This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Freedom Fighters? or Terrorists?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
240135
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Were the American colonists who fought against England terrorists?
Post by
Adamsm
I can say the same for them. In the rare circumstances that civilians are killed by the US Military, it is either in unintentional error, or by in extremely rare cases, individuals acting on their own. Comparing the US Military to terrorists is heinous. It's one of the reason I stopped serving the country. I got tired of being insulted. 6 years of my prime, gone. Thousands of others still giving. I feel for the officer that has to make the hard decisions, that sometimes go wrong, but still have to be made. I wouldn't do it. If it were up to me, people of this mentality can fend for themselves.Sorry Mytie, my beliefs aren't meant to insult you..... it's just, if anyone here remembers, a few years back where a pair of American fighter pilots bombed a Canadian force just because the information they were given said it was an Afgahan target... then all they got was a slap on the wrist even though they killed 4 people and injured 8 others. It's soured any and all ideas that the American army is some honorable thing. Like I said, I support the troops, but I sure as hell don't support the power behind it, a power that let those 2 kill 4 allies and nothing happened.
Were the American colonists who fought against England terrorists?In the eyes of Crown? Yes they were.
Post by
240135
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
I can say the same for them. In the rare circumstances that civilians are killed by the US Military, it is either in unintentional error, or by in extremely rare cases, individuals acting on their own. Comparing the US Military to terrorists is heinous. It's one of the reason I stopped serving the country. I got tired of being insulted. 6 years of my prime, gone. Thousands of others still giving. I feel for the officer that has to make the hard decisions, that sometimes go wrong, but still have to be made. I wouldn't do it. If it were up to me, people of this mentality can fend for themselves.Sorry Mytie, my beliefs aren't meant to insult you..... it's just, if anyone here remembers, a few years back where a pair of American fighter pilots bombed a Canadian force just because the information they were given said it was an Afgahan target... then all they got was a slap on the wrist even though they killed 4 people and injured 8 others. It's soured any and all ideas that the American army is some honorable thing. Like I said, I support the troops, but I sure as hell don't support the power behind it, a power that let those 2 kill 4 allies and nothing happened.
Were the American colonists who fought against England terrorists?In the eyes of Crown? Yes they were.
Slap on the wrist? I don't think they should have even been given that. Pilots are nerds. I've met them. In this case, they probably were given a location in the form of numbers, and ordered to press a series of buttons and switches in a certain order over that location. They did their job as ordered... perfectly. They can't land their jet at every target, get out, and do a background check of the people they are bombing.
And I still support the 'power behind it' even after mistakes like this are made. To abandon the entire military structure and leadership based off of mistakes doesn't make sense. Errors will happen in war. Friendly fire happens. It isn't pretty, but it happens. If we go to war, it will happen again. If we don't go to war, then other unpleasant things will happen. There is no cushioned option. There is no option that makes the flowers bloom and the children laugh.
At the end of the day, someone will end up alone, in a ditch somewhere, with tears in his eyes as he watches blood pour from his body. He will be afraid to die, but he will know he is about to. Making that choice to avoid mass bloodshed by producing limited bloodshed is a HARD decision. I will disagree with it. I don't think there is a reason to go to war in today's world. However, I will not paint our leadership structure as the enemy with wide brushstrokes. I will go after individual leaders for specific reasons, but I generally stay away from blaming the military itself. The people in that military break their backs working every day. Leave them alone or support them. Terrorism and the military are not comparable, ever.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Were the American colonists who fought against England terrorists?In the eyes of Crown? Yes they were.
Terrorism
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
If anything, the British government falls more under this definition than the colonists.
Post by
MyTie
yep. they were. so what?
The colonists were not inciting terror in England by fighting. They were not, therefore, terrorists. I believe they were fighting for control over their economy. England could have just left, and we would not have followed them there, hiding in the bushes and shooting their kids with muskets.
Post by
MyTie
Were the American colonists who fought against England terrorists?In the eyes of Crown? Yes they were.
Terrorism
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
If anything, the British government falls more under this definition than the colonists.
Yeah... and the colonists were freedom fighters. This is a perfect illustration of the difference. Like I said, it is all about motives.
Post by
240135
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
124027
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
116883
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
"read koran, it should open your eyes to why the western devil must be destroyed."I'd suggest you read the Koran before you say something like that, no where in the book does it say "Destroy the USofA and lay waste to the Western world." As stated before, you can take any religion, hell even Bhuddism, and twist it around to something dark and evil. Yes, the 'muslim terrorists' follow a corrupted version of the Koran, but not all believe in that ideal.
Still:
ComeClarity said:
I personally believe that many of them have messed up political views. As Adamsm said, its the outlook you take on it. It's all about perspective; one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Hell, I'm sure there are some people who see General Washington as a terrorist as opposed to a freedom fighter.
Post by
MyTie
I have read the Qur'an. Am I a cool kid now?with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasonsDo you remember when I was talking about motives? This is a motive. It was not the intention of the colonists to intimidate or coerce. It was their intention to create a new country, to become free. They were fighting for freedom, not fighting to intimidate and coerce.
Freedom Fighting Motive = Freedom
Terrorism Motive = Coercion and Intimidation (aka terror)
Post by
116883
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
so the oil makes the dictator any less true?
also i doubt the terrorists are just trying to defend their oil.No, I never said Hussian wasn't a dictator, but he was still put into power by the American goverment. And the terrorist aren't.... but the Iraqi freedom fighters would be.
apart from that unpopular fact, i'm not saying that war is a good thing overall. but terrorism is not the answer, it doesn't fix anything and it won't help you negotiate with anyone. this whole situation is not going anywhere until somehow america and iraq decide to work together.Best way for it to start on the road to good relations.... get the Americans out of their country, and stop trying to help. Let the Iraqi's set up their own government, figure out who they want in command that's not a puppet for the Americans, and let them be, pay the right prices for the oil and let them trade with everyone, not just the chosen ones of the Americans.
Post by
MyTie
Best way for it to start on the road to good relations.... get the Americans out of their country, and stop trying to help. Let the Iraqi's set up their own government, figure out who they want in command that's not a puppet for the Americans, and let them be, pay the right prices for the oil and let them trade with everyone, not just the chosen ones of the Americans.
Wow. What a very good idea. In a few months, after the strongest crime lord or religious zealot takes over, he can start wiping out everyone who disagrees with him, and exporting his oil to north korea for nukes.
Sometimes I don't think liberals put more than 11 seconds of thought into anything they say, but they will argue the points for
hours
.
Post by
Deepthought
Wow. What a very good idea. In a few months, after the strongest crime lord or religious zealot takes over, he can start wiping out everyone who disagrees with him, and exporting his oil to north korea for nukes.
Slippery slope fallacy.
Post by
Adamsm
Wow. What a very good idea. In a few months, after the strongest crime lord or religious zealot takes over, he can start wiping out everyone who disagrees with him, and exporting his oil to north korea for nukes.
Sometimes I don't think liberals put more than 11 seconds of thought into anything they say, but they will argue the points for hours.So they can have freedom.... as long as it's freedom under the USA right, as the 52nd or 53rd state or however many their up to now?
I also like how you jump from Iraq to North Korea, but hey, we all know them koreans are the next big terrorist after them muslim folks.
As for your liberal comment... I have no political party; but then again, unlike the states, were actually allowed choices up here in Canada.
Post by
MyTie
Wow. What a very good idea. In a few months, after the strongest crime lord or religious zealot takes over, he can start wiping out everyone who disagrees with him, and exporting his oil to north korea for nukes.
Sometimes I don't think liberals put more than 11 seconds of thought into anything they say, but they will argue the points for hours.So they can have freedom.... as long as it's freedom under the USA right, as the 52nd or 53rd state or however many their up to now?
I also like how you jump from Iraq to North Korea, but hey, we all know them koreans are the next big terrorist after them muslim folks.
As for your liberal comment... I have no political party; but then again, unlike the states, were actually allowed choices up here in Canada.
1) They can have any state they want, but honestly, left to their own devices, they start slaughtering eachother.
2) North Korea is actually very stable. They are not
detonating
nuclear weapons,
launching
long range missiles toward us, or
threatening
war. Oh wait...
3) 'liberal' isn't a political party.
Post by
MyTie
North Korea:
Some analysts say this nuclear test could be an attempt to shore up the legitimacy of a potentially weakened leader in the eyes of a domestic audience
ter·ror·ism (těr'ə-rĭz'əm)
n. 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
I also like how you jump from Iraq to North Korea, but hey, we all know them koreans are the next big terrorist after them muslim folks.Actually, it appears, by definition, yes, yes they are.
Do I win now?
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.