Syria? What about the recent attacks on US troops in Afghanistan? - The 4 Freedoms Library2024-03-28T10:25:17Zhttp://4freedoms.com/forum/topics/syria-what-about-the-recent-attacks-on-us-troops-in-afghanistan?groupUrl=afghanistan&feed=yes&xn_auth=noThey are, brainwashed by the…tag:4freedoms.com,2013-09-06:3766518:Comment:1373102013-09-06T09:55:50.930Zpaul collingshttp://4freedoms.com/profile/paulcollings
<p></p>
<p>They are, brainwashed by their religion, and by tribal influence. But that's not to say most of us aren't to some degree suffering the effects of our up bringing and social pressures ect. The only difference is our way of life does allow for a certain amount of personal freedom, and choices.</p>
<p>It is true that there are many educated people in many Islamic organisations that we are in conflict with, although they take their instruction from the Quran, so as intelligent as they…</p>
<p></p>
<p>They are, brainwashed by their religion, and by tribal influence. But that's not to say most of us aren't to some degree suffering the effects of our up bringing and social pressures ect. The only difference is our way of life does allow for a certain amount of personal freedom, and choices.</p>
<p>It is true that there are many educated people in many Islamic organisations that we are in conflict with, although they take their instruction from the Quran, so as intelligent as they are, they work everything back through their mind until what they do matches up with some verse from the Quran.</p>
<p>Everything they do is governed by the word of Allah.</p>
<p>I understand what your saying about fighting foreign forces. No one likes an occupying force. No matter how friendly. Even in Britain we can see that, with the Celts and Anglo Saxons, and later with the conquest of Britain by the French king William the Conquer. Notice history (british) always referred to him as 'conquer' as though his reign was never legitimate, even though he did a lot of good in with the bad. For centuries us Brits hated the French.</p>
<p>So back to the question of 'are they fighters'. Do we measure them by our standards. People are often saying we should not measure Islam by our standards. We should not make the mistake of believing that their idea of religion is the same as a Christian or Hindu ect would. So should we believe that their idea of a fighter is the same.</p>
<p>When it suits, Islam use's our standards against us. Telling us we,re intolerant. referring to us as Crusaders, they claim every lose as a victory while claiming victimhood in the same breath, and even if we pull out of every Islamic country they will keep on coming bringing their death cult with them.</p>
<p>When they kill us they claim victory, when we kill them they claim victory. Their 'fighters' are no more than cannon fodder for an ideology. And yes we could say the same about our own fighters through out history. But, fighting to enforce a never changing ideology, to stop any outside influence that may somehow pollute Islam. Its a fine line.</p>
<p>Yes you will fight people who invade you. But do you keep fighting when they've left or been defeated. What are you if you never stop fighting. Again its a fine line, and I think its down how you view the validity of your cause. We view them as terrorist, or 'insurgents' because it suits our reasoning for being there.</p>
<p>They will call themselves fighters who are protecting their Country? Tribe? Islam? I think if we call them fighters we give them some sort of credibility I don't want them to have. But this will not stop them calling themselves what they will.</p>
<p>Ansars, Mujahideen, they're all fighting or helping Islam or Muhhamad or Allah. I don't want to help them, so I'll not call them fighters. </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p> My basic point was that if yo…tag:4freedoms.com,2013-09-06:3766518:Comment:1371512013-09-06T06:18:53.863ZPaul Austin Murphyhttp://4freedoms.com/profile/PaulAustinMurphy
<p>My basic point was that if you have foreign forces on your soil, you will fight them regardless of the foreign forces’ plans or your own politics. This is the case, historically, even if many of your ‘people’ aren’t great fans of what you’re doing. During WW2 in France, for example, the French Resistance was up against a lot of pro-Nazi French.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I don’t know if the Taliban is brainwashed. It depends on whether you mean self-brainwashed or brainwashed by others. They…</p>
<p>My basic point was that if you have foreign forces on your soil, you will fight them regardless of the foreign forces’ plans or your own politics. This is the case, historically, even if many of your ‘people’ aren’t great fans of what you’re doing. During WW2 in France, for example, the French Resistance was up against a lot of pro-Nazi French.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I don’t know if the Taliban is brainwashed. It depends on whether you mean self-brainwashed or brainwashed by others. They are certainly self-brainwashed but, then again, many of these people – not all – have no education so they have no way of critically dissecting what they believe. Al-Qaeda, on the other hand, is full of educated rich people. Same too with Hamas and the Muslims Brotherhood generally – full of middle-class university-educated Islamists (CAIR especially!).</p>
<p><cite>paul collings said:</cite></p>
<div><blockquote><div class="xg_user_generated"><strong>Personally I think they're brainwashed killers. But history will have to decide I feel.</strong></div>
</blockquote>
</div> On a related note, I was expl…tag:4freedoms.com,2013-09-05:3766518:Comment:1371442013-09-05T20:40:47.666ZAlan Lakehttp://4freedoms.com/profile/AlanLake
<p>On a related note, I was explaining some background on the Syria situation to a friend last night. Have you noticed how successful the Western interventions in the Middle East are?</p>
<p>Let's leave politics and morality aside for a minute, and just judge if the number of deaths that has occurred, would be less that those that <em>would have</em> occurred, if the US/EU hadn't helped to topple the existing (but flawed) regime. I ask this because many Iraqis would rather be back under…</p>
<p>On a related note, I was explaining some background on the Syria situation to a friend last night. Have you noticed how successful the Western interventions in the Middle East are?</p>
<p>Let's leave politics and morality aside for a minute, and just judge if the number of deaths that has occurred, would be less that those that <em>would have</em> occurred, if the US/EU hadn't helped to topple the existing (but flawed) regime. I ask this because many Iraqis would rather be back under Saddam Hussein now, with all his faults, life was safer and better.</p>
<p>So, which countries has Western intervention and disruption made worse?</p>
<ul>
<li>Iraq</li>
<li>Afghanistan (we could have left after bin Laden's escape)</li>
<li>Iran (yes, we helped the Islamic revolution in at least 2 ways)</li>
<li>Egypt (the West was involved with Mubarrak's overthrow)</li>
<li>Libya</li>
<li>Syria (we've already intervened by giving support to the rebels)</li>
<li>Tunisia?</li>
</ul>
<p>With a track record like that, I think we should just stay out of Syria.</p>
<p>N.B. I'm not talking about the conceited Leftie's view that "I know what is best for you dumb Iraqi people". I'm talking about what those people themselves would say they prefer. If its a choice between democracy+daily bombs v. an authoritarian regime, most people will choose the latter.</p> I'm sure when the Russians i…tag:4freedoms.com,2013-09-05:3766518:Comment:1370652013-09-05T18:56:26.180Zpaul collingshttp://4freedoms.com/profile/paulcollings
<p></p>
<p>I'm sure when the Russians invaded Afghanistan they were fighters, or at least considered part of the Army. Or were they originally the Mujahideen, and they morphed into the Taliban. Any way, I suppose it depends on your perspective. The only trouble I have with them being referred to as fighters is they use terror against the people they are supposed to be fighting for.</p>
<p>Of cause they're not fighting for the people exactly, they're fighting to protect Islam. Or because being a…</p>
<p></p>
<p>I'm sure when the Russians invaded Afghanistan they were fighters, or at least considered part of the Army. Or were they originally the Mujahideen, and they morphed into the Taliban. Any way, I suppose it depends on your perspective. The only trouble I have with them being referred to as fighters is they use terror against the people they are supposed to be fighting for.</p>
<p>Of cause they're not fighting for the people exactly, they're fighting to protect Islam. Or because being a sheep herder or poppy grower is too much hard work.</p>
<p>The thing is, they'll kill anyone, including themselves. I think Islam makes its followers behave as though they have some kind of illness. Its like they're been attacked by a parasite, sometimes they look like ordinary people, sometimes they look like fighters, but eventually they have to behave like the parasite. (islam) </p>
<p>As for calling them fighters? Emmmm. What are they fighting for. For the right to keep fighting until the world is under the Sharia. And then everyone will just keep on fighting. Maybe they are the purest form of fighters human kind has produced.</p>
<p>Personally I think they're brainwashed killers. But history will have to decide I feel.</p>
<p></p>