by theability]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by tom.farnhill
I would like to ask for the opinions of our members on here 2 questions.

1/ when we hear reports of insurgents and or rebels in Iraq or Afghanistan
are they refering to resistance groups and freedom fighters ?

2/ During WW2 did the german news papers reporting on the war refer to the French resistance as rebels or insurgents ?.



Oh, good grief, you conspiracy people really have gone off the deep end with this antiestablishment hangup of yours. Do you even KNOW what the Taliban represents?

-((snip))





If they are so evil why did cheney engineer hundreds of millions of dollars in payments to the taliban through enron? What were these evil taliban haters doing having dinner at the palatial home of Martin Miller, a vice-president of Unocal while visiting cheney in texas?.. years before the lies that led to occupation?

Occasionally we have to operate in places where, all things considered, one would not normally choose to go. But we go where the business is."- dick cheney 1998

Congressional record, 3 years 8 months before invasion:
john j meresca vice pres international relations at unocal stated:

CentGas can not begin construction until an internationally recognized Afghanistan Government is in place.

What a coincidence?, cheney tried to buy a pipeline but failed, then bush admin lies, occupies and installs Hamid Karzai, former unocal consultant, as puppet president.. like magic!! unocal & cheney got everything they had worked on for years... but there's no conspiracy..loool.

Follow the paper trail and it becomes obvious the occupation & war in afganistan started long before the excuse of 9/11..

www.the-rabbits-hole.com...
www.counterpunch.org...
www.the-rabbits-hole.com...



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by HappilyEverAfter

Poppy Fields and Karzai's brother.
Yet a bigger resource to control is the population and religious fervor itself.
They NEED combatants (tptb) they need division on top of their profits from drug sales to further the religious war, and that's what this is about, fostering division, and it's working very very well.


The drugs aren't that profitable any more. Cultivation is falling year on year, not because of the US or NATO's efforts, but due to the wholesale price collapsing. Poppies are very intensive to cultivate and harvest and significant numbers of Afghan farmers are turning back to traditional cereal crops.

As for the need for division, I just don't really agree with you. Afghanistan was run by nutters who were sponsoring all kinds of horrible stuff. An invasion was going to happen sooner or later, whether 911 had happened or not. And every government with troops there would gladly give away their metaphorical left bollock to be out of the place.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join