• We should now be fully online following an overnight outage. Apologies for any inconvenience, we do not expect there to be any further issues.

God Bless Terrorism

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Terrorism is perhaps the greatest catalyst to the political-economy. In my opinion, it even surpasses democracy. Why? Because all forms of leadership becomes complacent, corrupt, and hostile to those that are ruled, whether they are the willing (compatriots) or the unwilling (the subjugated). Over time, the corrupt leadership becomes resented and an insurgency forms, with the tacit support of those in opposition. While some of these insurgency are non-violent, most are brutal in their vengence because of the length of abuse by leadership. These insurgents terrorize the leadership, hoping for defeat. Eventually, they ALWAYS defeat the status-quo, if not the leadership itself. This can come in two forms: One is the overthrow of the leadership while the other is the changing of directives (i.e. laws) so that the oppressed are given equal rights under the sun. However, just as in the book Animal Farm, the new leadership can become complacent, corrupt and/or hostile to the subjugates and/or compatriots, continuing the cycle of power. This cycle is perhaps a corollary to the Wheels of Fortune first described by the Greek historian Herodotus.



For those that want to dismiss my opinion, let's not forget that this nation was founded by terrorists, and their first leader was George Washington. The terrorists received financial, military, and political support from the nation of France.

Still don't believe me? Well, the first Prime Minister of Israel, David Ben-Gurion, was a wanted man throughout Europe and was head of the terrorist organization Irgun which bombed British and Arab interests.

Even the enlightened state of France rose up in rebellion against their king and then against Hitler. Those in opposition could've easily been called terrorists by Hitler or the deposed king.

In fact, I believe that almost every nation on earth was either founded or ruled by terrorists. So whether they are terrorists or freedom fighters, the point is moot. What matters is that you take their demands seriously or risk a fight that you cannot win. Americans must remember that this nation was founded and is based upon Masonic principles. In fact, the first official bird of the USA was the mythical Phoenix. What's spectular about the Phoenix is that it destroys itself in a blazing fireball, then rising from its own ashes. The allegory is that there is life in death, or regeneration. So that whatever is rotten or near death will eventually be born again. The issue for nations (the political-economy) is what the catalyst of death will be. Will it be through choice (the changing of directives) or real death? The choice is up to the leadership.


Sorry, but, this thread is a troll, as well as flamebait. I was eating, or this would have never gotten past the first reply. OP, please watch it....next time it's vacation time.

AnandTech Moderator
 

sixone

Lifer
May 3, 2004
25,030
5
61
I'm quite sure George Washington didn't bomb a restaurant full of civilians. :disgust:
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: sixone
I'm quite sure George Washington didn't bomb a restaurant full of civilians. :disgust:

What difference does their methodology make? The end always justifies the means for a terrorist.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: uhohs
troll troll troll your boat

Thanks for being insightful:roll: Now, care to debate or are you going to continue the name-calling?
 

sixone

Lifer
May 3, 2004
25,030
5
61
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: sixone
I'm quite sure George Washington didn't bomb a restaurant full of civilians. :disgust:

What difference does their methodology make? The end always justifies the means for a terrorist.

For a terrorist, yes it does. Because their goal is terror.

Washington's goal and the steps he took to reach it were on another level entirely.
 

desiplaya4life

Golden Member
Jan 25, 2004
1,449
2
81
what the means of terrorist was is different take on it today but the intentions of self-interest will always remain the same.


 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: sixone
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: sixone
I'm quite sure George Washington didn't bomb a restaurant full of civilians. :disgust:

What difference does their methodology make? The end always justifies the means for a terrorist.

For a terrorist, yes it does. Because their goal is terror.

Washington's goal and the steps he took to reach it were on another level entirely.

Yeah right. Washington's goal was for the defeat of British forces in his homeland, simple as that. Don't tell me that you can communicate with Washington via seance and he's telling you his was a higher goal? The only thing I've read of Washington was that he was incorruptable, other than that, he had clear goals.

But if you look at Ben-Gurion, he had no problem killing innocent civilians. The same can be said of many other terrorists.
 
S

SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: sixone
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: sixone
I'm quite sure George Washington didn't bomb a restaurant full of civilians. :disgust:

What difference does their methodology make? The end always justifies the means for a terrorist.

For a terrorist, yes it does. Because their goal is terror.

Washington's goal and the steps he took to reach it were on another level entirely.


I dunno. Let's look at how the taliban began.

The Taliban's rise to power

The Taliban are one of the mujahideen ("holy warriors" or "freedom fighters") groups that formed during the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan (1979-89). After the withdrawal of Soviet forces, the Soviet-backed government lost ground to the mujahideen. In 1992, Kabul was captured and an alliance of mujahideen set up a new government with Burhanuddin Rabbani as interim president. However, the various factions were unable to cooperate and fell to fighting each other. Afghanistan was reduced to a collection of territories held by competing warlords.

link


Huh. That's really interesting.
 

sixone

Lifer
May 3, 2004
25,030
5
61
Originally posted by: Dari
Yeah right. Washington's goal was for the defeat of British forces in his homeland, simple as that. Don't tell me that you can communicate with Washington via seance and he's telling you his was a higher goal? The only thing I've read of Washington was that he was incorruptable, other than that, he had clear goals.

But if you look at Ben-Gurion, he had no problem killing innocent civilians. The same can be said of many other terrorists.

Perhaps you should read up on Washington, before you rewrite his intentions. The information is out there, and you're free to continue to ignore it.

 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: sixone
Originally posted by: Dari
Yeah right. Washington's goal was for the defeat of British forces in his homeland, simple as that. Don't tell me that you can communicate with Washington via seance and he's telling you his was a higher goal? The only thing I've read of Washington was that he was incorruptable, other than that, he had clear goals.

But if you look at Ben-Gurion, he had no problem killing innocent civilians. The same can be said of many other terrorists.

Perhaps you should read up on Washington, before you rewrite his intentions. The information is out there, and you're free to continue to ignore it.

Perhaps you should enlighten me if his objectives was more than what I claim if you know more. Otherwise, this conversation is fruitless.
 

Nik

Lifer
Jun 5, 2006
16,101
3
56
Originally posted by: sixone
Originally posted by: Dari
Yeah right. Washington's goal was for the defeat of British forces in his homeland, simple as that. Don't tell me that you can communicate with Washington via seance and he's telling you his was a higher goal? The only thing I've read of Washington was that he was incorruptable, other than that, he had clear goals.

But if you look at Ben-Gurion, he had no problem killing innocent civilians. The same can be said of many other terrorists.

Perhaps you should read up on Washington, before you rewrite his intentions. The information is out there, and you're free to continue to ignore it.

Forget it, Six. He'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience. You can't reason with idiots. Until a light flicks on in that peabrain trolling head of his, nothing you say will make any difference.

Know that you and everyone else who's got their wits about them understands and that's all that matters.
 

sixone

Lifer
May 3, 2004
25,030
5
61
Originally posted by: GuideBot
Forget it, Six. He'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience. You can't reason with idiots. Until a light flicks on in that peabrain trolling head of his, nothing you say will make any difference.

Know that you and everyone else who's got their wits about them understands and that's all that matters.

:thumbsup:
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: GuideBot
Originally posted by: sixone
Originally posted by: Dari
Yeah right. Washington's goal was for the defeat of British forces in his homeland, simple as that. Don't tell me that you can communicate with Washington via seance and he's telling you his was a higher goal? The only thing I've read of Washington was that he was incorruptable, other than that, he had clear goals.

But if you look at Ben-Gurion, he had no problem killing innocent civilians. The same can be said of many other terrorists.

Perhaps you should read up on Washington, before you rewrite his intentions. The information is out there, and you're free to continue to ignore it.

Forget it, Six. He'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience. You can't reason with idiots. Until a light flicks on in that peabrain trolling head of his, nothing you say will make any difference.

Know that you and everyone else who's got their wits about them understands and that's all that matters.

Perhaps you and your friend flock together. You insult others yet fail to refute what I've written. And if you think I'm an idiot that should be avoided, then it's bests that you exit this thread ASAP. But remember that terrorism is a relative term and you shouldn't close your mind to the plight of those in opposition. I'm sure an intelligent person like yourself will understand that.
 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
Originally posted by: GuideBot
Originally posted by: sixone
Originally posted by: Dari
Yeah right. Washington's goal was for the defeat of British forces in his homeland, simple as that. Don't tell me that you can communicate with Washington via seance and he's telling you his was a higher goal? The only thing I've read of Washington was that he was incorruptable, other than that, he had clear goals.

But if you look at Ben-Gurion, he had no problem killing innocent civilians. The same can be said of many other terrorists.

Perhaps you should read up on Washington, before you rewrite his intentions. The information is out there, and you're free to continue to ignore it.

Forget it, Six. He'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience. You can't reason with idiots. Until a light flicks on in that peabrain trolling head of his, nothing you say will make any difference.

Know that you and everyone else who's got their wits about them understands and that's all that matters.

Actually, you and six are perfect examples of the type of people who attack what you percieve as the perfect heritage, and refuse to see that perhaps there might be a different spin on the history.

To the British, The American's were terrorists, fighting for independance of a country that was not there.

The terrorists are always on the other side. :)
 

Nik

Lifer
Jun 5, 2006
16,101
3
56
Originally posted by: Dari
Perhaps you and your friend flock together. You insult others yet fail to refute what I've written. And if you think I'm an idiot that should be avoided, then it's bests that you exit this thread ASAP. But remember that terrorism is a relative term and you shouldn't close your mind to the plight of those in opposition. I'm sure an intelligent person like yourself will understand that.

If you're truely interested in a conversation about how George Washington's methodology & tactics aren't considered terrorism, wait until school's back in session this fall and call your local junior high and ask to speak with a student who's currently taking a US History course.
 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
Originally posted by: GuideBot
Originally posted by: Dari
Perhaps you and your friend flock together. You insult others yet fail to refute what I've written. And if you think I'm an idiot that should be avoided, then it's bests that you exit this thread ASAP. But remember that terrorism is a relative term and you shouldn't close your mind to the plight of those in opposition. I'm sure an intelligent person like yourself will understand that.

If you're truely interested in a conversation about how George Washington's methodology & tactics aren't considered terrorism, wait until school's back in session this fall and call your local junior high and ask to speak with a student who's currently taking a US History course.

Are not considered terrorism by today's definitions? Or definitions from back than? As I said, the terrorists are always the other side.