hopalong85 wrote: » Nelson Mandela and Michael Collins were terrorists. Collins used guerilla warfare and Mandela was in the ANC. The ANC were terrorists.
Lux23 wrote: » She also shouldn't have been raped but you all seem more upset about her breaking segregation laws. If people don't stand up to the injustices in the world how will anything every change. Nelson Mandela was considered a terrorist as was Michael Collins, the suffragettes, the american revolutionaries etc etc. Saudi is a corrupt country with archaic laws but it seems they have a get out of free jail card because of oil. Thats what is really sick.
daveirl wrote: » This post has been deleted.
Sharia-based laws would be similar to faith-based tribunals already permitted by the Canadian province for Catholics and Jews to use the principles of their faiths to settle family disputes.
But many Muslims believe that because Canada is a secular country, its legal system makes it difficult for them to govern themselves by the laws of their religion.
Terry wrote: » Good old political brainwashing. Using an analogy from recent times; I suppose the Iraqi soldiers who fought against the invading British and American armies were terrorists too. Or the ones who continued to fight after the fall of Baghdad really were insurgents. QUOTE] Sorry Terry, but you would argue that the ANC weren't terrorists? You think Michael Collins' use of guerilla warfare wasn't terrorism? Terrorism is a particular type of warfare. The reasons behind terrorism are irrelevant, it is what it is. I'm not saying it's not necessary in some situations but Osama Bin Ladin is no more a terrorist than ANC leaders were during their struggle against apartheid. People might sympathise more with one cause that's all. The Iraqi soldiers were defending their country against invading forces. The Iraqis fighting since the fall of Baghdad through car bombs etc are surely terrorists?
zuutroy wrote: » Thats ingenius. A large portion of this world really hasn't evolved too far from primates.
Lux23 wrote: » Yes I am aware of that, but most would call them 'freedom fighter'. But my point is that they stood up and tried to change something, people in saudi should be doing the same.
hopalong85 wrote: » Terry wrote: » Good old political brainwashing. Using an analogy from recent times; I suppose the Iraqi soldiers who fought against the invading British and American armies were terrorists too. Or the ones who continued to fight after the fall of Baghdad really were insurgents. Sorry Terry, but you would argue that the ANC weren't terrorists? You think Michael Collins' use of guerilla warfare wasn't terrorism? Terrorism is a particular type of warfare. The reasons behind terrorism are irrelevant, it is what it is. I'm not saying it's not necessary in some situations but Osama Bin Ladin is no more a terrorist than ANC leaders were during their struggle against apartheid. People might sympathise more with one cause that's all. The Iraqi soldiers were defending their country against invading forces. The Iraqis fighting since the fall of Baghdad through car bombs etc are surely terrorists?
Terry wrote: » Good old political brainwashing. Using an analogy from recent times; I suppose the Iraqi soldiers who fought against the invading British and American armies were terrorists too. Or the ones who continued to fight after the fall of Baghdad really were insurgents.
Red Lemon wrote: » When western people go to an Islamic state, they are required to obey the local laws. No they don't. Plans to invade Iran are not troubled by Iranian law. The decision will be based on how far the American and British think they can get away with kicking ass
tags. I don't quite know what you're getting at here. Would you care to expand on that? Tony Danza wrote: » I'm not going to claim to know a lot about Saudi Arabia but I would imagine that most of the people don't want change? Wouldn't they have been brought up to believe that this is the correct way of living for Allah? That's basically what I was trying to say. You made it a bit clearer.
Tony Danza wrote: » I'm not going to claim to know a lot about Saudi Arabia but I would imagine that most of the people don't want change? Wouldn't they have been brought up to believe that this is the correct way of living for Allah?
hopalong85 wrote: » Terry wrote: » Good old political brainwashing. Using an analogy from recent times; I suppose the Iraqi soldiers who fought against the invading British and American armies were terrorists too. Or the ones who continued to fight after the fall of Baghdad really were insurgents. QUOTE] Sorry Terry, but you would argue that the ANC weren't terrorists? You think Michael Collins' use of guerilla warfare wasn't terrorism? Terrorism is a particular type of warfare. The reasons behind terrorism are irrelevant, it is what it is. I'm not saying it's not necessary in some situations but Osama Bin Ladin is no more a terrorist than ANC leaders were during their struggle against apartheid. People might sympathise more with one cause that's all. The Iraqi soldiers were defending their country against invading forces. The Iraqis fighting since the fall of Baghdad through car bombs etc are surely terrorists? omfg, how is using guerilla warfare terrorism? Terrorism is attacking civilians, blowing up buildings to cause panic and fear and to hurt an economic infrastrucure. By your logic any army that is smaller then an invading army and that didnt do the old fashoned "lets all meet up in a field and charge at each other" tactic are terrorists? Using guerilla tactics to attack enemy forces is NOT terrorism. It only when they start using suicde bombs and blowing up civiliians all over the place that its terrorism. I suppose you think the vietcong were terrorists too eh? ffs:rolleyes::rolleyes:
Cunny-Funt wrote: » hopalong85 wrote: » omfg, how is using guerilla warfare terrorism? Terrorism is attacking civilians, blowing up buildings to cause panic and fear and to hurt an economic infrastrucure. By your logic any army that is smaller then an invading army and that didnt do the old fashoned "lets all meet up in a field and charge at each other" tactic are terrorists? Using guerilla tactics to attack enemy forces is NOT terrorism. It only when they start using suicde bombs and blowing up civiliians all over the place that its terrorism. I suppose you think the vietcong were terrorists too eh? ffs:rolleyes::rolleyes: You're right, using guerilla warfare is not the same as terrorism. I shouldn't have implied that. The use of terror isn't exactly unheard of in guerilla warfare though. I think your definition of terrorism is a bit simple. It isn't really that black and white. If a terrorist group blows up an embassy killing government officials is that a terrorist attack? Or does the fact that civilians don't die make it guerilla warfare? Oh yeah, and you should chill, it's Friday!
hopalong85 wrote: » omfg, how is using guerilla warfare terrorism? Terrorism is attacking civilians, blowing up buildings to cause panic and fear and to hurt an economic infrastrucure. By your logic any army that is smaller then an invading army and that didnt do the old fashoned "lets all meet up in a field and charge at each other" tactic are terrorists? Using guerilla tactics to attack enemy forces is NOT terrorism. It only when they start using suicde bombs and blowing up civiliians all over the place that its terrorism. I suppose you think the vietcong were terrorists too eh? ffs:rolleyes::rolleyes:
hopalong85 wrote: » You're right, using guerilla warfare is not the same as terrorism. I shouldn't have implied that. The use of terror isn't exactly unheard of in guerilla warfare though. I think your definition of terrorism is a bit simple. It isn't really that black and white. If a terrorist group blows up an embassy killing government officials is that a terrorist attack? Or does the fact that civilians don't die make it guerilla warfare? Oh yeah, and you should chill, it's Friday!
Terrorism is attacking civilians, blowing up buildings to cause panic and fear and to hurt an economic infrastrucure.
ferdi wrote: » i hope god will punish them.
Hill Billy wrote: » Hold your bleedin' horses there! She did not get jailed & whipped for being gang raped. She got jailed & lashed for "violating laws on segregation of the sexes" & for attempting to influence the judiciary. The men who gang-raped her also had their sentences doubled.
Terry wrote: » We can all sit here in our first world ivory towers and lambast the Saudis for what they are doing, but the sad fact is that not many of them know any different. They are not all rich oil barons with mansions near the Curragh. Most of the people are piss poor.
Terry wrote: » When people are piss poor, they tend to turn to religion.
Terry wrote: » All they know or care about is where their next meal is coming from.
Red Lemon wrote: » No they don't. Plans to invade Iran are not troubled by Iranian law. The decision will be based on how far the American and British think they can get away with kicking ass
ferdi wrote: » 200 lashes...that could easily kill her by itself...
Cunny-Funt wrote: » Terrorism is attacking civilians, blowing up buildings to cause panic and fear and to hurt an economic infrastrucure.
The_Minister wrote: » Then they go quiet and go "oh" when told that the men got their sentences doubled too.
SimpleSam06 wrote: » Just out of interest does that make their sentences measurable in weeks, months, or years? The saddest part is that I have to ask that question.
