Say Anything Blog

He’s right you know.

Remember all those discos and pizzerias George Washington blew up?

It is worth mentioning that in order to be a freedom fighter one must actually be fighting for freedom.

Yes. And in certain situations the definition of “freedom” is elusive—Algeria’s struggle for independence from France strikes me as an excellent example of this. (Watch Pontecorvo’s film for a deeper exploration of this.)

The situation in Iraq is, of course, not complicated at all. The American-led occupation is clearly fighting for representative democracy, while the straggling Iraqis are fighting for tyranny. When you write:

The people we’re fighting in Iraq are not fighting for freedom. They’re fighting to topple the freely-elected government now established in Iraq and replace it with some form of totalitarian regime based on extremist Islamic teachings.

I can almost guarantee that this Octavia Nasr agrees with you—at the very least, we (more specifically, you) certainly lack proof that he doesn’t, that he actually believes the terrorists in Iraq are “freedom fighters.”

Welcome back, captain Obfuscation.

By the way, “he” is a “she,” smart guy.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

oops!

With her obvious talent for inspired moral equivalence, there’s little doubt that Ms. Nasr will be promoted to senior managing editor and vice president of operations in no time at all.

Octavia NAR:

So, you know, if you think about it, “terrorism” is a subjective term depending on which side you are on.

I keep wondering where the ambiguity is.  The word “Terrorism” clearly implies the use of terror to achieve an end.  Otherwise it would be called “violentforceism” or in Iraq, perhaps “bloodba’athism”

When somebody’s cutting somebody’s friggin’ head off to invoke terror, how could any reasonable person see that but as an act of terror.

This idea that words are entirely subjective, is an entirely stupid viewpoint.  There may be grey areas, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t clear cut examples.  Like when terrorists blew up a school bus full of children in Israel.

Finally, a freedom fighter would imply (normally) a person who is fighting for personal or political freedom.  Being as the US isn’t even in a state of occupation of Iraq (and would love nothing more than to leave the bloody mess to the Iraqis), how can fighting a non-existent occupier be considered “freedom fighting”?

Welcome back, captain Obfuscation.

Thanks for pointing out the specific problems with my post and correcting them, as I clearly did with yours.

Thanks for pointing out the specific problems with my post and correcting them,

I don’t think Rob’s your mother or your 3rd grade teacher.

No, he’s just a blogger, which apparently gives him carte blanche to make wild accusations without providing any evidence while still acquiring eager defenders of his tripe such as yourself. It’s pretty cool, actually.

No, he’s just a blogger,

JUST a blogger.

This (word edited out by good taste) must be banned.

Finally, a freedom fighter would imply (normally) a person who is fighting for personal or political freedom. Being as the US isn’t even in a state of occupation of Iraq (and would love nothing more than to leave the bloody mess to the Iraqis), how can fighting a non-existent occupier be considered “freedom fighting”?

It can’t. Not surprisingly, s/he never said it was. Rob merely implied it, because, (and I’m just guessing here), he believes she hates America and is sympathetic to the terrorists.

Yeah Dave, and you are just a commenter at a blog.

Which puts you on an even lower rung, according to your own logic.