God Bless Terrorism

[Nik]

Originally posted by: RichardE
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.

I wouldn't consider the Mujadeen to be terrorists when they were defending their land against the Soviet occupation. I *do* consider the Taliban a terrorist group. Do you understand why?

 

[Nik]

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

Please thoroughly elaborate on how George Washington is a terrorist by today's standards.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: GuideBot

Originally posted by: RichardE
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.

I wouldn't consider the Mujadeen to be terrorists when they were defending their land against the Soviet occupation. I *do* consider the Taliban a terrorist group. Do you understand why?

The Mujadeen were fighting Communism. My enemies enenmy is my friend.

If you were born in Russia, you would consider the Mujadeen terrorist and would consider the Taliban (who are fighting your enemy) as freedom fighters against occupation.

Do you understand this?

 

[LordMaul]

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.

Seconded. You're categorizing by using only a small portion of the definition of terrorists as they're known. That would be like me saying that rich women are really grizzly bears because they wear fur, eat fish and are hunted by men. :roll:

 

[SVT Cobra]

OP, I don't like to insult often, as it's rude and uncalled for on the internet. But, you're a fvcking idiot. Period.

Why?

George Washington was a revolutionary, not a terrorist.

The difference?

Terrorists kill innocent people, revolutionaries only attack their enemies' non-civilians. One is military, the other is a coward.

Also if you spent your time "blessing" democracy and used your time to promote the time aged "more democracy" there would be no need for terrorism. Not to mention you fail and mentioning why those countries needed a revolution.

Sorry, I know you were trying to look smart by putting a general meaning on a now biased word, but next time know your definitions (and don't go quoting some dictionary, because you can always find some general definition to support an argument), know about the military, and get your information from somewhere other than CNN.

Have a nice day.

 

[SilverThief]

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot....We've got a sleeper cell right here in AT.
Requesting permission to engage....over.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: GuideBot

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

Please thoroughly elaborate on how George Washington is a terrorist by today's standards.

Don't really care if he was or wasn't. To the British he was, so he was a terrorist to the other side of the conflict. Of course both sides will have a different opinion on this. That was the point I was trying to make

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: GuideBot

Originally posted by: RichardE
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.

I wouldn't consider the Mujadeen to be terrorists when they were defending their land against the Soviet occupation. I *do* consider the Taliban a terrorist group. Do you understand why?

The Mujadeen were fighting Communism. My enemies enenmy is my friend.

If you were born in Russia, you would consider the Mujadeen terrorist and would consider the Taliban (who are fighting your enemy) as freedom fighters against occupation.

Do you understand this?

Yes, of course I understand the trite rhetoric. What the vast majority of educated society agrees on is that Washington was not a terrorist, even by today's standards.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: GuideBot

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: GuideBot

Originally posted by: RichardE
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.

I wouldn't consider the Mujadeen to be terrorists when they were defending their land against the Soviet occupation. I *do* consider the Taliban a terrorist group. Do you understand why?

The Mujadeen were fighting Communism. My enemies enenmy is my friend.

If you were born in Russia, you would consider the Mujadeen terrorist and would consider the Taliban (who are fighting your enemy) as freedom fighters against occupation.

Do you understand this?

Yes, of course I understand the trite rhetoric. What the vast majority of educated society agrees on is that Washington was not a terrorist, even by today's standards.

I don't have the neccesary knowledge on him to decide... I think we just crossed at the wrong paths in this one

I think I misread your answeres before I posted, sorry.

 

[sixone]

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.

And who brought the subject of seances into this thread? If you set the tone, don't complain about others continuing it. It distracts from the point you're attempting to make.

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: F22 Raptor
OP, I don't like to insult often, as it's rude and uncalled for on the internet. But, you're a fvcking idiot. Period.

Why?

George Washington was a revolutionary, not a terrorist.

The difference?

Terrorists kill innocent people, revolutionaries only attack their enemies' non-civilians. One is military, the other is a coward.

Also if you spent your time "blessing" democracy and used your time to promote the time aged "more democracy" there would be no need for terrorism. Not to mention you fail and mentioning why those countries needed a revolution.

Sorry, I know you were trying to look smart by putting a general meaning on a now biased word, but next time know your definitions (and don't go quoting some dictionary, because you can always find some general definition to support an argument), know about the military, and get your information from somewhere other than CNN.

Have a nice day.

So you're saying that commanders or infantrymen who attack civillians are terrorists?

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: GuideBot

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

Please thoroughly elaborate on how George Washington is a terrorist by today's standards.

Don't really care if he was or wasn't. To the British he was, so he was a terrorist to the other side of the conflict. Of course both sides will have a different opinion on this. That was the point I was trying to make

No sir, the British wouldn't think of Washington as a terrorist. Back in the 1700s war was much different and a man fighting for independence was seen as chivalrous. Both sides were mutually respected by the other and words such as "terrorist" and the like weren't, or wouldn't have been, thrown around. War was chivalrous up until the end of WW1.

 

[Number1]

Should we abandon all hope as you suggest and surrender to the terrorist demands? Nonsense.

 

[ultimatebob]

Originally posted by: F22 Raptor
OP, I don't like to insult often, as it's rude and uncalled for on the internet. But, you're a fvcking idiot. Period.

Why?

George Washington was a revolutionary, not a terrorist.

The difference?

Terrorists kill innocent people, revolutionaries only attack their enemies' non-civilians. One is military, the other is a coward.

Also if you spent your time "blessing" democracy and used your time to promote the time aged "more democracy" there would be no need for terrorism. Not to mention you fail and mentioning why those countries needed a revolution.

Sorry, I know you were trying to look smart by putting a general meaning on a now biased word, but next time know your definitions (and don't go quoting some dictionary, because you can always find some general definition to support an argument), know about the military, and get your information from somewhere other than CNN.

Have a nice day.

:thumbsup:

 

[The Batt?sai]

Originally posted by: F22 Raptor
OP, I don't like to insult often, as it's rude and uncalled for on the internet. But, you're a fvcking idiot. Period.

Why?

George Washington was a revolutionary, not a terrorist.

The difference?

Terrorists kill innocent people, revolutionaries only attack their enemies' non-civilians. One is military, the other is a coward.

Also if you spent your time "blessing" democracy and used your time to promote the time aged "more democracy" there would be no need for terrorism. Not to mention you fail and mentioning why those countries needed a revolution.

Sorry, I know you were trying to look smart by putting a general meaning on a now biased word, but next time know your definitions (and don't go quoting some dictionary, because you can always find some general definition to support an argument), know about the military, and get your information from somewhere other than CNN.

Have a nice day.

i find it sad you resort to personal attacks to try and boost the logic of your argument, then pretend to be a buddy with a smiley at the end? how strange..

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: F22 Raptor
OP, I don't like to insult often, as it's rude and uncalled for on the internet. But, you're a fvcking idiot. Period.

Why?

George Washington was a revolutionary, not a terrorist.

The difference?

Terrorists kill innocent people, revolutionaries only attack their enemies' non-civilians. One is military, the other is a coward.

Also if you spent your time "blessing" democracy and used your time to promote the time aged "more democracy" there would be no need for terrorism. Not to mention you fail and mentioning why those countries needed a revolution.

Sorry, I know you were trying to look smart by putting a general meaning on a now biased word, but next time know your definitions (and don't go quoting some dictionary, because you can always find some general definition to support an argument), know about the military, and get your information from somewhere other than CNN.

Have a nice day.

So you're saying that commanders or infantrymen who attack civillians are terrorists?

That would make the US army a terorrist organization!

/flamesuit

 

[The Batt?sai]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: GuideBot

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

Please thoroughly elaborate on how George Washington is a terrorist by today's standards.

Don't really care if he was or wasn't. To the British he was, so he was a terrorist to the other side of the conflict. Of course both sides will have a different opinion on this. That was the point I was trying to make

I at least got what you were saying

 

[sixone]

Originally posted by: The Battosai

Originally posted by: F22 Raptor
OP, I don't like to insult often, as it's rude and uncalled for on the internet. But, you're a fvcking idiot. Period.

Why?

George Washington was a revolutionary, not a terrorist.

The difference?

Terrorists kill innocent people, revolutionaries only attack their enemies' non-civilians. One is military, the other is a coward.

Also if you spent your time "blessing" democracy and used your time to promote the time aged "more democracy" there would be no need for terrorism. Not to mention you fail and mentioning why those countries needed a revolution.

Sorry, I know you were trying to look smart by putting a general meaning on a now biased word, but next time know your definitions (and don't go quoting some dictionary, because you can always find some general definition to support an argument), know about the military, and get your information from somewhere other than CNN.

Have a nice day.

i find it sad you resort to personal attacks to try and boost the logic of your argument, then pretend to be a buddy with a smiley at the end? how strange..

A little sugar helps the medicine go down...

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: F22 Raptor
OP, I don't like to insult often, as it's rude and uncalled for on the internet. But, you're a fvcking idiot. Period.

Why?

George Washington was a revolutionary, not a terrorist.

The difference?

Terrorists kill innocent people, revolutionaries only attack their enemies' non-civilians. One is military, the other is a coward.

Also if you spent your time "blessing" democracy and used your time to promote the time aged "more democracy" there would be no need for terrorism. Not to mention you fail and mentioning why those countries needed a revolution.

Sorry, I know you were trying to look smart by putting a general meaning on a now biased word, but next time know your definitions (and don't go quoting some dictionary, because you can always find some general definition to support an argument), know about the military, and get your information from somewhere other than CNN.

Have a nice day.

So you're saying that commanders or infantrymen who attack civillians are terrorists?

That would make the US army a terorrist organization!

/flamesuit

SHHH! You jumped past my point. Let's let him conceded my point first then we can use the syllogism to attack his ideas!

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: Dari
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.

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme".

Society is evolving, and for the most part improving. I don't think anyone would choose to live 1000 years ago, for instance. My point is that the standards for resistance of a corrupt government or an invading power have changed...way back in the day, it was perfectly acceptible to slaughter entire cities after a conquest. It was just what you did. Now, we've learned to draw somewhat of a distinction between combatants and noncombatants. And some of us have even learned how to vanquish a foe without resorting to violence...just look at India (granted, what worked on Great Britian probably wouldn't work on, say, Spain).

Obviously the underdog in a struggle will resort to guerilla tactics to fight a powerful invader, since they're the most effective, but there's a difference between that and outright terrorism (despite the claims of our current administration). In my mind there are moral distinctions between those fighters who only target enemy troops, who target enemy troops and supporting units, who target enemy troops, supporting units, and administration, who target all "enemy" units, including civilians, and who target simply everyone.

Most of the insurgency in Iraq falls in the last category, most of those in Palestine and Israel fall in the second-to-last, the IRA fell in the third, and the French Resistance fell (for the most part) in the first. Where you want to stop calling them "guerillas" and start calling them "terrorists" is your choice, but it would be somewhere between the second and third IMHO.

 

[The Batt?sai]

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: The Battosai

Originally posted by: F22 Raptor
OP, I don't like to insult often, as it's rude and uncalled for on the internet. But, you're a fvcking idiot. Period.

Why?

George Washington was a revolutionary, not a terrorist.

The difference?

Terrorists kill innocent people, revolutionaries only attack their enemies' non-civilians. One is military, the other is a coward.

Also if you spent your time "blessing" democracy and used your time to promote the time aged "more democracy" there would be no need for terrorism. Not to mention you fail and mentioning why those countries needed a revolution.

Sorry, I know you were trying to look smart by putting a general meaning on a now biased word, but next time know your definitions (and don't go quoting some dictionary, because you can always find some general definition to support an argument), know about the military, and get your information from somewhere other than CNN.

Have a nice day.

i find it sad you resort to personal attacks to try and boost the logic of your argument, then pretend to be a buddy with a smiley at the end? how strange..

A little sugar helps the medicine go down...

not if its castor oil

if that were true, syrupy cough syrup (sugar added) would taste better

 

[SVT Cobra]

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: F22 Raptor
OP, I don't like to insult often, as it's rude and uncalled for on the internet. But, you're a fvcking idiot. Period.

Why?

George Washington was a revolutionary, not a terrorist.

The difference?

Terrorists kill innocent people, revolutionaries only attack their enemies' non-civilians. One is military, the other is a coward.

Also if you spent your time "blessing" democracy and used your time to promote the time aged "more democracy" there would be no need for terrorism. Not to mention you fail and mentioning why those countries needed a revolution.

Sorry, I know you were trying to look smart by putting a general meaning on a now biased word, but next time know your definitions (and don't go quoting some dictionary, because you can always find some general definition to support an argument), know about the military, and get your information from somewhere other than CNN.

Have a nice day.

So you're saying that commanders or infantrymen who attack civillians are terrorists?

God I love how everyone finds a way to twist such facts. Now I know why I nevered ventured into P&N where this should be.


First of all that is not condoned in our society, where it was not justified. Second, if a parrot barks like a dog, is it really a dog? No.

 

[datalink7]

I'm here to let you know that you fvcking missed P&N.

 

[Fritzo]

OK, substitute terrorists with religious extremists, and your speech suddenly turns very wrong.

We're having problems with extremists doing terrorism these days, not groups of people trying to liberate countries.

 

[Nik]

Everyone needs to fscking watch this.

Then call Washington a terrorist. I goddamn dare you.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: Dari
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.

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme".

Society is evolving, and for the most part improving. I don't think anyone would choose to live 1000 years ago, for instance. My point is that the standards for resistance of a corrupt government or an invading power have changed...way back in the day, it was perfectly acceptible to slaughter entire cities after a conquest. It was just what you did. Now, we've learned to draw somewhat of a distinction between combatants and noncombatants. And some of us have even learned how to vanquish a foe without resorting to violence...just look at India (granted, what worked on Great Britian probably wouldn't work on, say, Spain).

Obviously the underdog in a struggle will resort to guerilla tactics to fight a powerful invader, since they're the most effective, but there's a difference between that and outright terrorism (despite the claims of our current administration). In my mind there are moral distinctions between those fighters who only target enemy troops, who target enemy troops and supporting units, who target enemy troops, supporting units, and administration, who target all "enemy" units, including civilians, and who target simply everyone.

Most of the insurgency in Iraq falls in the last category, most of those in Palestine and Israel fall in the second-to-last, the IRA fell in the third, and the French Resistance fell (for the most part) in the first. Where you want to stop calling them "guerillas" and start calling them "terrorists" is your choice, but it would be somewhere between the second and third IMHO.

That becomes a real problem when your enemy wears civilian clothing.