Al-Jazeera is still calling suicide bombers "freedom fighters"...

[Random Variable]

while the White House is now calling suicide bombers "homicide bombers."

If this isn't a perfect example of moral relativity, I don't know what is.

 

[conjur]

Of course they're freedom fighters. Fighting to free the blood from within their veins (and, unfortunately, of those around them, too)

 

[StageLeft]

yep ;0

 

[Random Variable]

All this talk about "moral clarity" has not been very helpful in my opinion. It just seems to further polarize people's opinions.

 

[Miramonti]

It just seems to further polarize people's opinions.

Its the same mind game that Reagan pulled using "freedom fighters" in the '80's. It all about getting people to side with you regardless of there being two sides to the coin.

Btw, al-jazeera.com doesn't report the amount of "Palestinian deaths" on their site. All Palestinian deaths are always referred to as "martyrs" and how many "martyrs died" in such and such town. That's pretty emphatic for a media source that's supposed to be more objective than other arab sources. If that doesn't say how the arab nations feel about this I don't know what does.

 

[zoiks]

yep they are freedom fighters. fighting for their land.
if you dont like that then too bad.

 

[Random Variable]

I think they should be called "braind-washed homicidal freedom fighters."

 

[TerryMathews]

<< yep they are freedom fighters. fighting for their land. >>



More like fighting to steal Israel's land. God forbid, that the Middle East pratice religious tolerance.

If you want to look at the political aspect, Israel has as much right to defend itself from suicide bombers as we do. It is very hipocritical for us to advocate Israel backing out of Palestein while we are still knee-deep in tracking down a eliminating Al Quadea.

If you really want to make this into a religious debate, I seriously doubt He wants hundreds of thousands of His creations killing one another in His name.

Who me, a Republican??? Naah.

 

[BuckleDownBen]

Depending on what side of the conflict you're on, one man's freedom fighters are another man's terrorists.

 

[Kadarin]

<< God forbid, that the Middle East pratice religious tolerance. >>



Like anyone seriously expects "religious tolerance" from Islam? Such a thing does not exist.

 

[IGBT]

"Homicide Bomber" accurately describes the event and activity. Suicide is defined as the act of killing oneself purposely. Arafat rejected a near 100% deal that Clinton negotated for him in the sunset of his presidency. Instead of sending 3rd graders laden with C4 and nails, the Palestinians could be celebrating their independence and planning for the future had Arafat had the backbone to accept the Clinton deal. But Arafat's biggest fear is having to govern the criminals and lunatic terrorist baby killers he's surrounded him self with. Even Clinton's own advisers are on record indicating Arafat's psychotic preference for crisis events. Arafat needs to go away so true Palestinian leadership with a vision and the best intrest of Palestinian children can come to the surface.

 

[Amused]

<< yep they are freedom fighters. fighting for their land.
if you dont like that then too bad. >>



Ah the ignorance... It was this very thing that COST them their land. The fighting started because the Arabs are religiously intolerant and could not stand to have Israel anywhere near their holy lands. They lost twice, Israel rightfully took their lands in self defense, and now the Arabs claim they are only fighting for their land.

Those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it. They are also doomed to keep falling for the same scam over and over and over...

 

[Pocatello]

I think Powell should go home and let the IDF finish its job. If the Arabs want to fight Israelis for a new Palestine and take over the Jerusalem, they are welcome to try. In the 60s and 70s, with a free hand into the Soviet war materiel, the Arabs couldn't do jack.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: BuckleDownBen
Depending on what side of the conflict you're on, one man's freedom fighters are another man's terrorists.

I think even the Palestinians would agree that they're both

BTW, maybe "Freedom Fighters" is just a bad translation...I'm looking at Martyr here...

 

[alrocky]

How 'bout some middle ground here? Instead of calling them freedom fighters or suicide bombers, can we refer to them as gut busters? Or bloody rain of terror(ists)?

Hey, is it true that before they commit the dirty deed they shout their trademark line: "You want a piece of me!"

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: TerryMathews

yep they are freedom fighters. fighting for their land.

More like fighting to steal Israel's land. God forbid, that the Middle East pratice religious tolerance.

If you want to look at the political aspect, Israel has as much right to defend itself from suicide bombers as we do. It is very hipocritical for us to advocate Israel backing out of Palestein while we are still knee-deep in tracking down a eliminating Al Quadea.

If you really want to make this into a religious debate, I seriously doubt He wants hundreds of thousands of His creations killing one another in His name.

Who me, a Republican??? Naah.

I'm strongly opposed to suicide bombers, but the land is as much Palestinian territory as it is Israels, and maybe even more so.
If, during the cold war, the USSR had invaded and captured Alaska, and would have sat there for 40 years, would you see any former US citizens there fighting against the Russians as being the ones fighting against the owners of the land, or would you support their struggle?
Don't forget that the Palestinians lived there for almost 2000 years before the Israelis returned, and that they lived there before that too, so 'but they were there before' is not a really strong argument anymore. If 2000 years don't matter that much, I really wonder how all you people would react if the Indians (the American ones) would claim their land back. Would you move out?