Anti-Israel protest in South Africa
-
"Non sequiteur" means "does not follow". It's used when describing a statement which does not logically follow from the previous information. Here's an example of a non sequiteur: "My house is blue. Therefore, I drive a car." The fact that my house is blue does not logically imply that I drive a car. When you said: Yeah, its just last September G.Dubba.Bush asked for the worlds countries to be with or against the USA. In shock a lot of countries said they would help fight terrorism, but it appears that it was only Anti-American terrorism. Many countries have engagements in Afghanistan currently due to this. I guess one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist. I was confused as to the statement, "I guess one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist." The fact that the US seems only interested in fighting Anti-American terrorism does not mean that the US sees non anti-American terrorists as freedom fighters. (I don't know if that was your intention, but I couldn't figure out any other interpretation.)
Brit wrote: "Non sequiteur" means "does not follow". Ok, I learned something new today. Brit wrote: I was confused as to the statement, "I guess one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist." The fact that the US seems only interested in fighting Anti-American terrorism does not mean that the US sees non anti-American terrorists as freedom fighters. (I don't know if that was your intention, but I couldn't figure out any other interpretation.) Yes, now that I look at it again something appears ambiguous or missing from my message. What I am meaning to say. Is for example the IRA are considered by the British to be terrorists and by many Americans as Freedom fighters. I'm sure Palestinian Americans consider the Hamas/PLO to be freedom fighters and Jewsih Americans consider them to be terrorists. Also Sept/11 Pilots we consider as terrorists, but some OBL followers consider Martyrs and heros. Hope I have made myself clearer. :-) Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
I think it's interesting that we often qu-ote each other in our sigs and attribute the qu-otes to "The Lounge". --- Daniel Fergusson, "The Lounge"
-
Brit wrote: "Non sequiteur" means "does not follow". Ok, I learned something new today. Brit wrote: I was confused as to the statement, "I guess one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist." The fact that the US seems only interested in fighting Anti-American terrorism does not mean that the US sees non anti-American terrorists as freedom fighters. (I don't know if that was your intention, but I couldn't figure out any other interpretation.) Yes, now that I look at it again something appears ambiguous or missing from my message. What I am meaning to say. Is for example the IRA are considered by the British to be terrorists and by many Americans as Freedom fighters. I'm sure Palestinian Americans consider the Hamas/PLO to be freedom fighters and Jewsih Americans consider them to be terrorists. Also Sept/11 Pilots we consider as terrorists, but some OBL followers consider Martyrs and heros. Hope I have made myself clearer. :-) Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
I think it's interesting that we often qu-ote each other in our sigs and attribute the qu-otes to "The Lounge". --- Daniel Fergusson, "The Lounge"
Is for example the IRA are considered by the British to be terrorists and by many Americans as Freedom fighters. I've always been a little confused by this. Why do people think Americans see the IRA as freedom fighters? I certainly don't. I've heard that in the past the IRA has rasied money here in the US, but I think that must be primarily among Irish-Americans. I'm sure Palestinian Americans consider the Hamas/PLO to be freedom fighters and Jewish Americans consider them to be terrorists. True, but (like the previous example) the problem that we're running into here is that anyone can become an American. If you want to talk about mainstream America, you really have to largely ignore the hyphenated Americans. Also Sept/11 Pilots we consider as terrorists, but some OBL followers consider Martyrs and heros. I think in some cases, a minority of Americans do think of terrorists as freedom fighters. Even when they think of them as freedom fighters, though, it's generally in the context of "They are fighting for a just cause, but doing it in a completely wrongheaded way." But when people are intimately tied to one cause or another, they're willing to ignore wrongs (terrorism) done in pursuit of a cause they believe in (hence, the Irish-Americans, Palestinian-Americans). Personally, I can respect the Palestinian cause against Jewish settlements (but not against the existence of Israel or its citizens), but it does make me angry that they constantly strike out punatively* against Jewish people. The fact that they use terrorism (and it is terrorism) cannot be ignored by anyone who honestly evaluates the situation. * I use the word "punatively" because their purpose is to punish Jews for wrongdoing, not to "defend" themselves, not to help their cause, not to build peace.
-
Is for example the IRA are considered by the British to be terrorists and by many Americans as Freedom fighters. I've always been a little confused by this. Why do people think Americans see the IRA as freedom fighters? I certainly don't. I've heard that in the past the IRA has rasied money here in the US, but I think that must be primarily among Irish-Americans. I'm sure Palestinian Americans consider the Hamas/PLO to be freedom fighters and Jewish Americans consider them to be terrorists. True, but (like the previous example) the problem that we're running into here is that anyone can become an American. If you want to talk about mainstream America, you really have to largely ignore the hyphenated Americans. Also Sept/11 Pilots we consider as terrorists, but some OBL followers consider Martyrs and heros. I think in some cases, a minority of Americans do think of terrorists as freedom fighters. Even when they think of them as freedom fighters, though, it's generally in the context of "They are fighting for a just cause, but doing it in a completely wrongheaded way." But when people are intimately tied to one cause or another, they're willing to ignore wrongs (terrorism) done in pursuit of a cause they believe in (hence, the Irish-Americans, Palestinian-Americans). Personally, I can respect the Palestinian cause against Jewish settlements (but not against the existence of Israel or its citizens), but it does make me angry that they constantly strike out punatively* against Jewish people. The fact that they use terrorism (and it is terrorism) cannot be ignored by anyone who honestly evaluates the situation. * I use the word "punatively" because their purpose is to punish Jews for wrongdoing, not to "defend" themselves, not to help their cause, not to build peace.
Brit wrote: Is for example the IRA are considered by the British to be terrorists and by many Americans as Freedom fighters. I've always been a little confused by this. Why do people think Americans see the IRA as freedom fighters? I certainly don't. I've heard that in the past the IRA has rasied money here in the US, but I think that must be primarily among Irish-Americans. If Al-Queda was raising funds and training and hiding people in Britain, The USA would certainly take action. However the IRA did this in the USA and no action was ever taken, as some US politicians pander to the "Irish-American" vote. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
I think it's interesting that we often qu-ote each other in our sigs and attribute the qu-otes to "The Lounge". --- Daniel Fergusson, "The Lounge"
-
Brit wrote: Is for example the IRA are considered by the British to be terrorists and by many Americans as Freedom fighters. I've always been a little confused by this. Why do people think Americans see the IRA as freedom fighters? I certainly don't. I've heard that in the past the IRA has rasied money here in the US, but I think that must be primarily among Irish-Americans. If Al-Queda was raising funds and training and hiding people in Britain, The USA would certainly take action. However the IRA did this in the USA and no action was ever taken, as some US politicians pander to the "Irish-American" vote. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
I think it's interesting that we often qu-ote each other in our sigs and attribute the qu-otes to "The Lounge". --- Daniel Fergusson, "The Lounge"
Okay, but "failure to take action against fund-raising for terrorists" != "we view terrorists as freedom fighters". Sounds like some american politicians were too spineless to take action against something which might cost them votes, so they ignored the whole issue. This is in contrast to viewing the IRA as freedom fighters.
-
Okay, but "failure to take action against fund-raising for terrorists" != "we view terrorists as freedom fighters". Sounds like some american politicians were too spineless to take action against something which might cost them votes, so they ignored the whole issue. This is in contrast to viewing the IRA as freedom fighters.
Brit wrote: Sounds like some american politicians were too spineless to take action against something which might cost them votes, so they ignored the whole issue. This is in contrast to viewing the IRA as freedom fighters. I think we are arguing silly semantics now, In most warfare both sides claim that not only "God" is on there side but they are morally right. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
I think it's interesting that we often qu-ote each other in our sigs and attribute the qu-otes to "The Lounge". --- Daniel Fergusson, "The Lounge"