• 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
The founding fathers were not terrorists in any sense of the word. A terrorist is always a rebel, but a rebel is not always a terrorist.

They tried reasoning diplomatically first. When that failed they went through the process of declaring Independence and finally war. Not killing civilians to further there agenda, but legitimately declared war.

I think the class is a good thing but the teacher is a moron who understands little about the founding fathers, and the motivation behind the actions they took.
 
Last edited:
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.

Anti-government doesn't make you a terrorist. His motivation was revenge on the government and some delusions of grandeur of starting a revolution. That doesn't make terrorism. Terrorism uses fear to get what you want. But he wasn't looking to terrorize the populace to get them to do something, he was looking for revenge and revolution. That's not necessarily terrorism. Terrorists will often take similar measures, but it's not the measure in and of itself which makes the terrorist. The terrorist goes above and beyond individual acts of lunacy.
 
The government labeling someone as a terrorist doesn't make someone a terrorist. The government isn't the end say in reality.



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.



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.



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 would say said reasonable person doesn't understand what terrorism actually is. It takes more than blowing up a building to be a terrorist.

Terrorism is generally considered to be violent or destructive acts against people, and bombing is the main method.
The Taliban would say that they are not terrorizing too...
They have specific objectives as to the methods that they use.

your anarchist thing is illogical.
The Turner Diaries describe terrorist activities...
To buy the Anarchist Cookbook would not make you an anarchist or a cookbook, it would make you one that likes bombs.
If the Turner Diaries describe terrorist like activities, that makes McVeigh one that is interested in terrorist like activities...

I understand what you are saying... but seriously, reasonably what he did was terrorism. It might be more than that too, and that is fine, but having military objectives does not negate teh terrorist aspect of the bombing...
 
Anti-government doesn't make you a terrorist. His motivation was revenge on the government and some delusions of grandeur of starting a revolution. That doesn't make terrorism. Terrorism uses fear to get what you want. But he wasn't looking to terrorize the populace to get them to do something, he was looking for revenge and revolution. That's not necessarily terrorism. Terrorists will often take similar measures, but it's not the measure in and of itself which makes the terrorist. The terrorist goes above and beyond individual acts of lunacy.

If he didn't have an intent to scare people he'd never have pointed out how scared people were as a measure of his success. You saw the quote.

He also said,

McVeigh responded, "Think about the people as if they were storm troopers in Star Wars. They may be individually innocent, but they are guilty because they work for the Evil Empire."

Oklahoma City bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So as crazy as he was he basically knew he was targeting innocent civilians, he knew -as my previous quote showed- that he was gonna scare people.

He worked with other anti-American folks and tried to pursue them towards his agenda.

He absolutely was a terrorist by most any definition. It's mind boggling to me that anyone would argue otherwise.
 
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:



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.



I see you point, Tal. I agree that he was an anti-government lunatic with an agenda.

I suppose I don't see him as a terrorist because he was not specifically linked to a group of terrorists that have a real identity.

Maybe he was but ... I cannot see his activities being compared to those of Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hizballah, ect ...
 
I see you point, Tal. I agree that he was an anti-government lunatic with an agenda.

I suppose I don't see him as a terrorist because he was not specifically linked to a group of terrorists that have a real identity.

Maybe he was but ... I cannot see his activities being compared to those of Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hizballah, ect ...


I appreciate your willingness to be reasonable and reach a compromise...
I agree that he is/was nothing like Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hizballah, ect. as well...
 
Terrorism is generally considered to be violent or destructive acts against people, and bombing is the main method.
The Taliban would say that they are not terrorizing too...
They have specific objectives as to the methods that they use.

your anarchist thing is illogical.
The Turner Diaries describe terrorist activities...
To buy the Anarchist Cookbook would not make you an anarchist or a cookbook, it would make you one that likes bombs.
If the Turner Diaries describe terrorist like activities, that makes McVeigh one that is interested in terrorist like activities...

I understand what you are saying... but seriously, reasonably what he did was terrorism. It might be more than that too, and that is fine, but having military objectives does not negate teh terrorist aspect of the bombing...

What sorta magic is applied to make the little thingies that fall and blow up on often time on kids not be a bomb? What is our main method of softening that which we are about to occupy? Bombing is the main ingredient in it. It's considered terrorism then huh?

I agree with you in this warped way. We should not be creating hate. If it needs to be dealt with you deal with it person to person. You send your troops in with closed circuit camera once they meet action. You want to meet the people that hate you for who you are. Not meet the people whos only son died in an allied bombing.
 
What sorta magic is applied to make the little thingies that fall and blow up on often time on kids not be a bomb? What is our main method of softening that which we are about to occupy? Bombing is the main ingredient in it. It's considered terrorism then huh?

I agree with you in this warped way. We should not be creating hate. If it needs to be dealt with you deal with it person to person. You send your troops in with closed circuit camera once they meet action. You want to meet the people that hate you for who you are. Not meet the people whos only son died in an allied bombing.

I hear you and disagree with this point...

Let me clarify. Bombs that are used like suicide bombs, roadsides bombs, truck bombs, etc that are DESIGNED to impact civilians. Our military does not target civilians. End of story.
 
I hear you and disagree with this point...

Let me clarify. Bombs that are used like suicide bombs, roadsides bombs, truck bombs, etc that are DESIGNED to impact civilians. Our military does not target civilians. End of story.

Of course. Of course.
 
If he didn't have an intent to scare people he'd never have pointed out how scared people were as a measure of his success. You saw the quote.

He also said,



Oklahoma City bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So as crazy as he was he basically knew he was targeting innocent civilians, he knew -as my previous quote showed- that he was gonna scare people.

He worked with other anti-American folks and tried to pursue them towards his agenda.

He absolutely was a terrorist by most any definition. It's mind boggling to me that anyone would argue otherwise.

This is a good point. I don't think the case can be made McVeigh is a terrorist because he blew up a building, but linking it to the purposeful use of terror does make a much better case for him having been a terrorist. I don't agree with Bodhisattva's definition of terrorism, because acting against the people and blowing things up...then damn our government is one of the biggest terrorist organizations in the world. I wouldn't necessarily say that is true, but we make a distinction between strapping a bomb to yourself and blowing up a market and dropping bombs out of a plane and taking out a country. Though the end result is the same. I take more the Webster's definition of terrorism

Terrorism, according to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary,[1] is the systematic use of terror, "violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands."

Our military has, BTW, targeted civilians; just to be clear.
 
Terrorists are in the eye of the beholder, and to King George, the founding fathers were terrorists.
 
Terrorists are in the eye of the beholder, and to King George, the founding fathers were terrorists.

To us King Geroge was a tyrannical monarch who used our land a disposal point of political undesirables.
 
Terrorists are in the eye of the beholder, and to King George, the founding fathers were terrorists.

Wrong...

"Whereas many of our subjects in divers parts of our Colonies and Plantations in North America, misled by dangerous and ill designing men, and forgetting the allegiance which they owe to the power that has protected and supported them; after various disorderly acts committed in disturbance of the publick peace, to the obstruction of lawful commerce, and to the oppression of our loyal subjects carrying on the same; have at length proceeded to open and avowed rebellion, by arraying themselves in a hostile manner, to withstand the execution of the law, and traitorously preparing, ordering and levying war against us: And whereas, there is reason to apprehend that such rebellion hath been much promoted and encouraged by the traitorous correspondence, counsels and comfort of divers wicked and desperate persons within this Realm: To the end therefore, that none of our subjects may neglect or violate their duty through ignorance thereof, or through any doubt of the protection which the law will afford to their loyalty and zeal, we have thought fit, by and with the advice of our Privy Council, to issue our Royal Proclamation, hereby declaring, that not only all our Officers, civil and military, are obliged to exert their utmost endeavours to suppress such rebellion, and to bring the traitors to justice, but that all our subjects of this Realm, and the dominions thereunto belonging, are bound by law to be aiding and assisting in the suppression of such rebellion, and to disclose and make known all traitorous conspiracies and attempts against us, our crown and dignity; and we do accordingly strictly charge and command all our Officers, as well civil as military, and all others our obedient and loyal subjects, to use their utmost endeavours to withstand and suppress such rebellion, and to disclose and make known all treasons and traitorous conspiracies which they shall know to be against us, our crown and dignity; and for that purpose, that they transmit to one of our principal Secretaries of State, or other proper officer, due and full information of all persons who shall be found carrying on correspondence with, or in any manner or degree aiding or abetting the persons now in open arms and rebellion against our Government, within any of our Colonies and Plantations in North America, in order to bring to condign punishment the authors, perpetrators, and abetters of such traitorous designs.

Given at our Court at St. Jamess the twenty-third day of August, one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five, in the fifteenth year of our reign.

GOD save the KING.
" - King George III August 23, 1775

Lets look at the definition of terrorist...

"Terrorist - a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities." - terrorist - definition of terrorist by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Does not quite fit the founding fathers in King Georges own words does it?
 
This is a good point. I don't think the case can be made McVeigh is a terrorist because he blew up a building, but linking it to the purposeful use of terror does make a much better case for him having been a terrorist. I don't agree with Bodhisattva's definition of terrorism, because acting against the people and blowing things up...then damn our government is one of the biggest terrorist organizations in the world. I wouldn't necessarily say that is true, but we make a distinction between strapping a bomb to yourself and blowing up a market and dropping bombs out of a plane and taking out a country. Though the end result is the same. I take more the Webster's definition of terrorism

Terrorism, according to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary,[1] is the systematic use of terror, "violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands."

Our military has, BTW, targeted civilians; just to be clear.


What are you talking about? When did I say that governments bombing targets and people being killed is the same as suicide bombing, truck bombs and roadside bombs? Our government does not specifically target civilians, and whenever possible, strikes and missions are called off if a civilian element is detected.

I would like you to provide evidence of the US Government specifically targeting civilians, since you just made that bold claim.

AND, I have been saying essentially the same thing as Talloulou this entire time... :roll:
 
What are you talking about? When did I say that governments bombing targets and people being killed is the same as suicide bombing, truck bombs and roadside bombs? Our government does not specifically target civilians, and whenever possible, strikes and missions are called off if a civilian element is detected.

I would like you to provide evidence of the US Government specifically targeting civilians, since you just made that bold claim.

AND, I have been saying essentially the same thing as Talloulou this entire time... :roll:

Intention doesn't bring the innocent back.
 
What are you talking about? When did I say that governments bombing targets and people being killed is the same as suicide bombing, truck bombs and roadside bombs? Our government does not specifically target civilians, and whenever possible, strikes and missions are called off if a civilian element is detected.

I would like you to provide evidence of the US Government specifically targeting civilians, since you just made that bold claim.

AND, I have been saying essentially the same thing as Talloulou this entire time... :roll:

The firebombing of Tokyo was specifically aimed at civilian casualties. In fact, they even had people work out the proper drop pattern in order to find the least amount of fuel for maximum amount of damage. The point was to demonstrate our might and make them hurt so much that they'd pull out of the war.
 
The firebombing of Tokyo was specifically aimed at civilian casualties. In fact, they even had people work out the proper drop pattern in order to find the least amount of fuel for maximum amount of damage. The point was to demonstrate our might and make them hurt so much that they'd pull out of the war.


WWII is an entirely different context from the situation that our military is in now, and if you understand that war and the way that the term "terrorist" is used now, you will understand why that analogy is absolutely irrelevant. It is now that we are talking about anyway... if you were to bring up how the US terrorized and murdered Native Americans, it would be just as irrelevant as as the WWII analogy.
 
Weren't the Founding Fathers much like the IRA?

If you look carefully, you too could find similarities. Bombing cities, people and using violence to achieve their aims.
 
Weren't the Founding Fathers much like the IRA?

No.

If you look carefully, you too could find similarities. Bombing cities, people and using violence to achieve their aims.

The key to that statement is "look carefully." People can find unrelated similarities in many things. In fact this fuels much of the lunatic fringe in the common everyday conspiracy rantings we see so much of now days.

By your broad definition almost any act of violence to achieve a goal is terrorism. We know in reality this is not the case.
 
Terrorists are in the eye of the beholder, and to King George, the founding fathers were terrorists.

Three problems with this:

1) The word "terror" wasn't associated with such acts until the French brought about the "reign of terror" in 1793.

2) Americans just cannot be terrorists, now or ever - especially if you believe the US posters on this forum.

3) People fail to distinguish between what terrorism is actually about (and let's remember there is no international definition) - it certainly isn't defined by modern tactics and technology but by intent.

I've said if before on other threads and will say it again here - repealing the Stamp Act was not done through guerilla action or shooting at British troops from behind trees: it was done by instilling fear for the lives of civiolians through violence and intimidation of civilians by an organised force. i.e. terrorists - except that the word didn't exist at that time.
 
This is the FBI flier that at one point was circulating around about who a terrorist is.

Defenders of the U.S. Constitution are considered terrorists.


http://www.keepandbeararms.com/images/FBI-MCSOTerroristFlyer-Front.jpg

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/images/FBI-MCSOTerroristFlyer-Back.jpg

Did you read what I read?

I read :

"Defenders" of the U.S. Constitution(Super Patriots)

You read :

Defenders of the U.S. Constitution.

Obviously we do not get the same thing from it. I think Ron Paul is a legitimate defender of the U.S. constitution. I think David Duke is a ****ing terrorist calling himself a "Defender" of the U.S. constitution.

Not to nitpick but I think there is a clear difference between saying that somebody is a defender and saying "defender".
 
Three problems with this:

1) The word "terror" wasn't associated with such acts until the French brought about the "reign of terror" in 1793.

True.

2) Americans just cannot be terrorists, now or ever - especially if you believe the US posters on this forum.

:roll:

3) People fail to distinguish between what terrorism is actually about (and let's remember there is no international definition) - it certainly isn't defined by modern tactics and technology but by intent.

That I can agree with.

I've said if before on other threads and will say it again here - repealing the Stamp Act was not done through guerilla action or shooting at British troops from behind trees: it was done by instilling fear for the lives of civiolians through violence and intimidation of civilians by an organised force. i.e. terrorists - except that the word didn't exist at that time.

Not true at all...

"The American colonists won their first victory over Parliament when the Stamp Act was repealed in early 1766. The boycott of English goods proved to be the decisive factor, as there was no way for Grenville and his party to persuade the rest of Parliament to ignore the pain the American boycott was inflicting on English manufacturers. Still, the repeal came only after another round of long and contentious debates in which William Pitt delivered a historic speech in defense of the Americans: “They are subjects of this kingdom equally entitled with yourselves to all the natural rights of mankind and the peculiar privileges of Englishmen; equally bound by its laws, and equally participating in the constitution of this free country. The Americans are the sons, not the bastards of England.” Pitt proposed an immediate and total repeal of the Stamp Act and, with the help of two dramatic speeches by Edmund Burke, the repeal was passed on March 18th, 1766. The colonists had resisted against the British and Parliament flinched and, in so doing had, in George Washington’s view, averted disaster: “The Repeal of the Stamp Act, to whatsoever causes owing, ought much to be rejoiced at, for had the Parliament of Great Britain resolved upon enforcing it the consequences I conceive would have been more direful than is generally apprehended” (from a letter to Robert Cary dated July 21, 1766)." - repeal of stamp act

Boycotts and debating in Parliament somehow instilled "fear" or "terror" in the population?
 
Listen to the way he brainwashes his students into not making any choices. He draws so many lines and then says they people who are against you don't see their own problem and you are right. The lecturer could take a lesson from your words actually.

And of course when the government takes your rights people are going to cry "What would the founding fathers thing?!" and this mans lecture will be the only thing that guides their action. The course he took their mind on.
How many times have you stood up in class and told the professor that the history book was wrong? Pipedreamers talk about objectivity in the classroom. Seems to me whoever believes this hasn't spent much time in the classroom.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom