Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Love It: Terror or Freedom Fighters

ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2014 1:59:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
My, this is perhaps the most truthful video I've ever seen from a children's song company. I'm actually going to do a debate on this. Never imagined School House rock would teach me something other than rhythm.

By the way, I do read Augustine, so if anyone wants to debate me on this, I'm open.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
mendel
Posts: 73
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2014 2:25:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
That cartoon might have some true points, but it shouldn't really change our view about what a terrorist is. Terrorism is when all people are targets, civilians, children, woman and men going about their daily lives. Such people are thugs and murderers and must be brought to justice, whereas countries like america and israel, even if many civilians end up
dead, they were never the goal and the target, and no one is happy when a civilian gets killed. The civilians are killed in collateral damage when they are in the vicinity of the enemy. So for example in the gaza war in 2009 approximately 400 civilians were killed in the operation which eliminated a little bit more than a thousand hamas terrorists.
This is especially true when the terrorists say that they're not just fighting a war for some land rather a war of destruction and annihilation then there should definitely be no place for such people.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 7:36:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The Iraq part was pure misinformation. We began to dislike Saddam for using the weapons we gave him against the Kurds as well as invading our ally Kuwait in the first gulf war. And there is no proof we invaded Iraq the second time for oil. The belief was that Saddam has WMD's--a belief which was false of course--but I suspect that officials really thought he had them.

Now there is a distinct difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter. We funded freedom fighters (like the Contras) due to an anti communist paranoia in order to contain communism. And I would say our containment policies actually were beneficial. However, the difference between a freedom fighter or terrorist isnt size, its agenda.

Freedom fighters fight in order to form a free state against tyranny or a flawed ideology. There is no doubt they can cause damage like terrorists, however the end goal is different.

For terrorists, they fight for what we see as an immoral goal. In order to create a religious state and subjugate other people, to pillage, rape, etc. The one thing I agree with the video is that state terrorism is often seen as not the same as terrorism, and that is because of size. However a state terrorist organization--Iran, Alexander the Great, the Roman Legions (who were total looters and rapists) are also terrorists.

So freedom fighters vs terrorism isnt about size, state terrorism vs what we usually see about terrorism is.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 7:49:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 7:36:26 PM, 16kadams wrote:
The Iraq part was pure misinformation. We began to dislike Saddam for using the weapons we gave him against the Kurds as well as invading our ally Kuwait in the first gulf war. And there is no proof we invaded Iraq the second time for oil. The belief was that Saddam has WMD's--a belief which was false of course--but I suspect that officials really thought he had them.

Now there is a distinct difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter. We funded freedom fighters (like the Contras) due to an anti communist paranoia in order to contain communism. And I would say our containment policies actually were beneficial. However, the difference between a freedom fighter or terrorist isnt size, its agenda.

Freedom fighters fight in order to form a free state against tyranny or a flawed ideology. There is no doubt they can cause damage like terrorists, however the end goal is different.

For terrorists, they fight for what we see as an immoral goal. In order to create a religious state and subjugate other people, to pillage, rape, etc. The one thing I agree with the video is that state terrorism is often seen as not the same as terrorism, and that is because of size. However a state terrorist organization--Iran, Alexander the Great, the Roman Legions (who were total looters and rapists) are also terrorists.

So freedom fighters vs terrorism isnt about size, state terrorism vs what we usually see about terrorism is.

Hypocripsy, lies, and BS. Terrorists use terror to achieve their goals. There are about 20 atheist terror organizations, and most are out of self independence, not religion. BS BS BS! The contra's killed civilian's, and the Taliban killed civilians. Difference? Absolutely none. The contra's fought for a capitalist state, although Honduras wasn't even communist, and the Taliban fought for a Islamic state. Terrorists are terrorists. Looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 7:57:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Dude, I'm sorry, but I haven't heard BS like that in a long time. As long as Reagan funds them they're not terrorists. What about the CIA in Nicaragua? Support Reagan's "help" there as well? He literally gave chemically composted weapons to both the contras and our own troops. Which is illegal by the way. What about his "Panama" objectives? His whole policy was suppress the nationalists as much as possible. I would of fought the US as well. They were controlling the most valuable and fertile region of Panama.

The point is, your committing exactly what the video said "uncle sam" did. What about funding free syria? Is that also ok? Their guns go right to Kurdistan, which end up in Al-Qaeda hands. What about the libyan moderate groups? Do you support arming them as well?

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. End of story.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 8:57:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 7:57:17 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
Dude, I'm sorry, but I haven't heard BS like that in a long time. As long as Reagan funds them they're not terrorists. What about the CIA in Nicaragua? Support Reagan's "help" there as well? He literally gave chemically composted weapons to both the contras and our own troops. Which is illegal by the way. What about his "Panama" objectives? His whole policy was suppress the nationalists as much as possible. I would of fought the US as well. They were controlling the most valuable and fertile region of Panama.


You really didn't refute anything, you make a strawman about my support for Reagan and call my argument BS. I didn't say that our funding them made them right, I said they were freedom fighters due to the way they were fighting (for a arguably good goal to a rational person). You can oppose the Contras because of the collateral damage they inflicted--I personally dont support the Contras--but the fact is, they were freedom fighters who led to collateral damage, not terrorists whose sole objective is to cause harm.

The Arabs in the middle east fighting the US are both freedom fighters and terrorists. Many have a sole intention of killing westerners, other merely want an autonomous middle east. Both are bad, as they have killed many citizens, but they have distinctions other than size and funding sources.

The point is, your committing exactly what the video said "uncle sam" did. What about funding free syria? Is that also ok? Their guns go right to Kurdistan, which end up in Al-Qaeda hands. What about the libyan moderate groups? Do you support arming them as well?

Syrian rebels are freedom fighters and terrorists.


If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. End of story.

They both look like ducks, but one sounds more like a goose. Terrorists are inherently bad, freedom fighters have the potential to be bad (and often are).
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 8:58:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 7:49:01 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/1/2014 7:36:26 PM, 16kadams wrote:
The Iraq part was pure misinformation. We began to dislike Saddam for using the weapons we gave him against the Kurds as well as invading our ally Kuwait in the first gulf war. And there is no proof we invaded Iraq the second time for oil. The belief was that Saddam has WMD's--a belief which was false of course--but I suspect that officials really thought he had them.

Now there is a distinct difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter. We funded freedom fighters (like the Contras) due to an anti communist paranoia in order to contain communism. And I would say our containment policies actually were beneficial. However, the difference between a freedom fighter or terrorist isnt size, its agenda.

Freedom fighters fight in order to form a free state against tyranny or a flawed ideology. There is no doubt they can cause damage like terrorists, however the end goal is different.

For terrorists, they fight for what we see as an immoral goal. In order to create a religious state and subjugate other people, to pillage, rape, etc. The one thing I agree with the video is that state terrorism is often seen as not the same as terrorism, and that is because of size. However a state terrorist organization--Iran, Alexander the Great, the Roman Legions (who were total looters and rapists) are also terrorists.

So freedom fighters vs terrorism isnt about size, state terrorism vs what we usually see about terrorism is.

Hypocripsy, lies, and BS. Terrorists use terror to achieve their goals. There are about 20 atheist terror organizations, and most are out of self independence, not religion. BS BS BS! The contra's killed civilian's, and the Taliban killed civilians. Difference? Absolutely none. The contra's fought for a capitalist state, although Honduras wasn't even communist, and the Taliban fought for a Islamic state. Terrorists are terrorists. Looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.

Lol, you are so emotional. "BS BS BS!" lol. Sounds like a video game argument.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 9:01:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 8:58:37 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 7/1/2014 7:49:01 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/1/2014 7:36:26 PM, 16kadams wrote:
The Iraq part was pure misinformation. We began to dislike Saddam for using the weapons we gave him against the Kurds as well as invading our ally Kuwait in the first gulf war. And there is no proof we invaded Iraq the second time for oil. The belief was that Saddam has WMD's--a belief which was false of course--but I suspect that officials really thought he had them.

Now there is a distinct difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter. We funded freedom fighters (like the Contras) due to an anti communist paranoia in order to contain communism. And I would say our containment policies actually were beneficial. However, the difference between a freedom fighter or terrorist isnt size, its agenda.

Freedom fighters fight in order to form a free state against tyranny or a flawed ideology. There is no doubt they can cause damage like terrorists, however the end goal is different.

For terrorists, they fight for what we see as an immoral goal. In order to create a religious state and subjugate other people, to pillage, rape, etc. The one thing I agree with the video is that state terrorism is often seen as not the same as terrorism, and that is because of size. However a state terrorist organization--Iran, Alexander the Great, the Roman Legions (who were total looters and rapists) are also terrorists.

So freedom fighters vs terrorism isnt about size, state terrorism vs what we usually see about terrorism is.

Hypocripsy, lies, and BS. Terrorists use terror to achieve their goals. There are about 20 atheist terror organizations, and most are out of self independence, not religion. BS BS BS! The contra's killed civilian's, and the Taliban killed civilians. Difference? Absolutely none. The contra's fought for a capitalist state, although Honduras wasn't even communist, and the Taliban fought for a Islamic state. Terrorists are terrorists. Looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.

Lol, you are so emotional. "BS BS BS!" lol. Sounds like a video game argument.

Your whole argument is based on a fallacy. Terrorists are inherently bad and freedom fighters are not. They did the same exact thing, and you can subjectivity it all you want, but that's just the truth.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 1:05:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/29/2014 2:25:00 PM, mendel wrote:
That cartoon might have some true points, but it shouldn't really change our view about what a terrorist is. Terrorism is when all people are targets, civilians, children, woman and men going about their daily lives. Such people are thugs and murderers and must be brought to justice, whereas countries like america and israel, even if many civilians end up
dead, they were never the goal and the target, and no one is happy when a civilian gets killed. The civilians are killed in collateral damage when they are in the vicinity of the enemy. So for example in the gaza war in 2009 approximately 400 civilians were killed in the operation which eliminated a little bit more than a thousand hamas terrorists.
This is especially true when the terrorists say that they're not just fighting a war for some land rather a war of destruction and annihilation then there should definitely be no place for such people.

According to the UN and Human Rights Organizations, Israel has routinely targeted and killed Palestinian civilians.

According to the Human Rights Organizations and UN Report designations, Israel killed roughly 850 Palestinian civilians, and about 250 Palestinian combatants.

But please, don't stop posting your Israeli-army talking points. They are a source of ever-lasting amusement.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 7:49:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 9:01:24 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/1/2014 8:58:37 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 7/1/2014 7:49:01 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/1/2014 7:36:26 PM, 16kadams wrote:
The Iraq part was pure misinformation. We began to dislike Saddam for using the weapons we gave him against the Kurds as well as invading our ally Kuwait in the first gulf war. And there is no proof we invaded Iraq the second time for oil. The belief was that Saddam has WMD's--a belief which was false of course--but I suspect that officials really thought he had them.

Now there is a distinct difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter. We funded freedom fighters (like the Contras) due to an anti communist paranoia in order to contain communism. And I would say our containment policies actually were beneficial. However, the difference between a freedom fighter or terrorist isnt size, its agenda.

Freedom fighters fight in order to form a free state against tyranny or a flawed ideology. There is no doubt they can cause damage like terrorists, however the end goal is different.

For terrorists, they fight for what we see as an immoral goal. In order to create a religious state and subjugate other people, to pillage, rape, etc. The one thing I agree with the video is that state terrorism is often seen as not the same as terrorism, and that is because of size. However a state terrorist organization--Iran, Alexander the Great, the Roman Legions (who were total looters and rapists) are also terrorists.

So freedom fighters vs terrorism isnt about size, state terrorism vs what we usually see about terrorism is.

Hypocripsy, lies, and BS. Terrorists use terror to achieve their goals. There are about 20 atheist terror organizations, and most are out of self independence, not religion. BS BS BS! The contra's killed civilian's, and the Taliban killed civilians. Difference? Absolutely none. The contra's fought for a capitalist state, although Honduras wasn't even communist, and the Taliban fought for a Islamic state. Terrorists are terrorists. Looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.

Lol, you are so emotional. "BS BS BS!" lol. Sounds like a video game argument.

Your whole argument is based on a fallacy. Terrorists are inherently bad and freedom fighters are not. They did the same exact thing, and you can subjectivity it all you want, but that's just the truth.

Well, there is a significant different between this 2 groups though. What make solider a solider is the arms they're carried, but what make communist soldiers differ from NATO is not the type of arms they carry but their loyalty to the communist states.

Likewise Freedom Fighters and Terrorist are both guerrillas forces but are differ because Freedom Fighters fight for the "Free World", while the Terrorists are not.

Preferably, they should fight for "Freedom" too. Sadly, this is not always the case but I can understand why some guerilla who are comparatively closer to the "Free World" should be supported against their more dangerous counterpart.

Thinking the US-made Afghan is bad? Look how ISIS works.
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 7:53:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 7:49:53 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 7/1/2014 9:01:24 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/1/2014 8:58:37 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 7/1/2014 7:49:01 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/1/2014 7:36:26 PM, 16kadams wrote:
The Iraq part was pure misinformation. We began to dislike Saddam for using the weapons we gave him against the Kurds as well as invading our ally Kuwait in the first gulf war. And there is no proof we invaded Iraq the second time for oil. The belief was that Saddam has WMD's--a belief which was false of course--but I suspect that officials really thought he had them.

Now there is a distinct difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter. We funded freedom fighters (like the Contras) due to an anti communist paranoia in order to contain communism. And I would say our containment policies actually were beneficial. However, the difference between a freedom fighter or terrorist isnt size, its agenda.

Freedom fighters fight in order to form a free state against tyranny or a flawed ideology. There is no doubt they can cause damage like terrorists, however the end goal is different.

For terrorists, they fight for what we see as an immoral goal. In order to create a religious state and subjugate other people, to pillage, rape, etc. The one thing I agree with the video is that state terrorism is often seen as not the same as terrorism, and that is because of size. However a state terrorist organization--Iran, Alexander the Great, the Roman Legions (who were total looters and rapists) are also terrorists.

So freedom fighters vs terrorism isnt about size, state terrorism vs what we usually see about terrorism is.

Hypocripsy, lies, and BS. Terrorists use terror to achieve their goals. There are about 20 atheist terror organizations, and most are out of self independence, not religion. BS BS BS! The contra's killed civilian's, and the Taliban killed civilians. Difference? Absolutely none. The contra's fought for a capitalist state, although Honduras wasn't even communist, and the Taliban fought for a Islamic state. Terrorists are terrorists. Looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.

Lol, you are so emotional. "BS BS BS!" lol. Sounds like a video game argument.

Your whole argument is based on a fallacy. Terrorists are inherently bad and freedom fighters are not. They did the same exact thing, and you can subjectivity it all you want, but that's just the truth.

Well, there is a significant different between this 2 groups though. What make solider a solider is the arms they're carried, but what make communist soldiers differ from NATO is not the type of arms they carry but their loyalty to the communist states.

Likewise Freedom Fighters and Terrorist are both guerrillas forces but are differ because Freedom Fighters fight for the "Free World", while the Terrorists are not.

Preferably, they should fight for "Freedom" too. Sadly, this is not always the case but I can understand why some guerilla who are comparatively closer to the "Free World" should be supported against their more dangerous counterpart.

Thinking the US-made Afghan is bad? Look how ISIS works.

That wasn't the point I was making. Freedom fighters and terrorists are subjective terms we choose. And no, communist states had "freedom fighters" as well. Americans have used that term often to describe rebel movements we support. For example, the US media calls some of the more extreme groups "freedom fighters""., You're guilty of violating the video's rule as well. If they look the same and do the same thing, they are essentially the same thing. Calling them freedom fighters, rebels of hope, ect., makes them not the slightest bit different from what they actually are.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 7:56:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 1:05:44 AM, HPWKA wrote:
At 6/29/2014 2:25:00 PM, mendel wrote:
That cartoon might have some true points, but it shouldn't really change our view about what a terrorist is. Terrorism is when all people are targets, civilians, children, woman and men going about their daily lives. Such people are thugs and murderers and must be brought to justice, whereas countries like america and israel, even if many civilians end up
dead, they were never the goal and the target, and no one is happy when a civilian gets killed. The civilians are killed in collateral damage when they are in the vicinity of the enemy. So for example in the gaza war in 2009 approximately 400 civilians were killed in the operation which eliminated a little bit more than a thousand hamas terrorists.
This is especially true when the terrorists say that they're not just fighting a war for some land rather a war of destruction and annihilation then there should definitely be no place for such people.

According to the UN and Human Rights Organizations, Israel has routinely targeted and killed Palestinian civilians.

According to the Human Rights Organizations and UN Report designations, Israel killed roughly 850 Palestinian civilians, and about 250 Palestinian combatants.

But please, don't stop posting your Israeli-army talking points. They are a source of ever-lasting amusement.

Honestly, I would like to get out of Israel's conflicts altogether. Not because I am against the Israel state, but there's a lot of morally grey stuff going on, and considering the rate of Anti-Zealotry throughout the world, we're making ourselves a target. Not to mention the illegal nukes. I would leave there for good.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 12:14:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Honestly, I would like to get out of Israel's conflicts altogether. Not because I am against the Israel state, but there's a lot of morally grey stuff going on, and considering the rate of Anti-Zealotry throughout the world, we're making ourselves a target. Not to mention the illegal nukes. I would leave there for good.

You don't have to be "against the Israel state", to want Israel held to justice. I am all for Israel existing and thriving as a Jewish state, but they have to do it within their legal borders, and halt the terrorism against native Palestinians who resist illegal colonization.

I agree that America's unwavering support for Israeli terror makes us a target, and if that the US really wanted to help Israel, they would allow the UN and International Law to mediate a peace-deal between the conflicting parties.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 12:16:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 12:14:46 PM, HPWKA wrote:
Honestly, I would like to get out of Israel's conflicts altogether. Not because I am against the Israel state, but there's a lot of morally grey stuff going on, and considering the rate of Anti-Zealotry throughout the world, we're making ourselves a target. Not to mention the illegal nukes. I would leave there for good.

You don't have to be "against the Israel state", to want Israel held to justice. I am all for Israel existing and thriving as a Jewish state, but they have to do it within their legal borders, and halt the terrorism against native Palestinians who resist illegal colonization.

I agree that America's unwavering support for Israeli terror makes us a target, and if that the US really wanted to help Israel, they would allow the UN and International Law to mediate a peace-deal between the conflicting parties.

That's where I'll disagree. Palestine is legally a part of Israel. They are only breaking national laws from the Camp David Accords.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 2:37:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
That's where I'll disagree. Palestine is legally a part of Israel. They are only breaking national laws from the Camp David Accords.

The UN (every country in the world except Israel), the International Court of Justice, Human Rights Organizations, and all other legal/scholarly bodies, classify the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem as Palestinian.

I'd be interested in hearing a "legal" case for why these Palestinian territories belong to Israel.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
joepbr
Posts: 128
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 3:07:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 7:49:53 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 7/1/2014 9:01:24 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/1/2014 8:58:37 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 7/1/2014 7:49:01 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/1/2014 7:36:26 PM, 16kadams wrote:
The Iraq part was pure misinformation. We began to dislike Saddam for using the weapons we gave him against the Kurds as well as invading our ally Kuwait in the first gulf war. And there is no proof we invaded Iraq the second time for oil. The belief was that Saddam has WMD's--a belief which was false of course--but I suspect that officials really thought he had them.

Now there is a distinct difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter. We funded freedom fighters (like the Contras) due to an anti communist paranoia in order to contain communism. And I would say our containment policies actually were beneficial. However, the difference between a freedom fighter or terrorist isnt size, its agenda.

Freedom fighters fight in order to form a free state against tyranny or a flawed ideology. There is no doubt they can cause damage like terrorists, however the end goal is different.

For terrorists, they fight for what we see as an immoral goal. In order to create a religious state and subjugate other people, to pillage, rape, etc. The one thing I agree with the video is that state terrorism is often seen as not the same as terrorism, and that is because of size. However a state terrorist organization--Iran, Alexander the Great, the Roman Legions (who were total looters and rapists) are also terrorists.

So freedom fighters vs terrorism isnt about size, state terrorism vs what we usually see about terrorism is.

Hypocripsy, lies, and BS. Terrorists use terror to achieve their goals. There are about 20 atheist terror organizations, and most are out of self independence, not religion. BS BS BS! The contra's killed civilian's, and the Taliban killed civilians. Difference? Absolutely none. The contra's fought for a capitalist state, although Honduras wasn't even communist, and the Taliban fought for a Islamic state. Terrorists are terrorists. Looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.

Lol, you are so emotional. "BS BS BS!" lol. Sounds like a video game argument.

Your whole argument is based on a fallacy. Terrorists are inherently bad and freedom fighters are not. They did the same exact thing, and you can subjectivity it all you want, but that's just the truth.

Well, there is a significant different between this 2 groups though. What make solider a solider is the arms they're carried, but what make communist soldiers differ from NATO is not the type of arms they carry but their loyalty to the communist states.

Likewise Freedom Fighters and Terrorist are both guerrillas forces but are differ because Freedom Fighters fight for the "Free World", while the Terrorists are not.

Preferably, they should fight for "Freedom" too. Sadly, this is not always the case but I can understand why some guerilla who are comparatively closer to the "Free World" should be supported against their more dangerous counterpart.

Thinking the US-made Afghan is bad? Look how ISIS works.

The only difference between terrorists and freedom fighters is whether or not you agree with them. For anyone in a neutral position, they are exactly the same thing.
Trying to differentiate between those who fight for "Freedom" and those who don't makes no sense, since everyone fights for what they believe to be freedom.
My alternative to the Political Compass: http://www.debate.org...