- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Messages
- 59,482
- Reaction score
- 39,078
- Location
- Best Coast Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Nothing shows in the no 1 post.
Nothing shows in the no 1 post.
1. Read the thread.. it's a great one with multiple angles of the video in the OP / no 1 post..
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=TA1S0KQD2W8
Doesn't stop you, now does it?It's not about me, its about people not being able to discuss critical issues for fear of being labeled a racist by the PC police..
You're implying there's basically nothing wrong with terrorism, it's all just a matter of perspective. People just have a bad attitude about beheadings, drowning and burning people alive. They're just fighting for freedom. That is beyond ****ing stupid.
Their 'god' was free market politics (with a little fascism thrown in).The Contras did...except their god was the USA.
This is so simple. The definition depends on the politics of the user of the phrase, terrorist or freedom fighter. Some Tories thought the Sons of Liberty were terrorists. What's for sure, both terrorists and freedom fighters are violent.Were the Sons of Liberty freedom fighters or terrorists?
its about people not being able to discuss critical issues for fear of being labeled a racist by the PC police..It's not about me,
Doesn't stop you, now does it?
Not you. Speak for yourself.Most people are afraid of ridicule..
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
It all depends on your point of view.
This is so simple. The definition depends on the politics of the user of the phrase, terrorist or freedom fighter. Some Tories thought the Sons of Liberty were terrorists. What's for sure, both terrorists and freedom fighters are violent.
A freedom fighter doesn't burn and behead innocent people for believing in the wrong god.
Most people are afraid of ridicule..
just noticed that the word 'terrorist' is the new 'racist'
it no longer maintains its original definition when applied by the media and those who have learned this technique from the media
notice how it is used as a slur today on these boards
go to the post itself, and you will see there is no act of terrorism being perpetrated
but that did not prevent the forum member from characterizing a 15 year old girl as a "terrorist"
i became alarmed at this loose current mis-application of "terrorist" when examining some photos of the vietnam war from 1966
the vietcong are "terrorists" in the same way that Yankees were "terrorists" in their effort to keep our nation united or our revolutionary fighters were "terrorists" when they secured our nation's freedom from an oppressor. but that did not keep the chronicler from currently applying that term to vietnamese natives, fighting for the independence of THEIR nation:
View attachment 67199644
50 Years Ago: A Look Back at 1966
View attachment 67199645
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/50-years-ago-a-look-back-at-1966/ss-BBqQ6KF?ocid=mailsignout#image=43
now the vietcong fighter is a "prisoner". no mention of the water-border is now THE actual "terrorist"
neither of the following photos used the word "terrorist" in their current captions. and it is my belief that it is these photos that actually reflect genuine acts of terrorism
View attachment 67199646
View attachment 67199647
The OP is trying a bit of politically correct trickery.My point exactly. Whether you're a freedom fighter or a terrorist depends entirely on perspective and who writes the history book. Thanks.
just noticed that the word 'terrorist' is the new 'racist'
it no longer maintains its original definition when applied by the media and those who have learned this technique from the media
notice how it is used as a slur today on these boards
go to the post itself, and you will see there is no act of terrorism being perpetrated
but that did not prevent the forum member from characterizing a 15 year old girl as a "terrorist"
i became alarmed at this loose current mis-application of "terrorist" when examining some photos of the vietnam war from 1966
the vietcong are "terrorists" in the same way that Yankees were "terrorists" in their effort to keep our nation united or our revolutionary fighters were "terrorists" when they secured our nation's freedom from an oppressor. but that did not keep the chronicler from currently applying that term to vietnamese natives, fighting for the independence of THEIR nation:
View attachment 67199644
50 Years Ago: A Look Back at 1966
View attachment 67199645
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/50-years-ago-a-look-back-at-1966/ss-BBqQ6KF?ocid=mailsignout#image=43
now the vietcong fighter is a "prisoner". no mention of the water-border is now THE actual "terrorist"
neither of the following photos used the word "terrorist" in their current captions. and it is my belief that it is these photos that actually reflect genuine acts of terrorism
View attachment 67199646
View attachment 67199647
Whose 'freedom' is ISIS fight for? Or those who murdered innocents in Brussels, Paris, Madrid and London?My point exactly. Whether you're a freedom fighter or a terrorist depends entirely on perspective and who writes the history book. Thanks.
Which media do you most frequent? I've never seen any of that.Yes, "terrorist" is the trigger word, and the media would have us believe there is a terrorist behind every tree, around every corner. Pretty sad how indoctrinated the US citizenry have become.
Whose 'freedom' is ISIS fight for? Or those who murdered innocents in Brussels, Paris, Madrid and London?
I do not lay it all at the feet of Media- constant coverage, people who cannot tell **** from shinola when news is reported - fear, created by themselves and wnating to lash out at a substantial number of Muslims(all) due to a few attacks.If not a freedom fighter, what do you call a person who attacks weddings and funerals with a drone, controlled from another continent sitting behind a computer console?
Yes, "terrorist" is the trigger word, and the media would have us believe there is a terrorist behind every tree, around every corner. Pretty sad how indoctrinated the US citizenry have become.
Which media do you most frequent? I've never seen any of that.
I do not lay it all at the feet of Media- constant coverage, people who cannot tell **** from shinola when news is reported - fear, created by themselves and wnating to lash out at a substantial number of Muslims(all) due to a few attacks.
The Trumps of the world have done a great job of disenfranchising and targeting all Muslims.
The way some on here go on about camps and such, if that happens the US is one step away from the sewer, one step closer to more stringent laws, that just do not target Muslims, but everyone.
A good number do that. And then we have many who search for facts.I DO lay it at the feet of the media.
That is why the CIA is so influential in the media, and the MIC in general.
We are creatures of the media, and we like drama, the requirement of which is "a willing suspension of disbelief". That willing suspension is easily transferred to the way we watch "the news", supposedly what is happening in the world outside. We believe what we see, and we believe what we read, disbelieving none of it, believing every bit of it.
They can certainly try to justify their actions but I've never heard anyone call them 'freedom fighters', even by their most ardent supporters. They have no respect at all for 'freedom'.Their own? Ours from our religions? Who knows. The point though is that their history books or oral traditions or whatever will paint them as heroes or martyrs and completely justified in their actions.
These media said "there is a terrorist behind every tree, around every corner".ABC, CBS and NBC on the TV. NYT and the local mullet wrapper in print. WSJ sometimes.
No, my friend, it is you who's been indoctrinated. The evidence is in the BS you just posted.Pretty sad how indoctrinated the US citizenry have become.