• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Founding Fathers of America. Terrorists?

Founding Fathers. Terrorists?

  • Yes. Terrorists.

    Votes: 3 20.0%
  • Nope. Heros.

    Votes: 12 80.0%
  • The definition of terrorist must be too broad.

    Votes: 3 20.0%
  • We must make more of certian elements considered terrorism.

    Votes: 1 6.7%
  • We must fund more of classes like these.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Why are taxpayers funding this?

    Votes: 5 33.3%
  • I like pork but not pork biproducts.

    Votes: 1 6.7%

  • Total voters
    15
Dictionaries aren't politically sophisticated. Terrorism is just about the tactics of terror. No doubt a lot of dictionaries neglect to mention that the vast majority of this, including the terror from which the name comes from, the Great Terror, are done by gov'ts.

The problem is the term "terrorist" automatically makes the person evil or the enemy by most most modern standards.

By making the definition to broad you are adding in people who do not deserve the moniker.
 
The problem is the term "terrorist" automatically makes the person evil or the enemy by most most modern standards.

By making the definition to broad you are adding in people who do not deserve the moniker.

C'mon, use common sense...

I terrorized my brother while we grew up and nobody here would label me as a terrorist.
We are talking about a specific group of people that use TERROR as a WEAPON.
Also, it is used SPECIFICALLY as a weapon to try and KILL or TERRORIZE CIVILIANS.

Like the CAPS? ;)
 
I am not in college, and have not been for a very long time so I have no access.

OK.

This does not change the fact they were not terrorists. By the definition they are not and were not.

The problem with modern definitions is that there isn't an agreed one yet - but we recognise modern acts of terror when we see them.

You are welcome to discuss the facts that prove they weren't - or the definition of intention of terrorism as a method to provoke fear or terror instead. It's always a highly charged thing to say some of the founding fathers were terrorists (remembering the word hadn't been coined yet) especially to Americans - which is why I made my sarcastic first post on this thread that you picked up.

And I'll remember not to use caps in my posts for Bhodi's fragile sake.. ;)
 
The problem is the term "terrorist" automatically makes the person evil or the enemy by most most modern standards.

By making the definition to broad you are adding in people who do not deserve the moniker.

Like the Jacobins and Stalins? These people have always been known as terrorists but now there seems to an unfortunate, and no doubt ideological, attempt to apply it only to small, non-state groups mostly Muslims.
 
The problem with modern definitions is that there isn't an agreed one yet - but we recognise modern acts of terror when we see them.

We do recognize past acts of terrorism as well.

My only disagreement is I feel it is being applied to broadly.

You are welcome to discuss the facts that prove they weren't - or the definition of intention of terrorism as a method to provoke fear or terror instead. It's always a highly charged thing to say some of the founding fathers were terrorists (remembering the word hadn't been coined yet) especially to Americans - which is why I made my sarcastic first post on this thread that you picked up.

I don't disagree some off them were. Some of the folks serving the king at the time were doing much the same. So in this case they were fighting fire with fire.

My problem is that people are trying to apply it to all the founding fathers and that is ridicules to say the least. I can't see Benjamin Franklin or John Adams running around instilling fear in anyone. :rofl
 
Like the Jacobins and Stalins? These people have always been known as terrorists but now there seems to an unfortunate, and no doubt ideological, attempt to apply it only to small, non-state groups mostly Muslims.

The Jacobin Club was indeed a terrorist organization. Stalin was a ruthless dictator, but I do not consider him a terrorist. In fact I can think of no time in school (middle or college) he was called such?

As for applying it to only Muslims, that is silly. Some Muslims are indeed terrorists, some are not.

I do agree to many people are trying to disparage Muslims as terrorists. People trying to portray the founders as a whole as terrorists are just as misguided.
 
-- I don't disagree some off them were. Some of the folks serving the king at the time were doing much the same --

There we can agree. And as Wessexman also pointed out - governments and or their conduits can also be responsible for acts of terror.
 
The Jacobin Club was indeed a terrorist organization. Stalin was a ruthless dictator, but I do not consider him a terrorist. In fact I can think of no time in school (middle or college) he was called such?
Ever heard of his Great Terror? The Jacobins were not terrorists as some small. non-state group. They were terrorists as members of gov't.


I do agree to many people are trying to disparage Muslims as terrorists. People trying to portray the founders as a whole as terrorists are just as misguided.
Yes I realise that but I object to this strange new definition of terrorism which seems leave out most of them and apply it only to small, non-state groups. It seems ideological to me.
 
Back
Top Bottom