mj.scuba Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 its funny how those of the right wing pesuasion find this subject of no interest with the apparent fervour they bang on about muslims MUST do the same whenever theres a muslim atrocity.. ive just this minute come back from a ban for telling one of em exactly what i thought of him and i stand by it. Of no interest? Are you kidding or trolling? Everybody has been shocked and saddened by these events, regardless of political persuasion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 Of no interest? Are you kidding or trolling? Everybody has been shocked and saddened by these events, regardless of political persuasion. i meant the PUBLIC apologising due to an individual carrying out an atrocity in your faiths name seems to only be muslims its required for so.......has their been any condemnation from those bastions of good and christian the bnp and EDL? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 Your second sentence could just have accurately read: "Nelson Mandela organised acts of violence in order to try to defeat the racist Apartheid regime and to liberate the region's indigenous peoples, he was a freedom fighter, by definition." No, my second sentence was fine the way it was, and entirely accurate. Mandela organised bombing campaigns to try and terrorise the government into submission, the fact that he was doing it for a just cause and the government was a corrupt racist stain on the world does not change the fact that it was terrorism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 No, my second sentence was fine the way it was, and entirely accurate. Mandela organised bombing campaigns to try and terrorise the government into submission, the fact that he was doing it for a just cause and the government was a corrupt racist stain on the world does not change the fact that it was terrorism. one mans terrorism is another mans freedom fighter depends which side you are on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 one mans terrorism is another mans freedom fighter depends which side you are on No, it doesn't, that's a meaningless cliche. People who try and terrorise people into giving in to them are terrorists, it is that simple. Whether you want to call them a 'freedom fighter' or not is subjective, personally, I would describe Mandela as a freedom fighter, however that doesn't change the fact that he was also a terrorist. What's the matter, are you too afraid to admit that sometimes, terrorism can be (at least partially) justified? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 No, it doesn't, that's a meaningless cliche. People who try and terrorise people into giving in to them are terrorists, it is that simple. Whether you want to call them a 'freedom fighter' or not is subjective, personally, I would describe Mandela as a freedom fighter, however that doesn't change the fact that he was also a terrorist. but if you was on mandelas side would you class him as a terrorist? i doubt it same as do taliban supporters think of the taliban as terrorists? do we? all in all its just ******** words for whichever side your on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 but if you was on mandelas side would you class him as a terrorist? I do agree with what was Mandela's cause and think he was justified, and yes he was a terrorist. same as do taliban supporters think of the taliban as terrorists? do we? I don't know, ask them; and yes. all in all its just ******** words for whichever side your onThat's what it will become if silly people like you and shims wish to apply double standards to different sides, and that's exactly how the US and UK governments would like you to use the words, it makes their 'war on terror' seem slightly less retarded than it actually is. Terrorism has a very simple definition, Nelson Mandela's activities before he was locked up fit it perfectly. That fact seems to be too uncomfortable for you to swallow though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shims Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 silly people like you and shims ... Bless. ... wish to apply double standards to different sides, and that's exactly how the US and UK governments would like you to use the words, it makes their 'war on terror' seem slightly less retarded than it actually is. I would consider many actions of the state to be terrorism and I should imagine that is about as far from how government would like us citizens to view their actions as you could get but thanks for your advice that I might somehow be playing into their hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 I would consider many actions of the state to be terrorism Why is it that you're so reluctant to say the same about Mandela? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shims Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 Why is it that you're so reluctant to say the same about Mandela? Because, regardless of definition, it is a word with only negative connotations, used to demonise people and I feel it plays into the hands of racists by simply labelling Mandela as a terrorist (just as the Apartheid government did), without mention of the evil he was fighting against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.