Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 55 of 55
Like Tree31Likes

Thread: Freedom Fighter vs. Terrorist?

  1. #46
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    448

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lenfer View Post
    I support neither I would like the people of Syria to be free to do as the wish without fear of oppression or death. I am not pro-Assad but I'm not pro-"Free Syrian Army" either. Thinking of the FSA as one cohesive group who all have good intentions and are nice "Western", middle-class, bourgeoisie sensibilities would be a mistake.

    As for the Libyan conflict I didn't support the government and supported the no fly zone. However I was disgusted to see Gaddafi beaten and dragged through the street (again shown on the BBC and other networks). He was later executed not only was this wrong but it means that ever dictator who is loosing their grip on power will fight even harder to stay in power. As they saw what the west allowed to happen to Gaddafi.
    From your remarks you appear to have a particular dislike of the BBC. It was that matter which prompted my inquiry about your viewpoint on the merits of each side in the Syrian armed struggle, and the earlier Libyan one.

    Would I be correct in inferring that your main agenda has been to knock the BBC's coverage of the Syrian situation rather than seek enlightenment on whether armed militia should be treated as terrorists or freedom fighters. May I ask whether you are suggesting that the BBC is the only TV organisation that has been giving favourable coverage of the anti-Assad side of the dispute? Why have you confined your remarks to the BBC when practically most other western media, following their Governments' leads, have adopted similar supportive positions of those Syrian forces trying to get rid of Assad.

    Regards Libya, you say that you supported the no fly zone. But did you support Nato bombing too? More generally, did you support the rebels' cause against Gaddafi. If so why, and how is their cause different from the forces now lined up against Assad in Syria which you apparently don't support. And what about the western media's coverage of the various battle scenes in Libya. Did you find anything objectionable about the way it sided strongly with the anti-Gaddafi forces, including the use of embedded TV crews. Did you find objectionable the BBC's coverage of that war? Or perhaps you did approve of the way the media operated in that conflict, including the BBC. We don't know because you haven't told us.

  2. #47
    Senior Member (Ret) Lenfer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    657

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Very Senior Member View Post
    From your remarks you appear to have a particular dislike of the BBC. It was that matter which prompted my inquiry about your viewpoint on the merits of each side in the Syrian armed struggle, and the earlier Libyan one.

    Would I be correct in inferring that your main agenda has been to knock the BBC's coverage of the Syrian situation rather than seek enlightenment on whether armed militia should be treated as terrorists or freedom fighters. May I ask whether you are suggesting that the BBC is the only TV organisation that has been giving favourable coverage of the anti-Assad side of the dispute? Why have you confined your remarks to the BBC when practically most other western media, following their Governments' leads, have adopted similar supportive positions of those Syrian forces trying to get rid of Assad.

    Regards Libya, you say that you supported the no fly zone. But did you support Nato bombing too? More generally, did you support the rebels' cause against Gaddafi. If so why, and how is their cause different from the forces now lined up against Assad in Syria which you apparently don't support. And what about the western media's coverage of the various battle scenes in Libya. Did you find anything objectionable about the way it sided strongly with the anti-Gaddafi forces, including the use of embedded TV crews. Did you find objectionable the BBC's coverage of that war? Or perhaps you did approve of the way the media operated in that conflict, including the BBC. We don't know because you haven't told us.
    I actually quite like the BBC well their "World Service", Radio 3 and sometimes Radio 4 are ok to listen to as well as BBC 4. However since I've been living in the UK I've been shocked by the UK based BBC news. Mostly because of reports like that one mentioned in my post. But also the way they pick on the poorer parts of society in Britain (of which I'm not a part so there's no bias on my part).

    I can speak a few languages so I'm not stuck watching the BBC or CNN etc and there was reports that some of the "rebels" in Libya were more than slightly shady that didn't get reported here at the time. My post was not trying to knock the BBC it was trying to show the hypocrisy, they could have easily showed the same footage and used "terrorists" but they choose to paint them as the good guys which no doubt some of them will be but not all.

    I could use Ireland as an example but I won't at least not to night. The coverage of late has been very one sided it's getting to the stage were the BBC is no better than some of the American News Networks at least the British arm of the BBC anyway. I get the feeling and I'm sorry if I don't get the expression right but the BBC are now for "pulling the ladder up" on those who they feel are beneath them in Britain and this is reflected in it's coverage abroad..

    Edit:

    I was not in favour of the bombing when it went beyond the bombing of weapons stationed outside of towns. They used "command centre" but those were civilian houses as well just not the right civilians. These conflicts are civil wars and the west doesn't have a good track recorded with them. I think the last one the English won was the English Civil war...

    The west is creating big problems in the middle east again for future generations. I don't want anyone to suffer or die but there going to it all depends on how many. Every region goes through this it's only in the middle east and central Asia we the west stick someone in charge then decide we don't like them years down the line.

    Then when they do elect someone of their own choice we don't like that either because they tend to vote for right-wing Islamic parties.
    Last edited by Lenfer; Mar-22-2012 at 22:58.

  3. #48
    Senior Member starthrower's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,635

    Default

    Your comments don't surprise me one bit, Lenfer. Here in America, Washington's attitude has always been the same. Any foreign leader who decides to nationalize his/her country's oil reserves, and or sell oil in any other currency than the US dollar is painted as an evil despot who must be removed. Never mind the evil despots who do Washington's bidding. This was true in the cases of Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein, and they are now dead.

    The rebels fighting to overthrow the Nicaraguan government in the 1980s were labeled freedom fighters by the Reagan administration, but in fact were a creation of the CIA. A motley group of mercenaries with personal agendas.

  4. #49
    Senior Member DrMike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,935

    Default

    Yeah, there was no other reason to label Saddam Hussein an evil despot. So what that he used chemical warfare on the Kurds. So what that, under his regime, he was having people fed into wood chippers. So what that he invaded to sovereign nation of Kuwait. So what that he was taking the Oil for Food Money and using it to build lavish palaces while his people starved. So what that he was subsidizing the families of Palestinian terrorists. The Economist, which is published in London, not Washington, described him as "one of the last of the 20th century's great dictators, but not the least in terms of egotism, or cruelty, or morbid will to power." Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International regularly cited Iraq under Hussein for widespread imprisonment and torture. But you are right - his description as an evil despot is clearly just a construct of the U.S. government.

    Or Gaddafi - a very cheery individual. Nevermind that it was his own people who overthrew and killed him - they were just brainwashed by what they read from American news sources. We can ignore the early 1980's when political dissidents were executed and mutilated in public. Or the Revolutionary Committees who sent out operatives to assassinate Libyan dissidents abroad. We can ignore the 23 metric tons of mustard gas he had stockpiled that were discovered in 2004. Or his numerous attempts to procure a nuclear bomb from Pakistan. It is also widely believed that he played a significant role in the Lockerbie bombing. He financed the military junta in Ethiopia that later was found to have committed one of the worst cases of genocide on record. He was a supporter of Slobodan Milosevic. His agents staged a bombing of a West German nightclub in 1986. He also supported terrorist groups in the Phillipines.
    moody likes this.

  5. #50
    Senior Member science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Seoul
    Posts
    8,744
    Blog Entries
    44

    Default

    What's the story on Mosaddegh?

  6. #51
    Senior Member starthrower's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,635

    Default

    You know Dr. Mike, I'm getting tired of your disingenuous retorts. Of course there were other reasons, but they were not the reasons that concerned the power elite in Washington, or the oil executives. If anything, Saddam's regime was a construct of the US government.

    Where is Washington's voice of outage for the Saudi regime, or the endlessly corrupt regimes in Pakistan, or the horrible dictatorships that have destroyed Haiti, or what the Shaw did to the Iranian people? Or for Saddam's regime when it was serving the American agenda in the 1980s? No, we hear nothing because these horrible regimes served the interests of the American plutocrats.

  7. #52
    Senior Member DrMike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,935

    Default

    So if we have ever failed to condemn, or even sided with, a regime that was bad, evil, or corrupt, then we are doomed to forever support them or be criticized by people who have a hard time distinguishing between freedom fighters and terrorists?

    Yes, throughout our history (but mostly in the 20th century and beyond), we have sided with some pretty unsavory groups when it was expedient to do so. You don't even mention our propping up of Stalin during WWII - a brutal dictator who killed millions, but at the time, it was critical to defeat Nazi Germany. Do we side with the Saudi regime and with Pakistan? Yes - not because we think they are swell people, but because we have so few allies in the Middle East, and they are at least marginally on our side. Saddam's regime was not a construct of the US government - it served the same purpose against Iran that supporting the tribal groups did in Afghanistan while Russia was invading. But Saddam was made before we ever got involved.

    Sometimes you have to make a choice of the lesser of two evils. It isn't pretty, it isn't ideal, but sometimes it is the only option you have.
    moody likes this.

  8. #53
    Senior Member science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Seoul
    Posts
    8,744
    Blog Entries
    44

    Default

    Basically, you two said the same thing.

  9. #54
    Senior Member starthrower's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,635

    Default

    No, I didn't bother to mention the alliance with Stalin for the obvious reasons you pointed out. I just get tired of the lip service and blatantly obvious propaganda the American people are fed by the government, and the complicity on the part of the television media. I mean silly things like putting one of our soldiers on camera in Afghanistan to naively state that "we're here to help the Afghan people." And I'm sure many of these young soldiers are genuine and want to help, but this is not the mission of the US military in Afghanistan. No, it's not a social or humanitarian mission. It's about oil.

    What's even more frightening is the increasing tyranny of the state here in America where laws are being quietly passed to make it easier to go after journalists and other dissidents who oppose the official narrative. All in the name of national security and the war on terror. We have the National Defense Authorization Act signed into law by president Obama just this past December 31, 2011.

    As far as the Baath party in Iraq is concerned, they most definitely were assisted by the CIA in overthrowing the previous regime from what I've read.
    Amfibius likes this.

  10. #55
    Senior Member science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Seoul
    Posts
    8,744
    Blog Entries
    44

    Default

    http://www.salon.com/2012/03/28/gues...ton/singleton/

    This has some interesting thoughts on what "terrorism" is.
    Last edited by science; Mar-29-2012 at 10:10.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Similar Threads

  1. Please ID this piece from "The Fighter" trailer
    By sixamsedna in forum Classical Music Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Dec-06-2010, 06:32

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •