Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Let's not forget that Nelson Mandela admitted to 156 acts of public violence including mobilising terrorist bombing campaigns, which planted bombs in public places, including the Johannesburg railway station. Many innocent people, including women and children, were killed by Nelson Mandela’s MK terrorists*. " * freedom fighters | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What's the difference between a terrorists, and a freedom fighter? I've often thought that in modern times George Washington would be considered a terrorist, for fighting against the British. Does it really come down to who's backing who?" A terrorist is what invaded your arse yesterday | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Let's not forget that Nelson Mandela admitted to 156 acts of public violence including mobilising terrorist bombing campaigns, which planted bombs in public places, including the Johannesburg railway station. Many innocent people, including women and children, were killed by Nelson Mandela’s MK terrorists*. * freedom fighters" Have you got nothing better to do than have a vast and interesting knowledge of politics and history? Say something dumb for once will you, go on, see I bet you can't even think if something slightly stupid to say can you, how about vaguely silly? Yeah, thought not  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What's the difference between a terrorists, and a freedom fighter? I've often thought that in modern times George Washington would be considered a terrorist, for fighting against the British. Does it really come down to who's backing who? A terrorist is what invaded your arse yesterday" Yeah, it was a suicide bummer | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Let's not forget that Nelson Mandela admitted to 156 acts of public violence including mobilising terrorist bombing campaigns, which planted bombs in public places, including the Johannesburg railway station. Many innocent people, including women and children, were killed by Nelson Mandela’s MK terrorists*. * freedom fighters Have you got nothing better to do than have a vast and interesting knowledge of politics and history? Say something dumb for once will you, go on, see I bet you can't even think if something slightly stupid to say can you, how about vaguely silly? Yeah, thought not "You have to be kidding. Go read his posts on James Bond. Half that was copied and pasted from Wikipedia! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What's the difference between a terrorists, and a freedom fighter? I've often thought that in modern times George Washington would be considered a terrorist, for fighting against the British. Does it really come down to who's backing who? A terrorist is what invaded your arse yesterday Yeah, it was a suicide bummer "(  ) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Let's not forget that Nelson Mandela admitted to 156 acts of public violence including mobilising terrorist bombing campaigns, which planted bombs in public places, including the Johannesburg railway station. Many innocent people, including women and children, were killed by Nelson Mandela’s MK terrorists*. * freedom fighters Have you got nothing better to do than have a vast and interesting knowledge of politics and history? Say something dumb for once will you, go on, see I bet you can't even think if something slightly stupid to say can you, how about vaguely silly? Yeah, thought not
You have to be kidding. Go read his posts on James Bond. Half that was copied and pasted from Wikipedia! "Tits | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Let's not forget that Nelson Mandela admitted to 156 acts of public violence including mobilising terrorist bombing campaigns, which planted bombs in public places, including the Johannesburg railway station. Many innocent people, including women and children, were killed by Nelson Mandela’s MK terrorists*. * freedom fighters Have you got nothing better to do than have a vast and interesting knowledge of politics and history? Say something dumb for once will you, go on, see I bet you can't even think if something slightly stupid to say can you, how about vaguely silly? Yeah, thought not
You have to be kidding. Go read his posts on James Bond. Half that was copied and pasted from Wikipedia!
Tits"Same to you with knobs on  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I always think of a freedom fighter - being on the side of a country that's invaded. Trying to get its freedom back. In WW2 the French Resistance - I'd have seen as freedom fighters. Terrorists - many are brainwashed so I'm not sure they actually really know what they're fighting for. Sarah " So would you say by that description, the IRA were terrorists it freedom fighters, being as how they believed that the British were an invading army? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Let's not forget that Nelson Mandela admitted to 156 acts of public violence including mobilising terrorist bombing campaigns, which planted bombs in public places, including the Johannesburg railway station. Many innocent people, including women and children, were killed by Nelson Mandela’s MK terrorists*. * freedom fighters Have you got nothing better to do than have a vast and interesting knowledge of politics and history? Say something dumb for once will you, go on, see I bet you can't even think if something slightly stupid to say can you, how about vaguely silly? Yeah, thought not
You have to be kidding. Go read his posts on James Bond. Half that was copied and pasted from Wikipedia!
Tits
Same to you with knobs on "Toys with knobs on, can you two get a room | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Let's not forget that Nelson Mandela admitted to 156 acts of public violence including mobilising terrorist bombing campaigns, which planted bombs in public places, including the Johannesburg railway station. Many innocent people, including women and children, were killed by Nelson Mandela’s MK terrorists*. * freedom fighters Have you got nothing better to do than have a vast and interesting knowledge of politics and history? Say something dumb for once will you, go on, see I bet you can't even think if something slightly stupid to say can you, how about vaguely silly? Yeah, thought not
You have to be kidding. Go read his posts on James Bond. Half that was copied and pasted from Wikipedia!
Tits
Same to you with knobs on
Toys with knobs on, can you two get a room "That should say tits not toys pfft  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh nooo...! They're loaded phrases. And therefore highly subjective. One is obviously loaded positively towards freedom from persecution etc, the other has negativity draped all over it. As others have said, the phrases are used from different sides of a conflict in order to both justify their position in relation to the other. Both usually involve violence. Both are used to describe either themselves or others in order to justify their own actions, or alter people's perceptions so that they're similar to your own(or what you want people to believe)." So are you saying there is no difference? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I always think of a freedom fighter - being on the side of a country that's invaded. Trying to get its freedom back. In WW2 the French Resistance - I'd have seen as freedom fighters. Terrorists - many are brainwashed so I'm not sure they actually really know what they're fighting for. Sarah So would you say by that description, the IRA were terrorists it freedom fighters, being as how they believed that the British were an invading army?" Oh that's a difficult one. Listened recently to a Radio 4 article on the Easter Uprisings - we were brutal in how we dealt with the leaders afterwards. I can see why it backfired on us. Sarah | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'll need to watch The Life Of Brian and The Holy Grail again to make a proper determination" If that's where you get your knowledge from, you won't go far wrong  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'll need to watch The Life Of Brian and The Holy Grail again to make a proper determination If that's where you get your knowledge from, you won't go far wrong "Yes, Monty Python & The Holy Grail is one of the best films about the Middle Ages  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh nooo...! They're loaded phrases. And therefore highly subjective. One is obviously loaded positively towards freedom from persecution etc, the other has negativity draped all over it. As others have said, the phrases are used from different sides of a conflict in order to both justify their position in relation to the other. Both usually involve violence. Both are used to describe either themselves or others in order to justify their own actions, or alter people's perceptions so that they're similar to your own(or what you want people to believe). So are you saying there is no difference?" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So freedom fighter or terrorist? They're pretty much the same thing from opposing sides." No, I disagree (see above). If you use guerilla tactics to attack military and infrastructure, then I'd be content to call that freedom fighting, even if I didn't the cause was justified. If you deliberately target innocent civilians, that's terrorism. The IRA and ANC originally used freedom fighting guerilla tactics. Then they deliberately and indiscriminately targeted civilians without prior warnings. This is when they became terrorists in my view. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unless you can say NO incidents of "freedom fighting" have EVER resulted in the deaths of innocent people then it's the same. One sides freedom fighter can be portrayed as another's terrorist." No, it's my definition so it works the way I want it to. Collateral damage is often inevitable and always regrettable. It's the intent that is the difference. Blowing up a rail head to affect logistics is different from blowing up a shopping centre to cause maximum civilian casualties. My definition is the deliberate and indiscriminate targeting of civilians. Yes, there will still be some grey areas, but it works for me in the overwhelming majority of cases. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I always think of a freedom fighter - being on the side of a country that's invaded. Trying to get its freedom back. In WW2 the French Resistance - I'd have seen as freedom fighters. Terrorists - many are brainwashed so I'm not sure they actually really know what they're fighting for. Sarah " One side of the fence will say terrorist, the other side obviously freedom fighter. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unless you can say NO incidents of "freedom fighting" have EVER resulted in the deaths of innocent people then it's the same. One sides freedom fighter can be portrayed as another's terrorist. No, it's my definition so it works the way I want it to. Collateral damage is often inevitable and always regrettable. It's the intent that is the difference. My definition is the deliberate and indiscriminate targeting of civilians." Sorry to have reduced the quote, but this is my point exactly, one persons fight for freedom can be viewed totally as another's act of terrorism depending which side you are on. Not everything that constitutes and act of terrorism (under the Terrorism Act) results in the deaths of innocent people, and likewise, innocent people die as a result of actions by freedom fighters. The use of the terms freedom fighter or terrorist are generally biased based on reporting of incidents by opposing sides. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" My definition is the deliberate and indiscriminate targeting of civilians. Sorry to have reduced the quote, but this is my point exactly, one persons fight for freedom can be viewed totally as another's act of terrorism depending which side you are on. Not everything that constitutes and act of terrorism (under the Terrorism Act) results in the deaths of innocent people, and likewise, innocent people die as a result of actions by freedom fighters. The use of the terms freedom fighter or terrorist are generally biased based on reporting of incidents by opposing sides." I don't disagree - however my definition works for me, in that if the action is targeted at infrastructure or military, then I'd be content (not necessarily happy) to call it a guerilla tactic, regardless of how tenuous I think the cause is. But if the act was deliberately aimed at causing maximum civilian casualties, no matter how just I felt the cause to be, then I'd call it terrorism. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The IRA and ANC originally used freedom fighting guerilla tactics. Then they deliberately and indiscriminately targeted civilians without prior warnings. This is when they became terrorists in my view." Does that suggest that maybe 'freedom fighting' as you've defined it in your posts doesn't achieve much? The Apartheid governments of SA used terrorism against blacks, it could be argued the ANC were fighting terrorism with terrorism. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The IRA and ANC originally used freedom fighting guerilla tactics. Then they deliberately and indiscriminately targeted civilians without prior warnings. This is when they became terrorists in my view. Does that suggest that maybe 'freedom fighting' as you've defined it in your posts doesn't achieve much? The Apartheid governments of SA used terrorism against blacks, it could be argued the ANC were fighting terrorism with terrorism. " Again, I wouldn't disagree, but in my book, it doesn't justify it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The IRA and ANC originally used freedom fighting guerilla tactics. Then they deliberately and indiscriminately targeted civilians without prior warnings. This is when they became terrorists in my view. Does that suggest that maybe 'freedom fighting' as you've defined it in your posts doesn't achieve much? The Apartheid governments of SA used terrorism against blacks, it could be argued the ANC were fighting terrorism with terrorism. Again, I wouldn't disagree, but in my book, it doesn't justify it" What would you have done if you were a black SA? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The IRA and ANC originally used freedom fighting guerilla tactics. Then they deliberately and indiscriminately targeted civilians without prior warnings. This is when they became terrorists in my view. Does that suggest that maybe 'freedom fighting' as you've defined it in your posts doesn't achieve much? The Apartheid governments of SA used terrorism against blacks, it could be argued the ANC were fighting terrorism with terrorism. Again, I wouldn't disagree, but in my book, it doesn't justify it What would you have done if you were a black SA? " Honestly, I don't know, I'm not black, nor endured the horrors of the odious apartheid regime. However, I'd like to think that my moral compass would have prevented me from being involved in blowing up shopping centres. The ANC murdered more blacks than it did whites. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unless you can say NO incidents of "freedom fighting" have EVER resulted in the deaths of innocent people then it's the same. One sides freedom fighter can be portrayed as another's terrorist. No, it's my definition so it works the way I want it to. Collateral damage is often inevitable and always regrettable. It's the intent that is the difference. Blowing up a rail head to affect logistics is different from blowing up a shopping centre to cause maximum civilian casualties. My definition is the deliberate and indiscriminate targeting of civilians. Yes, there will still be some grey areas, but it works for me in the overwhelming majority of cases." Churchill was a terrorist then | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unless you can say NO incidents of "freedom fighting" have EVER resulted in the deaths of innocent people then it's the same. One sides freedom fighter can be portrayed as another's terrorist. No, it's my definition so it works the way I want it to. Collateral damage is often inevitable and always regrettable. It's the intent that is the difference. Blowing up a rail head to affect logistics is different from blowing up a shopping centre to cause maximum civilian casualties. My definition is the deliberate and indiscriminate targeting of civilians. Yes, there will still be some grey areas, but it works for me in the overwhelming majority of cases." Churchill was a terrorist then | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What's the difference between a terrorists, and a freedom fighter? I've often thought that in modern times George Washington would be considered a terrorist, for fighting against the British. Does it really come down to who's backing who? A terrorist is what invaded your arse yesterday" Lol  That made me giggle!  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unless you can say NO incidents of "freedom fighting" have EVER resulted in the deaths of innocent people then it's the same. One sides freedom fighter can be portrayed as another's terrorist. No, it's my definition so it works the way I want it to. Collateral damage is often inevitable and always regrettable. It's the intent that is the difference. Blowing up a rail head to affect logistics is different from blowing up a shopping centre to cause maximum civilian casualties. My definition is the deliberate and indiscriminate targeting of civilians. Yes, there will still be some grey areas, but it works for me in the overwhelming majority of cases. Churchill was a terrorist then" If you're referring to the strategic bombing campaign, then whilst it does not sit easily with me, the context was different. Firstly, Germany, who invented the concept of total war in WW1 and were the first nation to aerially bomb civilians, not military installations (it was Grimsby I think, from their Zeppelins), were warned that bombing of their cities would take place in order to paralyse their ability to manufacture and wage war. Prior to the strategic campaign, cities were leafleted, over 12 million leaflets were dropped in one night alone. Had I been a German, and assuming I wasn't a Nazi sympathiser, I would have left any city I was in. I'd like to think I would have defected to the allies in order to assist with their eradication of the Nazis. But times were different and much that was done in the past, would not be done now in more enlightened times, except of course, by terrorists. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unless you can say NO incidents of "freedom fighting" have EVER resulted in the deaths of innocent people then it's the same. One sides freedom fighter can be portrayed as another's terrorist. No, it's my definition so it works the way I want it to. Collateral damage is often inevitable and always regrettable. It's the intent that is the difference. Blowing up a rail head to affect logistics is different from blowing up a shopping centre to cause maximum civilian casualties. My definition is the deliberate and indiscriminate targeting of civilians. Yes, there will still be some grey areas, but it works for me in the overwhelming majority of cases. Churchill was a terrorist then If you're referring to the strategic bombing campaign, then whilst it does not sit easily with me, the context was different. Firstly, Germany, who invented the concept of total war in WW1 and were the first nation to aerially bomb civilians, not military installations (it was Grimsby I think, from their Zeppelins), were warned that bombing of their cities would take place in order to paralyse their ability to manufacture and wage war. Prior to the strategic campaign, cities were leafleted, over 12 million leaflets were dropped in one night alone. Had I been a German, and assuming I wasn't a Nazi sympathiser, I would have left any city I was in. I'd like to think I would have defected to the allies in order to assist with their eradication of the Nazis. But times were different and much that was done in the past, would not be done now in more enlightened times, except of course, by terrorists." So it's not terrorism if you leaflet? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Churchill was a terrorist then" Nope. See DeMontres post. If you don't know the difference you don't know the history. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What's the difference between a terrorists, and a freedom fighter? I've often thought that in modern times George Washington would be considered a terrorist, for fighting against the British. Does it really come down to who's backing who? A terrorist is what invaded your arse yesterday Lol That made me giggle! "On a more serious note I think it all boils down to 'Us & Them' no matter who's side your on, there will always be people that want something different from everyone else. Some of these people are good, some bad and some downright despicable. Where you want to be in that list depends on your beliefs and who you wish to trust... Myself, I trust nobody and the only person I believe in is me. I'm in it for myself cos I'm a selfish bastard... but I don't push that upon others.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Terrorist = Trying to take over something. Freedom fighter = A revolutionary struggle to achieve a political goal against their government." So the British Monarchy are terrorists ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A simplistic view from me... Freedom fighter - they keep the fight within the borders of their own country in an effort to better the lives of its citizens (in the eyes of those fighting at least) Terrorist - the fight spreads to other countries, targeting people who in the main have no involvement to try to terrorise the population into rejecting it's own governments policies." So what would you say, of the two examples you gave there, would most fit the Iraq war? US and UK forces, going into a foreign land to remove its government, a legitimate act of war?, or rich countries being terrorists? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Terrorist = Trying to take over something. Freedom fighter = A revolutionary struggle to achieve a political goal against their government. So the British Monarchy are terrorists ?" Spose you could be right when you look at it like that... We all are! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So freedom fighter or terrorist? They're pretty much the same thing from opposing sides. No, I disagree (see above). If you use guerilla tactics to attack military and infrastructure, then I'd be content to call that freedom fighting, even if I didn't the cause was justified. If you deliberately target innocent civilians, that's terrorism. The IRA and ANC originally used freedom fighting guerilla tactics. Then they deliberately and indiscriminately targeted civilians without prior warnings. This is when they became terrorists in my view." I almost agree with you. Disregarding the ANC for now, as I am not so familiar. The IRA however (and other NI groups) I don't believe deliberately targeted civilians. It seems to me they were seen as collateral damage, to use an American term. Their main aim was to cause financial destruction. Take the phone-call warnings as evidence of an attempt to minimise civilian death and injury. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So freedom fighter or terrorist? They're pretty much the same thing from opposing sides. No, I disagree (see above). If you use guerilla tactics to attack military and infrastructure, then I'd be content to call that freedom fighting, even if I didn't the cause was justified. If you deliberately target innocent civilians, that's terrorism. The IRA and ANC originally used freedom fighting guerilla tactics. Then they deliberately and indiscriminately targeted civilians without prior warnings. This is when they became terrorists in my view. I almost agree with you. Disregarding the ANC for now, as I am not so familiar. The IRA however (and other NI groups) I don't believe deliberately targeted civilians. It seems to me they were seen as collateral damage, to use an American term. Their main aim was to cause financial destruction. Take the phone-call warnings as evidence of an attempt to minimise civilian death and injury." Yes, but they stopped the practice of telephone warnings, that is when in my view, they ceased being freedom fighters and became terrorists. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Terrorist = Trying to take over something. Freedom fighter = A revolutionary struggle to achieve a political goal against their government." And the difference is? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" If you deliberately target innocent civilians, that's terrorism. I almost agree with you. Disregarding the ANC for now, as I am not so familiar. The IRA however (and other NI groups) I don't believe deliberately targeted civilians. " So the Omagh bombing didn't deliberately target civilians? The Birmingham pub bombings? Should I go on? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fair enough. Won't disagree with you completely. Still think they didn't deliberately target civilians, they just didn't give a fuck. Which is not really any better. But at that rate then many armies of the world are terrorists." I beg to differ, and so would all the victims of the Birmingham pub bombings, shopping centres and other atrocities. These were purely targeting civilians and were carried out with no prior warning. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So the Omagh bombing didn't deliberately target civilians? Should I go on?" Warnings were given but they were unclear so the police evacuated the wrong end of the high street and guided people to the end the bomb was at. I remember that day so well, my mum was beside herself and NI was in a total state of shock, I can still remember the news from that day and it makes me cry. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unless you can say NO incidents of "freedom fighting" have EVER resulted in the deaths of innocent people then it's the same. One sides freedom fighter can be portrayed as another's terrorist. No, it's my definition so it works the way I want it to. Collateral damage is often inevitable and always regrettable. It's the intent that is the difference. Blowing up a rail head to affect logistics is different from blowing up a shopping centre to cause maximum civilian casualties. My definition is the deliberate and indiscriminate targeting of civilians. Yes, there will still be some grey areas, but it works for me in the overwhelming majority of cases. Churchill was a terrorist then If you're referring to the strategic bombing campaign, then whilst it does not sit easily with me, the context was different. Firstly, Germany, who invented the concept of total war in WW1 and were the first nation to aerially bomb civilians, not military installations (it was Grimsby I think, from their Zeppelins), were warned that bombing of their cities would take place in order to paralyse their ability to manufacture and wage war. Prior to the strategic campaign, cities were leafleted, over 12 million leaflets were dropped in one night alone. Had I been a German, and assuming I wasn't a Nazi sympathiser, I would have left any city I was in. I'd like to think I would have defected to the allies in order to assist with their eradication of the Nazis. But times were different and much that was done in the past, would not be done now in more enlightened times, except of course, by terrorists." Or Mers el Kebir | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" If you deliberately target innocent civilians, that's terrorism. I almost agree with you. Disregarding the ANC for now, as I am not so familiar. The IRA however (and other NI groups) I don't believe deliberately targeted civilians. So the Omagh bombing didn't deliberately target civilians? The Birmingham pub bombings? Should I go on?" No more than the way the British Army target civilians. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" If you deliberately target innocent civilians, that's terrorism. I almost agree with you. Disregarding the ANC for now, as I am not so familiar. The IRA however (and other NI groups) I don't believe deliberately targeted civilians. So the Omagh bombing didn't deliberately target civilians? The Birmingham pub bombings? Should I go on? No more than the way the British Army target civilians." However the British army don't control the drugs trade??  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Or Mers el Kebir" I'd class that as a legitimate act of war. They had the option of surrendering the fleet, or spending the war in South America out of the reach of the Nazis. The Vichy government were a Nazi puppet and collaborators. The British could not risk the fleet falling into the hands of the Nazis. In the event, the French refused to do either and were thus a legitimate target. The French commander of the fleet bears the responsibility for the deaths of the seamen. However you call it, it was not an unannounced attack on civilians, and thus, in my view, not an act of terror. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Or Mers el Kebir I'd class that as a legitimate act of war. They had the option of surrendering the fleet, or spending the war in South America out of the reach of the Nazis. The Vichy government were a Nazi puppet and collaborators. The British could not risk the fleet falling into the hands of the Nazis. In the event, the French refused to do either and were thus a legitimate target. The French commander of the fleet bears the responsibility for the deaths of the seamen. However you call it, it was not an unannounced attack on civilians, and thus, in my view, not an act of terror." So no civilians died in that attack? Just being clear here? As I say there was Call it what you want it was murder | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" If you deliberately target innocent civilians, that's terrorism. I almost agree with you. Disregarding the ANC for now, as I am not so familiar. The IRA however (and other NI groups) I don't believe deliberately targeted civilians. So the Omagh bombing didn't deliberately target civilians? The Birmingham pub bombings? Should I go on? No more than the way the British Army target civilians. However the British army don't control the drugs trade?? "As far as we know. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Terrorist = Trying to take over something. Freedom fighter = A revolutionary struggle to achieve a political goal against their government. So the British Monarchy are terrorists ?" I don't think William the Bastard was welcomed with open arms. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" If you deliberately target innocent civilians, that's terrorism. I almost agree with you. Disregarding the ANC for now, as I am not so familiar. The IRA however (and other NI groups) I don't believe deliberately targeted civilians. So the Omagh bombing didn't deliberately target civilians? The Birmingham pub bombings? Should I go on? No more than the way the British Army target civilians. However the British army don't control the drugs trade??
As far as we know."Sorry that's a fail | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Or Mers el Kebir I'd class that as a legitimate act of war. They had the option of surrendering the fleet, or spending the war in South America out of the reach of the Nazis. The Vichy government were a Nazi puppet and collaborators. The British could not risk the fleet falling into the hands of the Nazis. In the event, the French refused to do either and were thus a legitimate target. The French commander of the fleet bears the responsibility for the deaths of the seamen. However you call it, it was not an unannounced attack on civilians, and thus, in my view, not an act of terror. So no civilians died in that attack? Just being clear here? As I say there was Call it what you want it was murder" It was all out open warfare - civilians always die in wars, it's shit. The British didn't explicitly target the civilians, they were collateral damage. No less tragic for all that, but it was not a war of our making and certainly had nothing to do with me personally. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Or Mers el Kebir I'd class that as a legitimate act of war. They had the option of surrendering the fleet, or spending the war in South America out of the reach of the Nazis. The Vichy government were a Nazi puppet and collaborators. The British could not risk the fleet falling into the hands of the Nazis. In the event, the French refused to do either and were thus a legitimate target. The French commander of the fleet bears the responsibility for the deaths of the seamen. However you call it, it was not an unannounced attack on civilians, and thus, in my view, not an act of terror. So no civilians died in that attack? Just being clear here? As I say there was Call it what you want it was murder It was all out open warfare - civilians always die in wars, it's shit. The British didn't explicitly target the civilians, they were collateral damage. No less tragic for all that, but it was not a war of our making and certainly had nothing to do with me personally." It would be spooky if you did have something to do with it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" If you deliberately target innocent civilians, that's terrorism. I almost agree with you. Disregarding the ANC for now, as I am not so familiar. The IRA however (and other NI groups) I don't believe deliberately targeted civilians. So the Omagh bombing didn't deliberately target civilians? The Birmingham pub bombings? Should I go on? No more than the way the British Army target civilians. However the British army don't control the drugs trade??
As far as we know.
Sorry that's a fail"The British Army failed ? Wouldn't be the first time. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" If you deliberately target innocent civilians, that's terrorism. I almost agree with you. Disregarding the ANC for now, as I am not so familiar. The IRA however (and other NI groups) I don't believe deliberately targeted civilians. So the Omagh bombing didn't deliberately target civilians? The Birmingham pub bombings? Should I go on? No more than the way the British Army target civilians. However the British army don't control the drugs trade??
As far as we know.
Sorry that's a fail
The British Army failed ?
Wouldn't be the first time."Hmm I'll leave it there as glasshouses and stones! At least I've pointed out the wrongs by the British army, I'm sure you will do the same?? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
