God Bless Terrorism

[Dari]

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.

Are you saying that the British considered the North American insurgents "revolutionaries"? Oh please, I'm sure they had worse words than that. This is an American forum occupied by Americans (as I am). But I'm quite surprised at how sensitive people are of their legends. Perhaps I was naive in thinking most of you would approach this in an abstract manner. Oh well, I can see that no one wants to argue about the many of other things I mentioned.

P.S. Like I mentioned earlier, terrorists can morph to legitimacy via an overthrow or by the support of their compatriots. You should re-read the original post.

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: GuideBot
Everyone needs to fscking watch this.

Then call Washington a terrorist. I goddamn dare you.

Emotion and irrational thought has no place in a sensible debate.

 

[Nebor]

This couldn't be more of a P&N thread.

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: GuideBot
Everyone needs to fscking watch this.

Then call Washington a terrorist. I goddamn dare you.

Emotion and irrational thought has no place in a sensible debate.

I agree.

Now watch the vid. Realize the difference between terrorist and not.

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: The Battosai

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

:thumbsup:

 

[Evadman]

God damnit, P&N is the next link down!

 

[compuwiz1]

Originally posted by: datalink7
I'm here to let you know that you fvcking missed P&N.

Personally, I don't think this thread belongs anywhere, and the OP is acting like a tard for posting this.
There is no comparison between the founding Fathers and the muslim extremist whack jobs, so as hard as you are trying to get that square peg in that round hole, it's not gonna fit.
This thread is an intentional Troll, and the title alone should tell anyone with any sense that it's meant to offend.

 

[SVT Cobra]

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..

I find it sad you miss the simple characteristics of sarcasm.

I find it sad that you are still pissed I was right when I PMed you telling you to cool it or you would be banned, and I would try and help you to stop being a nef, and you are now coming back off you ban looking for a way to disagree with me in every thread.

I find it sad you are still allowed to post here.

Hats off to you my clever little friend (<<--- hint: that was sarcasm).

 

[Praxis1452]

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.

damn your fvcking ignorant. period.

revolutionary/terrorist/freedomfighter it's all the same. revolutionaries only attack their enemies not civilians? The civilians are your enemy. The simple fact is if you are fighting a war against X country and the people in X country hate you and fight against you they are your enemy. Your total concept of enemy is wrong.

He mentioned that countries need a revolution because the current goverment always becomes complacent and lazy so far as it has been in history.

Your last paragraph was an utterly useless insult. btw your the only one trying to look smart. You started with the insult and then tried to be the tougher man lmao. He wrote a post or c/p and tried to debate. It usually ends in flamefests but hey you didn't help.

Dari keep going. It's a interesting idea though I do not agree entirely. Yes the goverments get overthrown but the evolution of the goverment itself may come to a day when it becomes impossible. The goverment is an entity that focuses solely on self-perpetuation. It is like a virus. It has no true aim or life but only that of reproduction. The goverment was created by the people to serve and to protect as we say but rather it does merely what the majority wants and the majority is complacent. Therefore it must always come down to the minority to rise up and overthrow the oppression. However they then often create their own oppression and in doing so solidify the circle. Again though the evolution of goverment itself will come into the absence of it.

Basically goverment is going to grow so powerful that a simply rebellion won't stop it however after the collapse of this mega-goverment for lack of a better word the world will realize that goverment has no place in nature and will simply dissolve it.

This is speaking from the point of view of a hopeful anarchist.

 

[The Batt?sai]

Originally posted by: F22 Raptor

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..

I find it sad you miss the simple characteristics of sarcasm.

I find it sad that you are still pissed I was right when I PMed you telling you to cool it or you would be banned, and I would try and help you to stop being a nef, and you are now coming back off you ban looking for a way to disagree with me in every thread.

I find it sad you are still allowed to post here.Hats off to you my clever little friend (<<--- hint: that was sarcasm).

i blocked you cause you asked me my age, and i told you, and you asked for proof after i told you. i was honest when you asked me and i replied (24). Insinuating I'm a liar is not a way to offer someone help. And just cause I disagreed with you here, name one other thread I have disagreed with you in. You can't, can you? (<<--- hint: that was not sarcasm).

 

[ultimatebob]

Why hasn't this pathetic troll fest been locked yet? Are the mods on vacation or something?

 

[SVT Cobra]

Originally posted by: Dari

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.

Are you saying that the British considered the North American insurgents "revolutionaries"? Oh please, I'm sure they had worse words than that. This is an American form occupied by Americans (as I am). But I'm quite surprised at how sensitive people are of their legends. Perhaps I was naive in thinking most of you would approach this in an abstract manner. Oh well, I can see that no one wants to argue about the many of other things I mentioned.

P.S. Like I mentioned earlier, terrorists can morph to legitimacy via an overthrow or by the support of their compatriots. You should re-read the original post.

yes, and then they become dictators.

Sorry OP, since you fail to relate to the past (as they didn't even use the term terrorists back then), here is a recent example: IRA

BTW, we all get that "see it from the British side" argument, but it doesn't fly in this case.

 

[Praxis1452]

Originally posted by: GuideBot

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: GuideBot
Everyone needs to fscking watch this.

Then call Washington a terrorist. I goddamn dare you.

Emotion and irrational thought has no place in a sensible debate.

I agree.

Now watch the vid. Realize the difference between terrorist and not.

just like the bush administration. scare tactics. You may view terrorism as flying planes into a building. However any type of revolution requires terrorism. That you beat your opponent so badly that they give up. How is any revolution supposed to succeed when dominated by a much stronger/larger force? With terrorism. Now if your going to tell me that no acts of terror were used to scare the redcoats...

 

[cpacini]

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser
P&N is that way >>>>>>>>>>>

 

[The Batt?sai]

Originally posted by: F22 Raptor

Originally posted by: Dari

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.

Are you saying that the British considered the North American insurgents "revolutionaries"? Oh please, I'm sure they had worse words than that. This is an American form occupied by Americans (as I am). But I'm quite surprised at how sensitive people are of their legends. Perhaps I was naive in thinking most of you would approach this in an abstract manner. Oh well, I can see that no one wants to argue about the many of other things I mentioned.

P.S. Like I mentioned earlier, terrorists can morph to legitimacy via an overthrow or by the support of their compatriots. You should re-read the original post.

yes, and then they become dictators.

Sorry OP, since you fail to relate to the past (as they didn't even use the term terrorists back then), here is a recent example: IRA

BTW, we all get that "see it from the British side" argument, but it doesn't fly in this case.

seems to me that they used the term back then it was a french term (terrorist) used in 1795, and there were precursors known as zealots.

 

[SVT Cobra]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452

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.

damn your fvcking ignorant. period.

revolutionary/terrorist/freedomfighter it's all the same. revolutionaries only attack their enemies not civilians? The civilians are your enemy. The simple fact is if you are fighting a war against X country and the people in X country hate you and fight against you they are your enemy. Your total concept of enemy is wrong.

He mentioned that countries need a revolution because the current goverment always becomes complacent and lazy so far as it has been in history.

Your last paragraph was an utterly useless insult. btw your the only one trying to look smart. You started with the insult and then tried to be the tougher man lmao. He wrote a post or c/p and tried to debate. It usually ends in flamefests but hey you didn't help.

Dari keep going. It's a interesting idea though I do not agree entirely. Yes the goverments get overthrown but the evolution of the goverment itself may come to a day when it becomes impossible. The goverment is an entity that focuses solely on self-perpetuation. It is like a virus. It has no true aim or life but only that of reproduction. The goverment was created by the people to serve and to protect as we say but rather it does merely what the majority wants and the majority is complacent. Therefore it must always come down to the minority to rise up and overthrow the oppression. However they then often create their own oppression and in doing so solidify the circle. Again though the evolution of goverment itself will come into the absence of it.

Basically goverment is going to grow so powerful that a simply rebellion won't stop it however after the collapse of this mega-goverment for lack of a better word the world will realize that goverment has no place in nature and will simply dissolve it.

This is speaking from the point of view of a hopeful anarchist.

LMFAO

No your logic is convorted and totally incorrect.

If the enemy is also civilians then why don't we just go nuke the middle east?

Sorry go learn about the military instead of believing that whako anarchist propaganda.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452

Originally posted by: GuideBot

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: GuideBot
Everyone needs to fscking watch this.

Then call Washington a terrorist. I goddamn dare you.

Emotion and irrational thought has no place in a sensible debate.

I agree.

Now watch the vid. Realize the difference between terrorist and not.

just like the bush administration. scare tactics. You may view terrorism as flying planes into a building. However any type of revolution requires terrorism. That you beat your opponent so badly that they give up. How is any revolution supposed to succeed when dominated by a much stronger/larger force? With terrorism. Now if your going to tell me that no acts of terror were used to scare the redcoats...

The British owned the land. Change requires revolution, which requires blood. So in the end the people overthrew the British rule, to the British they were terrorists who stole the land. To the decendants they are forfathers who devilvered them.