View Poll Results: Do you agree with the statement?

Voters
53. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    29 54.72%
  • No

    24 45.28%
Page 40 of 40 FirstFirst ... 30383940
Results 391 to 399 of 399

Thread: One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

  1. #391
    User
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Seen
    03-02-09 @ 05:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5

    Re: One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

    A Terrorist is someone who engages in terrorism.
    A freedom fighter is someone who fights for freedom.

    One term speaks to method and another speaks to objectives.

    so someone can be both a terrorist and a freedom fighter, or one can be a freedom fighter but not a terrorist.

    Terrorism is a contemptible tactic and I do not think the term should be used to tarnish all freedom fighters in this way.

  2. #392
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:42 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    21,968

    Re: One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

    Quote Originally Posted by dragonslayer View Post
    The difference is that I have wait and see what OBama does, because, It's Only Just Begun.

    With Bush, we went through years of pure hell and ended up with a practically ruined nation and economy. Bush was easy to Bash. Obama has not had a chance to Do anything.
    Sure he has. He's had almost a month. There's plenty he could have done.

    Remember that when FDR came into office, our country was at 25% unemployment, but just four years later that had dropped to 15%,
    "Just"?


    In this case the war, borrowing from abroad and shifting manufacturing abroad has ruined us. We need to become a nation again instead of a pawn to some vague Deadly Corporate and Greed run network called OPEC.

    I believe in capitalism, but I believe that Capitalism has to regulated for the good of America. I don't believe in government ownership of business, but I believe in strong regulation of corporations. Other wise we have another Bush government that allow corporations to run rampant, and **** up the goood Ole USA.
    Do keep in mind that the financial practices which have led to problems were also the practices which fueled the Clinton Boom of the '90s.
    2001-2008: Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
    2009-2016: Dissent is the highest form of racism.
    2017-? (Probably): Dissent is the highest form of misogyny.

  3. #393
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    America (A.K.A., a red state)
    Last Seen
    09-24-13 @ 11:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,317

    Re: One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Infinite Chaos View Post
    Can you point out which legitimate source supports your premise that "America" was your soil at the time the "Sons of Liberty" were committing acts of terror on agents of the crown?
    No need. Common sense already covers that obvious fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by Infinite Chaos View Post
    You do know America was a colony at that time and that the "Americans" were at the time subjects of the crown. Or was the "War of Independence" about something else?
    Of course. And? If the U.S. were abusing the crap out of Idaho and brutally starving that state's families half to death, and it seceded, requiring military engagements against our troops and the overthrow of our officials there, there would be no moral high ground for the U.S. to stand on, just as there wasn't with Britain, even though we were a part of their empire at the time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Infinite Chaos View Post
    Please tell me you looked up the "Stamp Act" and why the British Sovereign wanted to tax the colonies. You might find something about that same tax paying for the troops stationed both as occupying force but also as protector.
    This is like Bill Clinton lecturing the Duke Lacrosse team about sexual self-restraint. Conservatives are the ones who actually bother to pay attention to history. Please, don't condescend to your superiors. It's embarrassing. And yes, the Stamp Act was about repaying the war debt. And? Is that supposed to have made it legitimate for the British to sodomize our country into gridlock?

    Quote Originally Posted by Infinite Chaos View Post
    I'm not legitimising the "Stamp Act" - merely explaining why it was levied. The history books will tell you why the American colonials reacted against it as a heinous tax which gave them no power over their own affairs. The "Stamp Act" cost British citizens on UK soil 26 shillings a year while colonials only paid 1 shilling a year. It wasn't the economic effect that upset Adams and others - it was the lack of power the Act implied.
    Wrong. The scope and cost of the tax was the driving force. The right of the British to even tax us without our consent in the first place was just the argument the colonists put at the center of their protest. It is disingenuous to downplay the impact of the act when it required "all legal documents, permits, commercial contracts, newspapers, wills, pamphlets, and playing cards in the colonies to carry a tax stamp."

    Morgan and Morgan pg. 96-97

    Quote Originally Posted by Infinite Chaos View Post
    Read your history
    Pot, meet kettle.

    Quote Originally Posted by Infinite Chaos View Post
    it must be embarrassing to have a Brit tell you your own history.
    Yeah, your slanted revisionist history sure put me in my place.

    Quote Originally Posted by Infinite Chaos View Post
    Is the title of the thread about terrorism or about how only Americans can define it? "Terrorism" existed before missiles at Israel - if you are only going to equate terrorism to what the muslims are doing in the Middle East I just shudder to think what other understanding of world events you have.
    And since no one here is limiting the definition of terrorism to the narrow scope of Israel and Hamas (as already explained), this further attempt to condescend, rather than debate, is completely irrelevant. Hint: for us to get anywhere here, you'll have to explain how the colonists degrading a British official carrying out the rape and robbery of your country is even in the same ballpark as actual terrorism (see 9/11). Try again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Infinite Chaos View Post
    About the only thing you got right. I'll wait for the standard retort that I must be a "Liberal"...
    Admitting you have a problem is the first step. Congratulations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Infinite Chaos View Post
    Do American grade schools teach that "America" was your country before the War of Independence? I'd ask for your school fees back if I were you.
    We finally agree on something. American public schools are abysmal left-wing misinformation centers that routinely propagandize against America and revise history to equate us with our enemies at every turn, just as you are dishonestly doing here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Infinite Chaos View Post
    Fabulous. Do you practice at this? You're really good you know, almost convincing.
    As you just demonstrated, it is you who can't seem to stay on topic long enough to debate. You made the false claim that the problem here is about the facts, which we largely agree on. I corrected this by pointing out that where we disagree is on the logic, not the facts...and you responded with insults. Garbage in, garbage out. If you don't want to keep exchange sarcastic insults and barbs rather than debating, then stop lowering the IQ of this thread by introducing them.
    Last edited by aquapub; 02-13-09 at 10:13 AM.
    Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner (paraphrasing James Bovard).

  4. #394
    User
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    11-01-10 @ 12:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    95

    Re: One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

    NO!!! Farc are terrorists, they do not fight for freedom, only for drugs. What do they have of freedom fighters?
    Obama is a fail...

  5. #395
    Matthew 16:3
    Tucker Case's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,365

    Re: One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jomiarias View Post
    NO!!! Farc are terrorists, they do not fight for freedom, only for drugs.
    What.. Like Farcotic Narcotics?
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  6. #396
    Sage
    Infinite Chaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:31 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,353

    Re: One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

    Didn't see this before - however

    Quote Originally Posted by aquapub View Post
    No need. Common sense already covers that obvious fact.
    i.e. You can't deny it. You were caught out.

    Quote Originally Posted by aquapub View Post
    Of course.
    Now we're getting somewhere..

    Quote Originally Posted by aquapub View Post
    If the U.S. were abusing the crap out of Idaho and brutally starving that state's families half to death, and it seceded, requiring military engagements against our troops and the overthrow of our officials there, there would be no moral high ground for the U.S. to stand on, just as there wasn't with Britain, even though we were a part of their empire at the time.
    As I said before, I'm not supporting the Stamp Act but your history is wrong. If you are trying to say that the UK was abusing the American colonies or starving their citizens - that charge lay at the congresses who actually ran America. The revolution against the Stamp Act was because of what it represented in colonialists eyes - an attempt to bring to American soil what the colonialists had gone there to escape.

    You still haven't read your history I'm afraid.

    Quote Originally Posted by aquapub View Post
    And yes, the Stamp Act was about repaying the war debt. And? Is that supposed to have made it legitimate for the British to sodomize our country into gridlock?
    You will be able to support that the British financially ruined the Americas I suppose? They didn't - and local power was held by local congresses in the Americas.

    Quote Originally Posted by aquapub View Post
    Wrong. The scope and cost of the tax was the driving force. The right of the British to even tax us without our consent in the first place was just the argument the colonists put at the center of their protest. It is disingenuous to downplay the impact of the act when it required "all legal documents, permits, commercial contracts, newspapers, wills, pamphlets, and playing cards in the colonies to carry a tax stamp."

    Morgan and Morgan pg. 96-97
    I'm sorry but you obviously only read so far or you deliberately closed your eyes to the other passages about what the American colonists felt the Stamp Act represented. Morgan and Morgan is a good book - keep reading.

    I'd also recommend the other books the Morgans wrote separately - however you will find repeated statements of how Stamp Agents were intimidated (use of terror) or threatened out of work. The only possible defence you can have is that the word "terrorism" is only clearly used regarding the "Reign of terror" however the actions used by colonists is clear and you have yet to prove they did not.

    You tried futiley to justify it by saying the British impoverished the colonies - quote me the pages either in any of the Morgans' books or any other historians that show that the British overtaxed the Americas and "sodomised" them into poverty please.


    Quote Originally Posted by aquapub View Post
    Pot, meet kettle.
    Not even close.

    Quote Originally Posted by aquapub View Post
    Yeah, your slanted revisionist history sure put me in my place.
    So the American colonists did not use terror against American stamp agents, they did not intimidate or use violence on American colonists to stop them working or to force them to resign.

    Quote Originally Posted by aquapub View Post
    And since no one here is limiting the definition of terrorism to the narrow scope of Israel and Hamas (as already explained), this further attempt to condescend, rather than debate, is completely irrelevant. Hint: for us to get anywhere here, you'll have to explain how the colonists degrading a British official carrying out the rape and robbery of your country is even in the same ballpark as actual terrorism (see 9/11). Try again.
    Again, terrorising and intimidating people out of their jobs is not terrorism...? Threatening civilians with violence against "property, person and belongings" is not using or bringing about terror?


    Quote Originally Posted by aquapub View Post
    I corrected this
    You correct nothing while you continue to think only of "terrorism" as a 20th/21st century occurrence. Continuing to ignore that your own forefathers used terror tactics is laughable and deserves nothing but sarcasm. Terrorism is not limited to the tactics of Al'Qaeda or Hamas or even by skin colour alone.

    Your use of 9/11 is proof of the limits to your thinking.

    Quote Originally Posted by aquapub View Post
    stop lowering the IQ of this thread
    No really, I enjoy reading your revision of history, here's some more reading for you.

    Massachusetts: A Concise History, by Richard D. Brown and Jack Tager (University of Massachusetts Press, 2000).

    Crowd Action in Revolutionary Massachusetts, by Dick Hoerder (Academic Press, 1977).

    Boston Riots: Three Centuries of Social Violence, by Jack Tager (Northeastern University Press, 2001).

    The Stamp Act Crisis By Helen M. Morgan, Institute of Early American History and Culture

    I leave you with this passage from "The Stamp Act Crisis"

    The threats of violence by which the Sons of Liberty exercised authority in America were transformed by three thousand miles of ocean into an impertinence, and with Parliament, which had dealt with mobs before, replied to the challenge of cramming stamps down American throats. When the Sons of Liberty heard this, they knew that they might have to fight for their rights not against a few helpless stamp distributors, but against the British Army.
    Now read this again - I am not defending the Stamp Act - simply pointing out what some of the were. Freedom Fighters to the colonies - instigators of terror to those who were subject to their tactics. A terrorist is not defined by their use of whatever technology exists in their era - but by their tactics to achieve their aims. I can't explain it any simpler for you.

  7. #397
    Another day in paradise..
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 02:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    67,947

    Re: One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

    Quote Originally Posted by dragonslayer View Post
    To bad we can't bring back Sadam and give the country back to him. Then we could get out.

    Tis the most pointless and stupid war that China has ever paid for and our troops have ever died for.



    now what a classy thing to say.


    Matthew 10:34
    Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

  8. #398
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    New Orleans
    Last Seen
    05-06-11 @ 05:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    3,082

    Re: One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    now what a classy thing to say.
    How is it that all the liberals think leaving the Iraqis to be slaughtered and bulldozed into mass graves by Saddam was better than getting him out of Iraq? How can they say that "at least he was keeping the country together?" How is that liberal?

    God! I am so much more liberal than any liberal I know and I'm a moderate. I don't support immigrants taking the jobs from American workers. I don't support destroying our minorities with hand outs and dependency. I don't support ignoring our fellow world citizens to be brutalized by their leaders.

    The democrats say that the republicans have changed. I say there is nothing recognizable about the current democratic party compared to 30 years ago. They used to concern themselves with the common man, the worker.

    Now they threat such people with contempt. "Trailer Trash and Rednecks clinging to their guns and bibles."

    And they treat anything the common man enjoys with contempt. NASCAR and country music are sickening to our new liberal elite. Country bumpkins like Sarah Palin cause outrage. Anybody who believes in simple American values is mocked with contempt.

    There is nothing liberal or progressive about being disgusted by your fellow working class citizens because they are not as educated as you or because they aren't elite. There is nothing liberal about abandoning the less fortunate in other countries when we are so capable of helping.

  9. #399
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

    Quote Originally Posted by sazerac View Post
    How is it that all the liberals think leaving the Iraqis to be slaughtered and bulldozed into mass graves by Saddam was better than getting him out of Iraq? How can they say that "at least he was keeping the country together?" How is that liberal?
    They also swoon when you mention the free health care and great education found in Cuba.

    I mean, who cares about that boot on your neck, so long as you can read the print on the sole!

Page 40 of 40 FirstFirst ... 30383940

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •