NationStates Jolt Archive

Freedom fighter....

Watcha Think?

thoughts anyone ?


:rolleyes:

terrorism is a tactic for when you don't have an army.

One Man's Terrorist is another Man's ?


Food.

A terrorist is a terrorist, regardless of the motive.

The old cliche, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter," is an excuse used by Marxist-Leninist gangsters to justify their torture, slaughter, and subjugation of anticommunists.

I looked up the dictionary definition, which says terrorism is simply the use of violence to advance a group's ideology or politics - a pretty lame definition, since you could use that definition for declaring war on another country. These days terrorism is more taken to mean any group that uses violence to advance its ideology, and deliberately targets noncombatants, and probably uses suicide tactics.

Using the more commonly accepted definition above, I heartily disagree that one man's terrorist is another man's "freedom-fighter".

one man's terrorist is another mans FOUNDING FATHER

the patriots of the american revolution used quite a few tactics that can only be described as terrorism in order to keep the rest of the population in line.

one man's terrorist is another mans FOUNDING FATHER

the patriots of the american revolution used quite a few tactics that can only be described as terrorism in order to keep the rest of the population in line.

Got proof?

Terrorists are terrorists. Period.

Terrorists are terrorists. Period.
Unless you are Reuters. Then they are "terrorists".

I would argue that an army that is used other then Defense of one's nation is a terrorist act in some way to support that countries belief of it's idea's and spread.. AKA colonialism Such has the spread of Democracy or it's point of view.. Aka Communism...

Each hide under the beliefs " WE are Right"

When in reality there is no right or wrong, but only opinion of those beliefs..

I would argue it is not the terrorist freedom fighter anology that is inaccurate but rather the latter...


Troy*

Freedom fighter....

Watcha Think?

thoughts anyone ?


:rolleyes:
sort of but I can't think of any modern day examples.

one man's terrorist is another mans FOUNDING FATHER

the patriots of the american revolution used quite a few tactics that can only be described as terrorism in order to keep the rest of the population in line.
If you are referring to guerilla warfare, that is not terrorism, as they are still targeting COMBATANTS, not civilians.

Food.

Yum! :D

Who'd thought the war on terror would be so tasty?

Personally, I feel one man's terrorist is another man's acting upon freedom of speech..only in a different country than his own.

If you are referring to guerilla warfare, that is not terrorism, as they are still targeting COMBATANTS, not civilians.

Still, the founding fathers of USA targeted civilians.

Terrorists are terrorists. Period.What about these guys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haganah)? Terrorists, or freedom fighters?

Still, the founding fathers of USA targeted civilians.

Source?

What about these guys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haganah)? Terrorists, or freedom fighters?

Can't say. I never heard of 'em. :confused:

Terrorists are terrorists. Period.

But what is a terrorist, A tautology says nothing. One man's soldier may well be another man's terrorist.
A terrorist surely is someone who uses terror (a slight linguistic connection here) to obtain his or her goals. Now this certainly applies to the jihad type movements, as well as to the IRA and ETA as examples. The question is if it can also apply to a legitimate armed force or state police force, such as the KGB were. I would argue that the KGB or the SS in Nazi Germany were terrorist organisations, Likewise McCarthyism in the USA was a campaign based on fear. As is the current "you're with us or you're against us" aproach to foreign policy. It is difficult to say that the Israeli military does not partake in terrorist activities. (Demolishing a persons house on suspicion is using fear to obtain your ends.)

Any group, legitimate or not, demanding action on the basis of violent reprisals if this action is not done, should be counted as a terrorist group.

Got proof?
sure but youll have to wait til i get home. if im still interested itll be tomorrow or monday. you may as well google it yourself, its very interesting.

what? you thought our founding fathers were perfect?
no im not talking about guerilla warfare, im talking about the treatment of the tories. only a third of the population were actively wanting revolution. 1/3 were vigorously opposed and 1/3 were undecided.

Look, guys, this is really simple ...

"Terrorism" and "Terrorist" is just another pundit catch-phrase. It doesn't actually mean anything more than "someone who isn't like me did something I didn't like".

Right now, the "someone who isn't like me" part means "Muslim" and the "did something I didn't like" means "stood up to the US". In a few years, those will change, but for now, that's what it means.

For example: A Muslim walks into a club and shoots up the place. The media screams "ACT OF TERRORISM!" and "MUSLIM TERRORIST STRIKES AGAIN!!!" all over page 1.

However, a White Christian walks into a mall in Kingston, NY and shoots up the place and not one single newspaper, radio broadcast, or television report uses the term "terrorist" or calls it an "act of terrorism".

Go figure.

I think we've started to nail it on the head. terrorism involves, quite simply, the spreading of terror. Attacking civilian sectors is terrorism. Freedom fighters, however, tend to have a more benevolent bent, and attack only the hearts of the problems, being military or (sometimes) government sectors. What both terrorsim and freedom-fighting share is that both of their ranks are often desperate with no conventional alternatives for getting their point across, and also may include non-military individuals.

Well, I define "terrorists" as people who target civilians to strike fear. "Armies" are groups that target other military operations in order to make it safe for the innocent.

Still, the founding fathers of USA targeted civilians.

Source?

sure but youll have to wait til i get home. if im still interested itll be tomorrow or monday. you may as well google it yourself, its very interesting.

what? you thought our founding fathers were perfect?
no im not talking about guerilla warfare, im talking about the treatment of the tories. only a third of the population were actively wanting revolution. 1/3 were vigorously opposed and 1/3 were undecided.

I never said that.

I think we've started to nail it on the head. terrorism involves, quite simply, the spreading of terror. Attacking civilian sectors is terrorism. Freedom fighters, however, tend to have a more benevolent bent, and attack only the hearts of the problems, being military or (sometimes) government sectors. What both terrorsim and freedom-fighting share is that both of their ranks are often desperate with no conventional alternatives for getting their point across, and also may include non-military individuals.

Agreed. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Can't say. I never heard of 'em. :confused:That's why I linked to the article! They launched attacks against British personnel and the infrastruture in Palestine in an attempt to hasten the founding of a Jewish state back in the late 1940s.

Well, I define "terrorists" as people who target civilians to strike fear. "Armies" are groups that target other military operations in order to make it safe for the innocent.

In that case, since the onset of modern warfare, there have been no armies.
Dresden,
Hiroshima,
Coventry,
Kabul
Baghdad

Just a few cities that can testify that armies attack civilians.

Well, I define "terrorists" as people who target civilians to strike fear.


The media disagrees. If your definition is the accurate one, why hasn't Robert Bonelli Jr. been called a "Terrorist" by anyone anywhere?

sure but youll have to wait til i get home. if im still interested itll be tomorrow or monday. you may as well google it yourself, its very interesting.

what? you thought our founding fathers were perfect?
no im not talking about guerilla warfare, im talking about the treatment of the tories. only a third of the population were actively wanting revolution. 1/3 were vigorously opposed and 1/3 were undecided.

So you're saying the FF beheaded tories, blew up churches, and used mentally handicapped children as suicide bombers?

I believe that the world isn't as black and white as alot of you people are suggesting. During the Vietnam War, for example, we considered the VC to be little more than terrorists, while the Vietnamese saw them as liberators. In Iraq, the Insurgents are seen as terrorists by the west, but to the average Sunni, they are fighting against foreign agression. While to most of the world a terrorist is a terrorist, to the people that the terrorists are "defending" they are heroes.

The media disagrees. If your definition is the accurate one, why hasn't Robert Bonelli Jr. been called a "Terrorist" by anyone anywhere?

Pardon my ignorance, but who is Robert Bonelli Jr.?

The media disagrees. If your definition is the accurate one, why hasn't Robert Bonelli Jr. been called a "Terrorist" by anyone anywhere?

Robert who? :confused:

Pardon my ignorance, but who is Robert Bonelli Jr.?

White Christian who recently walked into a mall in Kingston, NY and shot up the place. Since he's a White Christian and not a Muslim, he has not been called a terrorist.

So you're saying the FF beheaded tories, blew up churches, and used mentally handicapped children as suicide bombers?

From what I've personally understood from the media is that parents in certain countries offer their children (maybe not exactly handicapped) to be used as suicide bombers. Sort of a religious thing...as well as the families getting money from it.

The media disagrees. If your definition is the accurate one, why hasn't Robert Bonelli Jr. been called a "Terrorist" by anyone anywhere?

Actually, Robert Bonelli Jr. was not trying to advance any cause by the use of terror. He just went crazy. Terrorism is the use of fear to obtain some specific end. Be it the collapse of the USA, the withdrwal of the British from Northern Ireland, or an independant Basque state. (just examples)
Bonelli was not a terrorist. There was no idealism motivating his action as I understand the case.

So you're saying the FF beheaded tories, blew up churches, and used mentally handicapped children as suicide bombers?
Where did that leap of logic come from?

I believe that the world isn't as black and white as alot of you people are suggesting. During the Vietnam War, for example, we considered the VC to be little more than terrorists, while the Vietnamese saw them as liberators. In Iraq, the Insurgents are seen as terrorists by the west, but to the average Sunni, they are fighting against foreign agression. While to most of the world a terrorist is a terrorist, to the people that the terrorists are "defending" they are heroes.

Don't bullshit yourself. Most Vietnamese considered the VC terrorists. If the VC were as popular as the left suggests, why have so many Vietnamese fled their country? The VC committed the most brutal atrocities in the history of the planet. They castrated men and stuffed their genitals in their mouth, cut open pregnant womens' wombs, shoved bamboo lances through childrens' heads, beat three year old girls beyond recognition with rifle butts, gang-raped women in front of entire towns and forced everyone else to participate, pinched peoples' tongues with pliers and cut them off, decapitated and disemboweled people, burned them alive with flamethrowers, impaled them through wooden poles, buried them alive, beat them to death with clubs, etc. And that's just for starters.

I never said that.
which is why i used question marks

Freedom fighter....

Watcha Think?

thoughts anyone ?


:rolleyes:
I agree.

Where did that leap of logic come from?

The same place that has certain people comparing the FF to the individuals in Iraq performing these acts.

Where did that leap of logic come from?

Exactly what I myself was wondering.

So you're saying the FF beheaded tories, blew up churches, and used mentally handicapped children as suicide bombers?
no i cant say that i am. are those the only tactics that qualify as terrorism?

Okay, why did Robert Bonelli Jr. go shoot people like that? Was he trying to control them, or was he a psychopath?

Look, guys, this is really simple ...

"Terrorism" and "Terrorist" is just another pundit catch-phrase. It doesn't actually mean anything more than "someone who isn't like me did something I didn't like".

Right now, the "someone who isn't like me" part means "Muslim" and the "did something I didn't like" means "stood up to the US". In a few years, those will change, but for now, that's what it means.

For example: A Muslim walks into a club and shoots up the place. The media screams "ACT OF TERRORISM!" and "MUSLIM TERRORIST STRIKES AGAIN!!!" all over page 1.

However, a White Christian walks into a mall in Kingston, NY and shoots up the place and not one single newspaper, radio broadcast, or television report uses the term "terrorist" or calls it an "act of terrorism".

Go figure.
They would use the term "domestic terrorist" if he did it for the anti-abortion cause.

If a minority did it, it would get press in the local news only.

the patriots of the american revolution used quite a few tactics that can only be described as terrorism in order to keep the rest of the population in line.

Would you mind explaining this a little more, and citing some examples? :confused:

Actually, Robert Bonelli Jr. was not trying to advance any cause by the use of terror. He just went crazy. Terrorism is the use of fear to obtain some specific end. Be it the collapse of the USA, the withdrwal of the British from Northern Ireland, or an independant Basque state. (just examples)
Bonelli was not a terrorist. There was no idealism motivating his action as I understand the case.

He held the same cause as the Columbine shooters, the cause of "righteous anarchy".

However, that said, does this mean we're including in the definition of "terrorism" an act which is done to further a cause or in the name of a specific deity?

So far we have ... "targets civilians/non-combatants", "violent", and "causes fear".

Don't bullshit yourself. Most Vietnamese considered the VC terrorists. If the VC were as popular as the left suggests, why have so many Vietnamese fled their country? The VC committed the most brutal atrocities in the history of the planet. They castrated men and stuffed their genitals in their mouth, cut open pregnant womens' wombs, shoved bamboo lances through childrens' heads, beat three year old girls beyond recognition with rifle butts, gang-raped women in front of entire towns and forced everyone else to participate, pinched peoples' tongues with pliers and cut them off, decapitated and disemboweled people, burned them alive with flamethrowers, impaled them through wooden poles, buried them alive, beat them to death with clubs, etc. And that's just for starters.

Read, for example:

1.Deliver Us From Evil by Dr. Thomas Dooley
2.The Viet Cong Strategy of Terror by Douglas Pike
3.How We Lost the Vietnam War by Nguyen Cao Ky
4.Death by Government by Professor R.J. Rummel
5.American Opinion, February 1968
6.American Opinion, May 1968
7.American Opinion, January 1969
8.United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Internal Security, 92nd Congress, 2nd Session, The Human Cost of Communism in Vietnam (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972), p. 8
9.Newsweek, May 15, 1967
10.Time, December 15, 1967
11.Reader's Digest, November 1968.

So far we have ... "targets civilians/non-combatants", "violent", and "causes fear".

I would like to add one. Could "trying to get certain (mostly radical) point across" work?

Personally, I feel one man's terrorist is another man's acting upon freedom of speech..only in a different country than his own.

A car bomb or suicide bomb is freedom of speech?

He held the same cause as the Columbine shooters, the cause of "righteous anarchy".

However, that said, does this mean we're including in the definition of "terrorism" an act which is done to further a cause or in the name of a specific deity?

So far we have ... "targets civilians/non-combatants", "violent", and "causes fear".
If you really want to hear about white christian terrorists then just learn about Northern Ireland.

A car bomb or suicide bomb is freedom of speech?

I was using terms lightly. It just all depends on perspective. To them it might be freedom of speech but to me its a destruction of life; a massacre in some cases.

The same place that has certain people comparing the FF to the individuals in Iraq performing these acts.
Not really. They are claiming that they used tactics that qualify as terrorism, your comment seemed to imply that those things you are the only things that qualify as terrorism.

Still, the founding fathers of USA targeted civilians.

Since when?

they only fought the british and armed loyalists

Don't bullshit yourself. Most Vietnamese considered the VC terrorists. If the VC were as popular as the left suggests, why have so many Vietnamese fled their country? The VC committed the most brutal atrocities in the history of the planet. They castrated men and stuffed their genitals in their mouth, cut open pregnant womens' wombs, shoved bamboo lances through childrens' heads, beat three year old girls beyond recognition with rifle butts, gang-raped women in front of entire towns and forced everyone else to participate, pinched peoples' tongues with pliers and cut them off, decapitated and disemboweled people, burned them alive with flamethrowers, impaled them through wooden poles, buried them alive, beat them to death with clubs, etc. And that's just for starters.

Ok, let me re-phrase what I meant. The North Vietnamese thought of the VC as freedom fighters. The VC had fought back the Japanese soldiers, the French Imperialists, and defended their nation from the United States. In NV, the VC were praised for their defence of Vietnam. Yes, they were horrible and I am in no way saying their actions were just, but they were the driving force behind Vietnamese unification and independence.

Oh, and you know alot of they things you said the VC did? Alot of those things (Such as disemboweling people, burning them alive, impaled with wooden poles, beat them to death with clubs, and cutting open pregnant womens wombs) were done by other countries, Including the United States of America. Yes, it was done when we were fighting for our independence, but so were the VC. People will do anything for freedom. And yes, alot of Vietnamese(mostly from the South) have left Vietnam, but after the U.S. revolution was won, the tories(about 1/3 of the population) left as well.

Oh, and you think the VC are worse than the Nazi's and Soviets, who killed many millions more people than the VC and in ways even more unspeakable?

He held the same cause as the Columbine shooters, the cause of "righteous anarchy".

However, that said, does this mean we're including in the definition of "terrorism" an act which is done to further a cause or in the name of a specific deity?

So far we have ... "targets civilians/non-combatants", "violent", and "causes fear".

You missed an earlier post of mine then

*snip* A terrorist surely is someone who uses terror (a slight linguistic connection here) to obtain his or her goals. *snip*

He may have believed in "righteous anarchy", but he was not trying to further it in any way.

He is simply a criminal, insane or not. He is not a terrorist.

If you really want to hear about white christian terrorists then just learn about Northern Ireland.

Oh I know ... I have family in Omagh and Belfast.

A car bomb or suicide bomb is freedom of speech?

I'd say more like freedom of expression. :D

Look, ma! No hands!

Interesting thread. I congratulate you.

Not really. They are claiming that they used tactics that qualify as terrorism, your comment seemed to imply that those things you are the only things that qualify as terrorism.

They claimed the FF used terrorist tactics w/o any examples. I provided blatant examples thereof. Any implication is on your side.

Hang on a minute people:
Terrorism is when you target the civilian population because you are not capable, for whatever military or ideological reasons, to target military personnel within the usual rules of engagement as prescribed by the Geneva Convention.

Hence the IRA, nail-bombing supermarkets- are Terrorist scum
Hence Al-Quaeda, twin towers- are Terrorist scum

However, it is hard to impose these values on the past! The Blitz in World War Two could be seen as terrorism by both sides, and lets just take a moment to think about the use of atomics... What was the kill ration of military to civilians there?

They claimed the FF used terrorist tactics w/o any examples. I provided blatant examples thereof. Any implication is on your side.
Okay, so why was it you provided these "blatant examples"?
I cannot see the logic behind it.

I'd say more like freedom of expression. :D

Look, ma! No hands!

or legs or torso

Since when?

they only fought the british and armed loyalists

Thats not exactly true...

While the Founding Fathers never said specifically to target civilians, the Militas would, on regulr basis, burn down Loyalist homes, rape their women, etc. The worst of this was in the Carolinas, where one family would go to another families house, break in, shoot the men, rape the women, kill the children, take the fetuses out of pregnant womens wombs, and then burn the house down, killing anyone who survived. Both sides did this, by the way. So to those who say Americans never did anything horrible, you should look at your own history a little better.

I looked up the dictionary definition, which says terrorism is simply the use of violence to advance a group's ideology or politics.... since you could use that definition for declaring war on another country.No, you dont "use the definition for declaring war"...

once War breaks-up...Terror is used by both sides...

That is why good people...human people...avoid Wars.

"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

That's a definition I found, and undoubtedly there are others, but does this not describe the French Resistance of WW2? To some they were terrorists, to some they were freedom fighters.

Okay, so why was it you provided these "blatant examples"?
I cannot see the logic behind it.

Let's try rephrasing it then to make it easier for you.

Them: The FF's were terrorists.

Me: These are the kinds of things terrorists do. Did the FF's do these kinds of things?

Them: UHHHH....

No, you dont "use the definition for declaring war"...

once War breaks-up...Terror is used by both sides...

That is why good people...human people...avoid Wars.

Very true. I don't understand what grips people to blow eachother up and start wars and rape people and such.

Ok, let me re-phrase what I meant. The North Vietnamese thought of the VC as freedom fighters. The VC had fought back the Japanese soldiers, the French Imperialists, and defended their nation from the United States. In NV, the VC were praised for their defence of Vietnam. Yes, they were horrible and I am in no way saying their actions were just, but they were the driving force behind Vietnamese unification and independence.

Oh, and you know alot of they things you said the VC did? Alot of those things (Such as disemboweling people, burning them alive, impaled with wooden poles, beat them to death with clubs, and cutting open pregnant womens wombs) were done by other countries, Including the United States of America. Yes, it was done when we were fighting for our independence, but so were the VC. People will do anything for freedom. And yes, alot of Vietnamese(mostly from the South) have left Vietnam, but after the U.S. revolution was won, the tories(about 1/3 of the population) left as well.

Oh, and you think the VC are worse than the Nazi's and Soviets, who killed many millions more people than the VC and in ways even more unspeakable?

There is no evidence of the North Vietnamese fighting the Japanese. Like Mao Tse-tung, they did little to no fighting. While genuine patriots risked their lives fighting against the invading Japanese, the communists (in both Vietnam and China) spent their time eliminating rivals and terrorizing peasants into submission. And the VC were not fighting for 'independence.' They were working to impose a totalitarian government on a sovereign nation (South Vietnam), a government that was incompatible with the people of said nation. The North Vietnamese government were greedy bastards, and didn't care about anything except conquering the entire country and enslaving everyone, whether they liked it or not. They expressed a contempt of human life rarely matched in history. Whereas terrorist incidents are almost always isolated instances of evil, in the cases of most armies, the VC frequently, routinely committed atrocities, and were rewarded for it.

Thats not exactly true...

While the Founding Fathers never said specifically to target civilians, the Militas would, on regulr basis, burn down Loyalist homes, rape their women, etc. The worst of this was in the Carolinas, where one family would go to another families house, break in, shoot the men, rape the women, kill the children, take the fetuses out of pregnant womens wombs, and then burn the house down, killing anyone who survived. Both sides did this, by the way. So to those who say Americans never did anything horrible, you should look at your own history a little better.

Source?

Hang on a minute people:
Terrorism is when you target the civilian population because you are not capable, for whatever military or ideological reasons, to target military personnel within the usual rules of engagement as prescribed by the Geneva Convention.

Hence the IRA, nail-bombing supermarkets- are Terrorist scum
Hence Al-Quaeda, twin towers- are Terrorist scum

However, it is hard to impose these values on the past! The Blitz in World War Two could be seen as terrorism by both sides, and lets just take a moment to think about the use of atomics... What was the kill ration of military to civilians there?

Yeah but what about the V1 and V2 rocket attacks on Britain, plus the day and night bombing missions by the luftwaffe on London? After Vietnam, carpet bombing has become a thing of the past because of more strategic bombing, inflicting less colateral damage. the Gulf War, Gulf War II and Operation Enduring Freedom has all been against military targets and now when civilians are killed its a huge shock. in the WWII days, it was like "bomb the shit out of the city and maybee try to destroy some industrial strongpoints while your at it" now its like "destroy the tiny bunker surrounded by the mosque, the conveniance store, and the civialian housing and if you mess up we will courtmarshal you"

During the Vietnam War, for example, we considered the VC to be little more than terrorists, while the Vietnamese saw them as liberators.

I think you need to define the "we" used above. Most Americans, and certainly those of us who were in the military never, considered the VC to be terrorists. They were members of a military organization. Also, most Vietnamese in South Vietnam didn't see them as liberators. They didn't want to be ruled by the Communist North.

Thats not exactly true...

While the Founding Fathers never said specifically to target civilians, the Militas would, on regulr basis, burn down Loyalist homes, rape their women, etc. The worst of this was in the Carolinas, where one family would go to another families house, break in, shoot the men, rape the women, kill the children, take the fetuses out of pregnant womens wombs, and then burn the house down, killing anyone who survived. Both sides did this, by the way. So to those who say Americans never did anything horrible, you should look at your own history a little better.

Exactly. Most terrorists commit atrocities on their own, without being ordered to by their superiors. Whereas the VC not only relished in what they were doing, but they were orderered, encouraged even, to commit the barbarous acts they did.

I'm suprised it isn't more in US news like the (provisional) IRA(they deny it) pulled off the biggest bank heist ever. The money's serial numbers where given out so now it's worthless. They caught people burning money in their back garden and took bags of money out of another house. If thats not news worthy what is?

Its not like the brits diddnt do that either.

He did say both sides did it, didn't he?

He did say both sides did it, didn't he?

Yeah and i just deleted that

I'm suprised it isn't more in US news like the (provisional) IRA(they deny it) pulled off the biggest bank heist ever. The money's serial numbers where given out so now it's worthless. They caught people burning money in their back garden and took bags of money out of another house. If thats not news worthy what is?

The way i figure it, the US news doesn't want us to support other sides besides the US...so they only show the stuff that would make us support our own country. Even if its something like a huge bank heist.

Source?I'll try to find a source for you, but he's right. The militias in the South were absolutely brutal during the Revolutionary War.

I think you need to define the "we" used above. Most Americans, and certainly those of us who were in the military never, considered the VC to be terrorists. They were members of a military organization. Also, most Vietnamese in South Vietnam didn't see them as liberators. They didn't want to be ruled by the Communist North.

I meant the North Vietnamese

Wow. Six pages of a topic this controversial, and so far, not a single flame.

:eek:

the(Founding Fathers) only fought the british and armed loyalists
OhMygod..this has to be the most naive post of the month.

Wow. Six pages of a topic this controversial, and so far, not a single flame.

:eek:

Would you like us to start ripping eachothers opinions to shreads on this?

I'll try to find a source for you, but he's right. The militias in the South were absolutely brutal during the Revolutionary War.

Much appreciated. I would love to read up on that. Were there repercussions?

Would you like us to start ripping eachothers opinions to shreads on this?

No, I was just making an observation. ;)

Would you like us to start ripping eachothers opinions to shreads on this?

YOUR OPINION SUCKS!!!
jk

sure but youll have to wait til i get home. if im still interested itll be tomorrow or monday. you may as well google it yourself, its very interesting.

what? you thought our founding fathers were perfect?
no im not talking about guerilla warfare, im talking about the treatment of the tories. only a third of the population were actively wanting revolution. 1/3 were vigorously opposed and 1/3 were undecided.
and then the tories went north and eventually formed canada!

oh canada-
our home and native land...

in conclusion: all terrorists are despicable, barely worthy of the air they breath

No, I was just making an observation. ;)

Oh ok. Well then, good observation.

Oh ok. Well then, good observation.

Thanks. :)

Thanks. :)
Anytime. :) Although i think we might be getting a tad off subject...

The definition of terror it the important thing herer. The pilots of the USAF are called terroriste everywhere but in the USA. They willingly killed thousands of civilians in Serbia. They for example bombed the blegrade TV station. A civilan target. Are they terrorists? If not is a US tv station a ligitimit target for Iraqis (Colombians, Venezuelans, Afghans...)

The definition of terror it the important thing herer.
http://webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=terror&x=14&y=14

4 : violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands

The definition of terror it the important thing herer. The pilots of the USAF are called terroriste everywhere but in the USA. They willingly killed thousands of civilians in Serbia. They for example bombed the blegrade TV station. A civilan target. Are they terrorists? If not is a US tv station a ligitimit target for Iraqis (Colombians, Venezuelans, Afghans...)

Im guessing you dont exactly live in the US? ...Just an assumption.

Oh, and you know alot of they things you said the VC did? Alot of those things (Such as disemboweling people, burning them alive, impaled with wooden poles, beat them to death with clubs, and cutting open pregnant womens wombs) were done by other countries, Including the United States of America. Yes, it was done when we were fighting for our independence,...

Could you please give us some facts to back up your statement that the United States committed these atrocities during the Revolutionary War, or are you just pulling this out of your ass to flaimbait?

Could you please give us some facts to back up your statement that the United States committed these atrocities during the Revolutionary War, or are you just pulling this out of your ass to flaimbait?


Completely agreed.

Im guessing you dont exactly live in the US?If the Definition that the American people have is different.

Then the american people should start asking themselves questions..

Thats not exactly true...

While the Founding Fathers never said specifically to target civilians, the Militas would, on regulr basis, burn down Loyalist homes, rape their women, etc. The worst of this was in the Carolinas, where one family would go to another families house, break in, shoot the men, rape the women, kill the children, take the fetuses out of pregnant womens wombs, and then burn the house down, killing anyone who survived. Both sides did this, by the way. So to those who say Americans never did anything horrible, you should look at your own history a little better.

I think you need to give us some references on this.

If you take this definition as valid:

4 : violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary terror>

Than the current USArmy is clearly a terrorist organisation. This definition very difficult to me (as my English might be to you) since it defnines all violant acts as terror. Even self defense.

If the Definition that the American people have is different.

Then the american people should start asking themselves questions..

Nope...the definition is pretty much the same globally. It just seems to me that a lot of people blame the US for stuff. Then again, the media is basically sheilding us from what's really going on, so I guess i wouldn't know too much about what we REALLY are doing in other countries.

Im guessing you dont exactly live in the US? ...Just an assumption.

Hmm well that depends. Washington thinks we are some kind of U$ colony. We think we are an indipendent nation. You decied.

Hmm well that depends. Washington thinks we are some kind of U$ colony. We think we are an indipendent nation. You decied.

Iraq?

the founding fathers of USA targeted civilians.Since when?

they only fought the british and armed loyalists
how many here actually beleive that the FF did not use Terror?

http://webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=terror&x=14&y=14

4 : violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands


I think that's a great definition, almost. However, I think that terrorism also implies some sort of absence of direct confrontation otherwise you'd include armies, and the word would lose meaning. Militias in Iraq fighting US troops are not terrorists in my view, but kidnapping and executing people is terrorism. So I think that the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists is not whether they're justifed or not, but what exactly they're doing.

I would also disagree with the idea that freedom fighters are always 'just,' though I think it's a term that's usually applied to people that you think are justified.

Iraq?
Nope, not exactly I guess they don't have much internet outside the us bases anyway.

I think you need to give us some references on this.

(Just to let you know, I AM an American. And I'm probably more Patriotic than you, at that)

Hello! If you haven't noticed, alot of credible people have backed me up on this(including Roach-Busters). Oh, And heres yer info (http://sc_tories.tripod.com/)

Oh, and that isn't the best site since it only gives a vague description, so im looking for some more.

Argh. I need to go to sleep and I'm tired of trying to find sources for what went on in the South. You could try looking for the book Nothing But Blood and Slaughter, which is about the Revolutionary War in North Carolina. From what little I've been able to find it details the "terror" that both sides engaged in.

Argh. I need to go to sleep and I'm tired of trying to find sources for what went on in the South. You could try looking for the book Nothing But Blood and Slaughter, which is about the Revolutionary War in North Carolina. From what little I've been able to find it details the "terror" that both sides engaged in.

yeah, it seems that the internet has for gone this part of the war due to propaganda...

Oh, and for the record, I also saw a big thing on the History Channel about it.

Nope, not exactly I guess they don't have much internet outside the us bases anyway.

Guam?

What about these guys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haganah)? Terrorists, or freedom fighters?
You could make a case for the Irgun splinter group, but Haganah fought with them. And even Irgun simply cannot be compared to the likes of Hamas or Hezbollah.

yeah, it seems that the internet has for gone this part of the war due to propaganda...

Oh, and for the record, I also saw a big thing on the History Channel about it.

The History Channel has no credibility whatsoever. I'm not saying your posts earlier are right or wrong, but that channel should be called the Propaganda Channel.

Guam?
Hmm well, not Guam either I am sorry. It starts with V... (Ohhy my, this is getting way of topic)

The History Channel has no credibility whatsoever. I'm not saying your posts earlier are right or wrong, but that channel should be called the Propaganda Channel.

Oh really? Why is that?

What would it be propaganda for, anyhoo? It did a thing about American atrocities, so it can't be pro-america, it did a thing about British Atrocities, so it can't be pro-UK, it did a thing about Chinese Atrocities, so it cant be pro-china. Who is it for, then?

I believe that the world isn't as black and white as alot of you people are suggesting. During the Vietnam War, for example, we considered the VC to be little more than terrorists, while the Vietnamese saw them as liberators. In Iraq, the Insurgents are seen as terrorists by the west, but to the average Sunni, they are fighting against foreign agression. While to most of the world a terrorist is a terrorist, to the people that the terrorists are "defending" they are heroes.
They intentionally murder civilians. They are terrorists -- period.

I would also disagree with the idea that freedom fighters are always 'just,' though I think it's a term that's usually applied to people that you think are justified.exactamente.

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"

Ludovich thinks killinCroats is Justified...but Frederich does not think so.
Frederich thinks KillinServs is Justified...but Ludovich does not think so.

They intentionally murder Jews. They are not terrorists -- period.-- Period. :confused: what do you mean --period.
You know everithing dont you? :gundge:

BTW...I edited your post so you can see how arrogant your end remark is.

Take the Mujahideen in afghanistan- in the 1970s and 1980s when they were funded and trained by the USA (CIA), they were termed freedom fighters because they were against the soviets. Of course now, they're terrorists.

Personally I tend to ignore the jargon and focus on the issues, because it's all too easy to label. But yes, I agree with the original premise that one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

I'm suprised it isn't more in US news like the (provisional) IRA(they deny it) pulled off the biggest bank heist ever. The money's serial numbers where given out so now it's worthless. They caught people burning money in their back garden and took bags of money out of another house. If thats not news worthy what is?

The only place things like that will get any press here in the US is in areas such as Boston where there is a very large Irish/American population. I knew about the robery from the news I read on the internet, but hadn't heard that they caught some people with the money.

Hmm well, not Guam either I am sorry. It starts with V... (Ohhy my, this is getting way of topic)

Virginia? :D

(Okay, I give up. :( Tell me.)

The only place things like that will get any press here in the US is in areas such as Boston where there is a very large Irish/American population. I knew about the robery from the news I read on the internet, but hadn't heard that they caught some people with the money.
only happend yesterday

freedom fighter
freedom fighter :D

Oh really? Why is that?

What would it be propaganda for, anyhoo? It did a thing about American atrocities, so it can't be pro-america, it did a thing about British Atrocities, so it can't be pro-UK, it did a thing about Chinese Atrocities, so it cant be pro-china. Who is it for, then?

How can you be so blind! The freemasons!!!!

again im am surprised of some american opinions. They do believe the atacks on wtc were terrorism but their invasion in iraq was a a correct act of "self defense"
well thats just bullshit.
i am against terrorism until one point. when some iraqis gather in a organization like the al-qaida wich goal is to free iraq of the foreign ocupation retals with ,i admit, cruel atacks on americans ppl thats terrorism. an american said in this forums some days ago that iraq had the 3rd army in the world.. well now thats ignorance. (i know the figures some of you get from legal sites like the cia or other are just wrong) So i really have to ask if americans really live in a bubble made for them by their mass media..
atacking a third world country with no real reason except the personal interest in that area.. with a far better equiped and trained army is somehow an act of terrorism itself. (i must remind you that many civilians have died in the bombing atacks agains iraq. and according to your definitions terorism is an act of cruelty against civilians.) . So at this point.. i dont see any OTHER alternative to this "terorist" organizations to retal agains a target far to big for their army then some acts against civilians in USA. I admit their religion is weird and fanatic but it serves their purpose more than a christian one
So ill say terrorism is a form of fighting the opressors when military is not enough. So i would like to separate the al-quaida from the organizations in spain or ireland wich have a somehow different goal.
i would like you to understand the big picture here.. not some of my cruel thinking wich probably is wrong.

The definition of terror it the important thing herer. The pilots of the USAF are called terroriste everywhere but in the USA. They willingly killed thousands of civilians in Serbia. They for example bombed the blegrade TV station. A civilan target. Are they terrorists? If not is a US tv station a ligitimit target for Iraqis (Colombians, Venezuelans, Afghans...)

First, the USAF pilots are members of the military of a country that was at war.
Secondly, communications facilities are legitimate military targets in time of war. Third, an American TV or radio station would be a legitimate military target for the military of any legitimate government we are at war with.

They do believe the atacks on wtc were terrorism but their invasion in iraq was a a correct act of "self defense"
well thats just bullshit.

I don't know anyone who thinks the invasion of Iraq was 'self-defense.'

I don't know anyone who thinks the invasion of Iraq was 'self-defense.'

you could be surprised.

First, the USAF pilots are members of the military of a country that was at war.
Secondly, communications facilities are legitimate military targets in time of war. Third, an American TV or radio station would be a legitimate military target for the military of any legitimate government we are at war with.

so what is legitimate than?

(Just to let you know, I AM an American. And I'm probably more Patriotic than you, at that)

Hello! If you haven't noticed, alot of credible people have backed me up on this(including Roach-Busters). Oh, And heres yer info (http://sc_tories.tripod.com/)

Oh, and that isn't the best site since it only gives a vague description, so im looking for some more.

I did not attack your patriotism so there is no need for you to attack mine. I also did not ask nor care what your nationality is. All I asked for was some references for the statements you made. I do not think that asking that is unreasonable nor a reason to attack me.

The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.

so what is legitimate than?

Anything with strategic values, i.e., power plants, factories, military bases, communication centers, etc. Schools, hospitals, etc. are NOT strategically important.

I did not attack your patriotism so there is no need for you to attack mine. I also did not ask nor care what your nationality is. All I asked for was some references for the statements you made. I do not think that asking that is unreasonable nor a reason to attack me.

I did not attack you, I am just stating that I am an American. It seemed as if you thought I was some socialist German barging around how much America is great Evil and must be killed.

Anything with strategic values, i.e., power plants, factories, military bases, communication centers, etc. Schools, hospitals, etc. are NOT strategically important.

why do you think only thouse targets are strategically important? economics are also has a big importance. if u agree on that you can also agree that the wtc atack was a reasonable atack against US economy

Hello! If you haven't noticed, alot of credible people have backed me up on this(including Roach-Busters). Oh, And heres yer info (http://sc_tories.tripod.com/)

Oh, and that isn't the best site since it only gives a vague description, so im looking for some more.

I looked at the link you provided and it gives no information on the atrocities you claim were committed during the Revolution.

one man's terrorist is another mans FOUNDING FATHER

the patriots of the american revolution used quite a few tactics that can only be described as terrorism in order to keep the rest of the population in line.

agreed.

so what is legitimate than?

· Being in compliance with the law; lawful:
· Being in accordance with established or accepted patterns and standards:

I looked at the link you provided and it gives no information on the atrocities you claim were committed during the Revolution.

I know, that's why I said I was looking for a new site...

All it said was that there was a sort of Civil War in the Southern part of the U.S., and you know what happens in most Civil Wars...

*wishes that the internet wasn't so pro-U.S. Revolution so that he could get through all the biased stuff with no mention of what really happened*

Anything with strategic values, i.e., power plants, factories, military bases, communication centers, etc. Schools, hospitals, etc. are NOT strategically important.

Hospitals cramped with troopers are not? And TV stations with not a single soldier in it are? Ohh by way did you know that the USA has been found guilty of international terrorism in 1983?

Hospitals cramped with troopers are not? And TV stations with not a single soldier in it are? Ohh by way did you know that the USA has been found guilty of international terrorism in 1983?

And did you know that you have been guilty of being a biased person who doesn't even listen to the other guys views since 2005?

A terrorist is a terrorist, regardless of the motive.

The old cliche, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter," is an excuse used by Marxist-Leninist gangsters to justify their torture, slaughter, and subjugation of anticommunists.

oh, and what about those American revolutionists who fought off the british. I bet you would consider them terrorists too. And maybe Hitler and Muslini saw the feirce Greek resistance as terrorists too. And Gandhi and his fallowers were terrorists as well. And Louis Riel, who caused the N.W. revolts in Canada was a terrorist too. Oh and so were those Jews in the Pianist who were fighting off Hitler's armies. I'm sure Hitler considered them terrorists. eh?

And did you know that you have been guilty of being a biased person who doesn't even listen to the other guys views since 2005?
Hmm and why am I not listening? I just asked for futher explanation becaus I do not get the point. It seems a bit strange to me.

oh, and what about those American revolutionists who fought off the british. I bet you would consider them terrorists too. And maybe Hitler and Muslini saw the feirce Greek resistance as terrorists too. And Gandhi and his fallowers were terrorists as well. And Louis Riel, who caused the N.W. revolts in Canada was a terrorist too. Oh and so were those Jews in the Pianist who were fighting off Hitler's armies. I'm sure Hitler considered them terrorists. eh?

Defending one's homeland does not make one a terrorist. Peaceful disobedience does not make one a terrorist. Fighting for indepednence does not make one a terrorist, unless they commit atrocities against civilians or fight dirty (i.e., use torture, etc.).

Hospitals cramped with troopers are not?

No.

And TV stations with not a single soldier in it are? Ohh by way did you know that the USA has been found guilty of international terrorism in 1983?

Yes.

First, the USAF pilots are members of the military of a country that was at war.
so what is legitimate than?Everything We do is Legitimate(we are uniformend soldiers liscenced to kill)....

everything They try is Illegitimate (they dont have a Gov, well...they had one...but we overthrew it and installed our Pupets...so they no longer have a Gov)

the FoundingFathers?...well does not count...cos..cos we only killed the traitors when they had weapons in their hands..and only when we could see their eyes...

even today in Iraq we are not killing civileans...all the World Press is full of Lies... [/sarc.]

One Man's Terrorist is another Man's dead relative? :D

Defending one's homeland does not make one a terrorist. Peaceful disobedience does not make one a terrorist. Fighting for indepednence does not make one a terrorist, unless they commit atrocities against civilians or fight dirty (i.e., use torture, etc.).

thats what i was trying to say sarcastically. when u look at the issue of the palestinians, they are defending their land. Technically, the civilians tax dollars and ignorance are what is feuling the israeli military to kill more palestinians, so whoesle to kill but civilians? and besides, during the american revolution, the revolutionists would go and torture and execute innocent loyalists just because they were still loyal to the british crown, even though they didn't fight or try to stop the resistance at all. The loyalist families would be massacred and the survivors would flee to Canada, Britain and the Carribean for safety.

while we are waiting for someone to find a good source on the internet that we can all read....

go to google and put "loyalist american revolution" into the search box.

loyalist are those who were actively loyal to the crown, tories were those who were not actively supporting the revolution.

when you read that a loyalist or tory family was driven from their home by a mob, what do you think that means? why do you think that thousands of loyalists and tories were forced to leave the country?

as regards terrorists in iraq, those "insurgents" who fight the american occupation by blowing up our soldiers are NOT terrorists. those who purposely blow up iraqi civilians who are trying to go about their daily life ARE terrorists.

Swedish journalist Björn Kumm writes in his book "Terrorismens Historia" (means The History of Terrorism): (I'm translating this myself, so there might be an error or two)

"Long before the attacks in New York and Washington on 911, it has been widely accepted to view terrorists as members of an international, very powerful and evil conspiracy. It has been easy to percieve them as remote-controlled, emotionally cold individuals and groups, programmed to destabilize the calm, democratic society we westerners consider ourselves fortunate to live in through devious attacks and murder.

It has - long before Osama Bin Ladin - been widely accepted that there is an international terrorism, practically an international terrorist organization, that wants to hurt the civilized world.

But the arguments have always been present about who can and who cannot be called a terrorist. Severe acts of violence are often justified by one party as acts of self-defence but are called, by the other side, terrorism.

One person's terrorist can, as UN Secretary General Kofi Annan in Autumn 2001 said, very well be another person's freedom fighter. The definition has been most quickly changeable.

In some older encyclopediae, Terrorism is defined very simply. They talk of maintaining power through terror, someone uses power, someone achieves or tries to achieve their goals by inspiring fear in their enviroment. The instrument is not always effective. In fact, the end result can be completely contrary to the intentions of the terrorists.

There's nothing wrong with the old encyclopedic definition, it just needs to be more specified. Who is it that wants to achieve power by inspiring fear? Terrorism is primarily used by the person or organization that are - or percieve themselves to be - the underdog. Terrorism is the warfare of the weak.

This modification of the term is hard to accept for someone who has just been the victim of a brutal terrorist attack, and its hard to understand for the world that saw the twin towers collapse on september the 11th 2001.

When city busses and embassys are blown to pieces, when leading politicians are murdered and planejackers not only hijack planes but turn them and their passengers into cruise missiles capable of destroying one hundred story buildings, the people behind these attacks seem to be anything but the underdog.

On the contrary, the terrorists become percieved as superior and successful in their ventures. They perform extortion against society through violence or what is often enough, the threat of violence.

It's hard to imagine, at least in that particular moment, that their actions have their roots in some sort of weakness."

no comments?

One man's terrorist is another man's sandwich.

*wishes that the internet wasn't so pro-U.S. Revolution so that he could get through all the biased stuff with no mention of what really happened*

Could it be that it didn't happen? Could it be that you bought into someones unfounded propaganda? :confused:

Hospitals cramped with troopers are not? And TV stations with not a single soldier in it are? Ohh by way did you know that the USA has been found guilty of international terrorism in 1983?

Yes, as the troops cramped in the hospital are usually wounded thus are non-combatants. Yes, a TV station is because it can be used as a communications link by the military. No I did not know about the international terrorism thing in 1983, are you going to supply the details?

thats what i was trying to say sarcastically. when u look at the issue of the palestinians, they are defending their land.

Blowing up innocent civilians in busses, restaurants, shopping centers, etc. is not defending ones homeland.

and besides, during the american revolution, the revolutionists would go and torture and execute innocent loyalists just because they were still loyal to the british crown, even though they didn't fight or try to stop the resistance at all. The loyalist families would be massacred and the survivors would flee to Canada, Britain and the Carribean for safety.

We have repeatedly asked you to supply some references for this. As you cannot, or will not we can only conclude this is some anti-American propaganda that has no basis in fact.

as regards terrorists in iraq, those "insurgents" who fight the american occupation by blowing up our soldiers are NOT terrorists. those who purposely blow up iraqi civilians who are trying to go about their daily life ARE terrorists.

How do you classify an insurgent who is not from Iraq who blows up American soldiers? How do you classify an insurgent who blows up Iraqi policemen and Iraqi soldiers?

Swedish journalist Björn Kumm writes in his book "Terrorismens Historia" (means The History of Terrorism): (I'm translating this myself, so there might be an error or two)

Thank you very much for that article and it's translation.

In that case, since the onset of modern warfare, there have been no armies.
Dresden,
Hiroshima,
Coventry,
Kabul
Baghdad

You forgot Guernica(1937), mr historian.

Just a few cities that can testify that armies attack civilians.


And if you think that's all the examples of civilians as targets you need to do some serious reading.

Try starting with WWI, and the bombardment of Belgrade.

Could it be that it didn't happen? Could it be that you bought into someones unfounded propaganda? :confused:

No. Why would I say lies whose only purpose was to diminish my country? Celtlund, there's times when you have to accept that your country screwed up and deal with it.

Anyhoo, from what I've researched, there was that kinda fighting in the south(I knew there was, I just needed to back it up for you), but the only source I found was that book Stormforge gave, Nothing but Blood and Slaughter (http://www.booklocker.com/books/1469.html).

Excerpt:


At the time of the Revolutionary War Britain was the mightiest nation on Earth, but the Revolutionary War was their “Vietnam”. The war in the Carolinas looked more like Bosnia in 1992 than combat in the 18th century. Most of the actions in the Carolinas were fought between Americans, with no British troops at all, in a true civil war. Many of the Southerners were Scotch-Irish Presbyterians who had emigrated from Scotland and Ireland to the Carolinas in the 1760s, and thought the British were blasphemers. The constant bloodshed on Southern mountains and fields led the British to the decision to negotiate a “peace with honor” that ended the war.

While this is just a summary, I think certain words (such as "bloodshed, "looked more like Bosnia in '92") are enough.

Freedom fighter....

Watcha Think?

thoughts anyone ?


:rolleyes:
Except some terrorists don't fight for freedom. Al Quaeda would put the entire world under strict sharia law if they got the chance. They're anti-freedom fighters.

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter," is an excuse used by Marxist-Leninist gangsters to justify their torture, slaughter, and subjugation of anticommunists.

And vice-versa....

Except some terrorists don't fight for freedom. Al Quaeda would put the entire world under strict sharia law if they got the chance. They're anti-freedom fighters.

agreed...

opportunity for target practice.

No. Why would I say lies whose only purpose was to diminish my country? Celtlund, there's times when you have to accept that your country screwed up and deal with it.

I can accept that my country and countrymen have screwed up. Look at what they did to the Indians.

Anyhoo, from what I've researched, there was that kinda fighting in the south(I knew there was, I just needed to back it up for you), but the only source I found was that book Stormforge gave, Nothing but Blood and Slaughter (http://www.booklocker.com/books/1469.html).

However, you must be able to back up what you say if you want people to take you seriously. One obscure source is not sufficient. So far, you have failed to back up, with any credible source, your allegations that the American (or Rebels) forces committed atrocities during the revolution.

Don’t get me wrong. I would not doubt that some individuals may have committed atrocities, it happens in every war, but I don’t think it was a policy or even condoned by the leaders of the revolution. I doubt that it was even wide spread.

You forgot Guernica(1937), mr historian.



And if you think that's all the examples of civilians as targets you need to do some serious reading.

Try starting with WWI, and the bombardment of Belgrade.

I said it was just "a few examples" what on earth made you think it was supposed to be an all inclusive list? The examples were ones that implicatd different nations, to avoid any particular bias, and either currently in the news or well known, to be clear to non historians. Which, by the way does include me.

We could start, if you want to start with the killing of civilians being seen as a valid and legitimate act, with say the trojan wars. But the point was not this.

All I was pointing out is that iuf armies only fight other armies, or attack military targets, then they only existed for a very short period of human history. The late middle ages in Europe, may have been the only time and place that this actually applied.

Thats not exactly true...

While the Founding Fathers never said specifically to target civilians, the Militas would, on regulr basis, burn down Loyalist homes, rape their women, etc. The worst of this was in the Carolinas, where one family would go to another families house, break in, shoot the men, rape the women, kill the children, take the fetuses out of pregnant womens wombs, and then burn the house down, killing anyone who survived. Both sides did this, by the way. So to those who say Americans never did anything horrible, you should look at your own history a little better.

I believe the country you reside in, Panama, did this as well in your revolution against Columbia.

...Could it be that you bought into propaganda? :confused:Yes it is possible.

So you're saying the FF beheaded tories, blew up churches, and used mentally handicapped children as suicide bombers?
No, but Washington did wipe out the Iriquois settlements in order to get them to quit attacking us.

One man's terrorist is another man's target practice ^^

To the subject of the thread, I agree completely. Simply because people have different views.

Okay, why did Robert Bonelli Jr. go shoot people like that? Was he trying to control them, or was he a psychopath?
The day after the shooting in the Hudson Valley Mall, in which two people were wounded, details emerged about the suspect, Robert Bonelli Jr., who was described as a loner who secluded himself in his bedroom at his father's home in Glasco, a hamlet in Saugerties, N.Y.

In Mr. Bonelli's room, the police found piles of news articles and other accounts, photographs and documents printed from the Internet, all related to the 1999 shootings, said Donald A. Williams, the Ulster County district attorney.

"It would appear that he had a lurid fascination with Columbine and the shooters," Mr. Williams said. "It is unfair to speculate on a motive, but to fire 50 to 60 rounds into a mall filled with innocent people indicates a troubled person." from here: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/15/nyregion/15mall.html?8br=&pagewanted=print&position=

Given the quote, I'd assume he's just nutso.

Hmm well that depends. Washington thinks we are some kind of U$ colony. We think we are an indipendent nation. You decied.
Puerto Rico?

america's aquisition of hawaii was a very... terrorist type move. forcing loyalists out of america was terrorism. britains concentration camps in south africa was very... terrorist like. at the end of the day, the winners get the tag *moral* and the losers get stuck with the *immoral* tag. and i don't want to see any *let's see some proof* because if i gave you a few links all you'd do is argue with them. most of you have already made your mind up about the whole debate in the first place.

Terrorists are terrorists. Period.


that's quite narrow-minded isn't it? I agree that they are wrong,and that their methods are immoral and often sickening, but they don't think so, and who's to say their opinions are less valid than ours?