• 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
So. Do you think that they could be considered terrorists? How much broader should the definition of terrorist be? Should we taxpayers be paying for classes that teach this?

What is the point of calling the founders of the greatest nation for freedom and rights on earth terrorists? This stuff happened over 200 years ago so I am at a loss of what this moron in this classroom is attempting to illustrate.

Taxpayers should NOT be paying for idiotic sermons like this (although I had a hard time hearing what the deviant was saying).

Is there not a difference between a society attempting to throw off tyranny of a Government thousands of miles away and what the typical terrorist goals are which is merely to foment chaos and destroy representative Government?
 
If the powers that be are going to broaden and use anti-terrorists against non-terrorists then the people need to find a way to the same access to the power and make sure to exercise it on those who think it was so clever to implement in this fashion.
 
I am at a loss of what this moron in this classroom is attempting to illustrate.


Is there not a difference between a society attempting to throw off tyranny of a Government thousands of miles away and what the typical terrorist goals are which is merely to foment chaos and destroy representative Government?


So you are NOT really at a loss for what this "moron" is attempting to illustrate.
 
I hear you... but it appears that you feel that this conversation has run its course.

I wouldn't say that. I would like people to understand that a lot of things we like to call terrorism is not terrorism. The Founders were not terrorists, Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc were not terrorists. Timothy McVeigh was not a terrorist, he was out of his ever loving mind, but not a terrorist. Federal buildings are fair game if your looking to jump start a revolution; which was what he was doing. Also, he wasn't trying to inspire fear or purposefully targeting civilians. His aim was to blow up a federal building because he thought the tyranny and treason of the government had gone far enough as to warrant revolution. We go crazy with this term because of the emotion and imagery it pulls up; but it's not always accurate. If you engaged in the acts the Founders did today, you'd better believe you'd be considered a terrorist and charged with acts of terrorism. It's our buzz word, it's what the government uses to justify it's growth.
 
Yes I am; why don't you explain to me what his purpose is.

Sorry, I am not privy to his thoughts, I have no clue where the discussion began, nor where it led, and what the ultimate purpose was, if this is what you are asking for.

You stated you had no idea of what he was trying to illustrate, and then basically reworded and put your own little slant on exactly what his purpose was for the segment of the discussion after the Founding fathers was brought up though. He is asking "is there not a difference between our contemporary views of terrorism and the actions of those in the past that are not considered terrorists.

Too bad you could not have been in the classroom to contribute to the discussion. Perhaps the video might have a very different appearance if so.
 
The Founders were not terrorists, Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc were not terrorists.

The current government would 100% classify the founding fathers as terrorists.

You don't believe that they were terrorists but you think that the government today would?



Timothy McVeigh was not a terrorist, he was out of his ever loving mind, but not a terrorist.

McVeigh was NOT A terrorist, according to you? :shock:

A government building is not a military target.
The target also included a pre-school.
 
Sorry, I am not privy to his thoughts, I have no clue where the discussion began, nor where it led, and what the ultimate purpose was, if this is what you are asking for.

I see, so your comment to me had no point. ;)


You stated you had no idea of what he was trying to illustrate, and then basically reworded and put your own little slant on exactly what his purpose was for the segment of the discussion after the Founding fathers was brought up though.

You would be wrong; I called him a moron based on his false premise about the founders being terrorists and am clueless of what the purpose of making such a specious argument could have been.

Is that more clear for you?

He is asking "is there not a difference between our contemporary views of terrorism and the actions of those in the past that are not considered terrorists.

That's funny because in the beginning of your post you said: "Sorry, I am not privy to his thoughts, I have no clue where the discussion began, nor where it led, and what the ultimate purpose was..."

Were you lying? Is there a point here?

Too bad you could not have been in the classroom to contribute to the discussion. Perhaps the video might have a very different appearance if so.

I don't see why it would have mattered if I were there or not; do you have a point?
 
You don't believe that they were terrorists but you think that the government today would?





McVeigh was NOT A terrorist, according to you? :shock:

A government building is not a military target.
The target also included a pre-school.

I would think the only way to blow up a building and have the slightest chance of being a terrorist would be if you evacuated the whole building 100% (good luck) and decreed that your intentions is not of that of any fear mongering. But stopping a channel. Good luck keeping no one in harms way though.

And you'd still be a terrorist.
 
I would think the only way to blow up a building and have the slightest chance of "NOT" being a terrorist would be if you evacuated the whole building 100% (good luck) and decreed that your intentions is not of that of any fear mongering. But stopping a channel. Good luck keeping no one in harms way though.

And you'd still be a terrorist.

Did you forget the "NOT" that I inserted above?
 
You don't believe that they were terrorists but you think that the government today would?

Exactly. The government wants to expand the definition of terrorism and use it in its normal enforcement routine. It's a way to encourage fear in the populace of some form of attack and removes some resistance they would normally have when increasing their size and power.

McVeigh was NOT A terrorist, according to you? :shock:

A government building is not a military target.
The target also included a pre-school.

No, he was not a terrorist. First off, he was an individual and wasn't part of a larger organization. It's hard for a lone sheep to be a terrorist because of what a terrorist organization must do in order to be heard by some government. Second, he was not looking to inspire fear; in fact it was the exact opposite. He wanted to inspire further action against the government. Terrorist terrorize, that's why they are named that way. Terror is a big tool, the defining tool, they use to accomplish their goals. McVeigh's goals were not to inspire terror. He thought that the government was acting improperly for too long and needed to be disposed of. He didn't care about inspiring terror in the government to yield to his demands since the goal was the overthrow of the government. Nor did he want to terrorize the People into giving into demands because he wanted to jump start a revolution. He wanted people to join the cause, not fear it. He blew up a government building in his war against the government. All government buildings are legitimate targets when the goal is revolution. The government put the day-care in there, not him. The government should understand that their buildings can be considered legitimate targets, and they are. If you wish to revolt against the government, you may take down their buildings...or take them over; but you'll need a larger force for that.
 
Exactly. The government wants to expand the definition of terrorism and use it in its normal enforcement routine. It's a way to encourage fear in the populace of some form of attack and removes some resistance they would normally have when increasing their size and power.



No, he was not a terrorist. First off, he was an individual and wasn't part of a larger organization. It's hard for a lone sheep to be a terrorist because of what a terrorist organization must do in order to be heard by some government. Second, he was not looking to inspire fear; in fact it was the exact opposite. He wanted to inspire further action against the government. Terrorist terrorize, that's why they are named that way. Terror is a big tool, the defining tool, they use to accomplish their goals. McVeigh's goals were not to inspire terror. He thought that the government was acting improperly for too long and needed to be disposed of. He didn't care about inspiring terror in the government to yield to his demands since the goal was the overthrow of the government. Nor did he want to terrorize the People into giving into demands because he wanted to jump start a revolution. He wanted people to join the cause, not fear it. He blew up a government building in his war against the government. All government buildings are legitimate targets when the goal is revolution. The government put the day-care in there, not him. The government should understand that their buildings can be considered legitimate targets, and they are. If you wish to revolt against the government, you may take down their buildings...or take them over; but you'll need a larger force for that.
So you are saying he was not a terrorist. He was a man that declared war on the Federal Government with no army to join?
 
So you are saying he was not a terrorist. He was a man that declared war on the Federal Government with no army to join?

Pretty much. He was a nut job for sure; but not a terrorist. Blowing up buildings doesn't in and of itself define terrorism.
 
Last edited:
I don't see why it would have mattered if I were there or not; do you have a point?

yes and I made it in my original post to you. You stated did know what he was trying to illustrate, you summed up the subtopic of the discussion we saw quite nicely after you stated you did not know what he was illustrating.

You did not miss a beat towards the DIRECTION the discussion went, and were able to understand the points being made in the segment we saw very well. If you were in the discussion to make your counterpoint it would have led the OPEN class discussion in a new direction, and would have been a useful contribution. You were right on theme.
 
So. Do you think that they could be considered terrorists? How much broader should the definition of terrorist be? Should we taxpayers be paying for classes that teach this?

Since I'm American I would say no. However the Brittish of the time may very well have thought that they were. All dependso on your POV really.

We consider the Taliban to be terrorists...but do they consider themselves terrorists? Or freedom fighters? While there is a definate difference in terms the terms are still subjective to ones POV.
 
Since I'm American I would say no. However the Brittish of the time may very well have thought that they were. All dependso on your POV really.

We consider the Taliban to be terrorists...but do they consider themselves terrorists? Or freedom fighters? While there is a definate difference in terms the terms are still subjective to ones POV.

Guess root Americans were smarter than anti-occupying rebels commonly defined by their most extreme.
 
No, he was not a terrorist. First off, he was an individual and wasn't part of a larger organization. It's hard for a lone sheep to be a terrorist because of what a terrorist organization must do in order to be heard by some government. Second, he was not looking to inspire fear; in fact it was the exact opposite. He wanted to inspire further action against the government. Terrorist terrorize, that's why they are named that way. Terror is a big tool, the defining tool, they use to accomplish their goals. McVeigh's goals were not to inspire terror. He thought that the government was acting improperly for too long and needed to be disposed of. He didn't care about inspiring terror in the government to yield to his demands since the goal was the overthrow of the government. Nor did he want to terrorize the People into giving into demands because he wanted to jump start a revolution. He wanted people to join the cause, not fear it. He blew up a government building in his war against the government. All government buildings are legitimate targets when the goal is revolution. The government put the day-care in there, not him. The government should understand that their buildings can be considered legitimate targets, and they are. If you wish to revolt against the government, you may take down their buildings...or take them over; but you'll need a larger force for that.

He was convicted of domestic terrorism...
He killed on 10 or so Federal Agents...
He killed 19 children...
He killed 130 or so regular office workers in the building...
He wounded upwards of 700-800 innocent people as well...

He chose Oaklahoma City not for a military target, but because it was in the heartland of the USA...
He used the Turner Diaries as a blue print for his plans, and the Diaries were a blue print for domestic terrorism,
In fact, a few pages were found in the car that he drove away in...

I think that to any reasonable person, McVeigh was a terrorist conducting a terrorst operation... ;)
 
Exactly. The government wants to expand the definition of terrorism and use it in its normal enforcement routine. It's a way to encourage fear in the populace of some form of attack and removes some resistance they would normally have when increasing their size and power.



No, he was not a terrorist. First off, he was an individual and wasn't part of a larger organization. It's hard for a lone sheep to be a terrorist because of what a terrorist organization must do in order to be heard by some government. Second, he was not looking to inspire fear; in fact it was the exact opposite. He wanted to inspire further action against the government. Terrorist terrorize, that's why they are named that way. Terror is a big tool, the defining tool, they use to accomplish their goals. McVeigh's goals were not to inspire terror. He thought that the government was acting improperly for too long and needed to be disposed of. He didn't care about inspiring terror in the government to yield to his demands since the goal was the overthrow of the government. Nor did he want to terrorize the People into giving into demands because he wanted to jump start a revolution. He wanted people to join the cause, not fear it. He blew up a government building in his war against the government. All government buildings are legitimate targets when the goal is revolution. The government put the day-care in there, not him. The government should understand that their buildings can be considered legitimate targets, and they are. If you wish to revolt against the government, you may take down their buildings...or take them over; but you'll need a larger force for that.

Timothy McVeigh was absolutely a terrorist. He even had the MO of most every terrorist - depressed with no sex life.
 
Pretty much. He was a nut job for sure; but not a terrorist. Blowing up buildings doesn't in and of itself define terrorism.

He was not a terrorist. He was a right wing nazi looney toon out for revenge. His attack was not ment to terrorize; rather, it was an attempt at vengence against those he saw as enemies.

Again --- he was a homocidal lunatic but he cannot be considered a terrorist because the intent of his actions was not terror.

I can see why people call him a terrorist; his actions appear that way, however, he lacks the political idiology to be classified a terrorist.
 
Timothy McVeigh was absolutely a terrorist. He even had the MO of most every terrorist - depressed with no sex life.

LOL

He should've been terrorizing serority houses instead of the FBI. He might have had better luck.

:rofl
 
He was convicted of domestic terrorism...

The government labeling someone as a terrorist doesn't make someone a terrorist. The government isn't the end say in reality.

He killed on 10 or so Federal Agents...
He killed 19 children...
He killed 130 or so regular office workers in the building...
He wounded upwards of 700-800 innocent people as well...

He blew up a building...of course there were a lot injured and killed. I'm not excusing his actions, I am just saying it's not an act of terrorism. It wasn't done to terrorize, that's not the goal. And one guy doing this...what sort of fear can you install if you're a lone wolf and get caught? None. Terrorists uses terror, that's why they're called terrorists. In his case there was no intent to terrorize.

He chose Oaklahoma City not for a military target, but because it was in the heartland of the USA...

It is easy to get to, less guarded than most military buildings, and was a federal building. If your anger is against the government, you're mostly going to go after government targets. There's nothing that says you have to first take down the White House, Congress, or Pentagon. Especially since McVeigh was looking to punish the federal government, maybe start a revolution. This isn't terror based. I'm not saying it was rightful, I'm not saying he was in his right frame of mind. It's merely not an act of terrorism, there was no use of terror. You HAVE to have the use of terror for it to be terrorism. It can not be terrorism without the terror.

He used the Turner Diaries as a blue print for his plans, and the Diaries were a blue print for domestic terrorism,
In fact, a few pages were found in the car that he drove away in...

So what? I have the anarchist cookbook...am I an anarchist? And even if I employed something out of that book, would that make me an anarchist? No, of course not. The Turner Diaries is some white supremest book that has a revolution in it. McVeigh may have been inspired by it because they blew up federal buildings, but it takes more than that to make a terrorist.

I think that to any reasonable person, McVeigh was a terrorist conducting a terrorst operation... ;)

I would say said reasonable person doesn't understand what terrorism actually is. It takes more than blowing up a building to be a terrorist.
 
Last edited:
Timothy McVeigh was absolutely a terrorist. He even had the MO of most every terrorist - depressed with no sex life.

You just described 58% of the scientific community.


heheh j/k. We're not that bad...seriously.
 
He was not a terrorist. He was a right wing nazi looney toon out for revenge. His attack was not ment to terrorize; rather, it was an attempt at vengence against those he saw as enemies.

Again --- he was a homocidal lunatic but he cannot be considered a terrorist because the intent of his actions was not terror.

I can see why people call him a terrorist; his actions appear that way, however, he lacks the political idiology to be classified a terrorist.

I disagree. He was a complete anti-American government nut job who liked to hang out with other anti-American nut jobs. Terrorists often do things in revenge, they often do things on special dates, etc.

You say he never had any intent to terrorize yet look at this quote:

In reference to theories that he had assistance from others, McVeigh responded, "You can't handle the truth. Because the truth is, I blew up the Murrah Building, and isn't it kind of scary that one man could wreak this kind of hell?"[52]

Timothy McVeigh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He was totally a terrorist. He had an anti government agenda, an intent to wreak havoc and cause fear, and he was a depressed loser that had trouble getting laid. He couldn't more obviously fit the profile of a terrorist if he tried.
 
Back
Top Bottom