• 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
Terrorists aim to mainly achieve their ends by creating terror whether they are gov'ts, as they usually are, or other groups. I don't think this was the main tactic of the rebels but I'm not completely up on the ins and outs 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.

Ok, so you say the US government doesn't target civilians, I say we have. You say prove it, I prove it; you say it's irrelevant. Nice. I'm gonna use this "logic" from now on.
 
Terrorists aim to mainly achieve their ends by creating terror whether they are gov'ts, as they usually are, or other groups. I don't think this was the main tactic of the rebels but I'm not completely up on the ins and outs of the war.
And we all know how similar dumping tea into the Boston harbor is to sending children with bombbelts to blow up innocent civilians.
 
Timothy McVeigh was absolutely a terrorist. He even had the MO of most every terrorist - depressed with no sex life.

No sex!!!!???? Damn, I had better get out there and get some before I become a terrorist!! :shock::rofl
 
Did you read what I read?

I read :

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

You read :

Defenders of the U.S. Constitution.

I'm not trying to be difficult but what is the difference?

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.

Agreed David Duke is a **** bag.

Not to nitpick but I think there is a clear difference between saying that somebody is a defender and saying "defender".

I'm just not sure what the difference is.
 
Terrorists are in the eye of the beholder, and to King George, the founding fathers were terrorists.

What an absurd notion; terrorists target civilians, children and women. Terrorists target places of religion, schools and markets where people gather in large groups.

The notion that the Colonists where in the same category is absurd; they didn't target civilians, they targeted the Red Coat troops of the British Empire.

It's not JUST in the eye of the beholder; documents from the time never describe anyone as a terrorist, but rather revolutionaries who attempted to negotiate as a Governing authority before they resorted to arms.
 
Intention doesn't bring the innocent back.

In law, if you contribute to a crime that ends up with the death of a victim, you are just as guilty as the person who committed the act. If Law enforcement accidentally kill and innocent bystander attempting to bring in a criminal or stopping a crime in commission, we don't prosecute the police officers, we blame the death on the person committing the crime.

Yet in the war against terrorists who deliberately target civilians and hide amongst them for the express purpose of collateral damage in order to promote their propaganda (which for some odd reason Liberals seem to be the ones most susceptible to it), people leave their good sense behind and blame the legitimate authority who attempts at great cost to avoid such loss.

Most of the time this is a Liberal denial that attempts to blame Israel or the USA for the deaths of civilians no matter what efforts are made to avoid it and never blame the people who caused it in the first place; the terrorists.

This illogical thinking can only be expressed by those who think these thugs and murderers somehow have a legitimate claim; but most with a brain know they do not.
 
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.

So you cannot bring yourself to distinguish all out war and terrorism; interesting, but absurd and trite.

I hear the same absurd argument from Germans who now whine about the bombing of Dresden late in the war; my response was; "I guess nations shouldn't start global wars eh?"

Why do you even attempt to bring in events of war in the absurd premise of a thread suggesting that the founders of the US were terrorists?

I have been reading your responses and there is little logic in your desperation to suggest that the REAL enemy is the Government trying to define down what a terrorist is so that they can take over your brain. Good lord, you have one seriously whacked out view, but at least it is consistent.

I don’t like what the Government is currently doing, but it surely beats the chaos of your views.
 
... 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.

Actually, I believe this would be a far better analogy than Ikari’s use of wartime bombings because it is true. Our Government and military did conduct a terror campaign against Native Americans in order to remove them from their lands or provoke them into a war they could not win. It is a dark period in our history much like slavery was.
 
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.

The revolutionaries bombed cities and people? What history have you been reading? There isn't anything in the Revolutionary war that can be considered remotely similar to terrorists and their targets.
 
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

This is a fake flyer; I am hoping you posted it as a joke and not taking this crapola serious right?

Want proof? Try to call all the numbers on this flyer; they are all fake. I thought I would try it for the fun of it.
 
-- :roll: --

;)

-- Not true at all...

"The American colonists won their first victory over Parliament when the Stamp Act was repealed in early 1766 --


I'll give you this..

"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."

I've been through this with Aquapub -

http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057924367-post396.html

- and various others who cannot believe SOME of the founding fathers used terror against civilian stamp collectors - maybe it's worth going over some of the ground I covered there and you may wish to use some of the American history books that I suggested he read too.

I'll be here when you get back.


What an absurd notion; terrorists target civilians, children and women.

Careful what you say..

--The notion that the Colonists where in the same category is absurd; they didn't target civilians, they targeted the Red Coat troops of the British Empire --

Many of the stamp collectors were colonists, born and bred. You have read about the warning given by the Sons of Liberty when they spoke in New York. Fairly straightforward and easy to understand threat against civilian targets I'm afraid. I'll see if you can find it - if not, I'll happily post a link for you.
 
This is a fake flyer; I am hoping you posted it as a joke and not taking this crapola serious right?

Want proof? Try to call all the numbers on this flyer; they are all fake. I thought I would try it for the fun of it.

I was published from around the time the Clinton administration was around.

Those could have changed by now.

I've seen it on several places.
 
Ok, so you say the US government doesn't target civilians, I say we have. You say prove it, I prove it; you say it's irrelevant. Nice. I'm gonna use this "logic" from now on.


Sorry to say it, but with your "logic" the USA is still a slaveholding nation... ;)

Apparently, all you have to do is go far enough back in time in order to find any reference that fits your position.
Hey, should we call the Italiens... Romans?
The US is a nation the uses the gold standard...
South Africa is a nation of government sanctioned Apartheid...

I love this "logic: Ikari! Thanks! :2razz:
 
No sex!!!!???? Damn, I had better get out there and get some before I become a terrorist!! :shock::rofl


We better just send your photo to the FBI now, for you aint got a chance... :mrgreen:
 
Actually, I believe this would be a far better analogy than Ikari’s use of wartime bombings because it is true. Our Government and military did conduct a terror campaign against Native Americans in order to remove them from their lands or provoke them into a war they could not win. It is a dark period in our history much like slavery was.


I agree. The USA practiced and executed a systematic plan of murder, terror and persecution against the Natives of America, yet most people never mention it. I don't think that most people realize the extent of it, to be honest, but it was brutal and unrelenting, as I am sure you already know.
 
Sorry to say it, but with your "logic" the USA is still a slaveholding nation... ;)

Apparently, all you have to do is go far enough back in time in order to find any reference that fits your position.
Hey, should we call the Italiens... Romans?
The US is a nation the uses the gold standard...
South Africa is a nation of government sanctioned Apartheid...

I love this "logic: Ikari! Thanks! :2razz:

Think we didn't kill civilians in Vietnam? Think civilians didn't die in either Iraq? What about Clinton's missile strikes, nothing? You said:

Our military does not target civilians. End of story.

This is an absolute statement, I merely had shown that these aren't absolutes. And now just absurdity from your part because you got beat. Don't make absolute statements, sorry but we have targeted civilians and we don't necessarily pull out if is a civilian element. We've often stuck where there were civilians. So basically you said:

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

I told you when we did, you said it's not valid even though you made an statement of absolution. You should watch your rhetoric. Also, just to be clear when I agreed with talloulou; you were not saying the same exact thing as her. She showed how McVeigh could have been relying on terror to get his way; that's a valid claim to terrorism. You're basically defining terrorism as people who blow up things whom we don't like. Al Queda is a terrorist organization. They use terror to try to influence the People and governments. That's what makes a terrorist. Merely blowing something up isn't an act of terrorism, there has to be more to it.
 
;)I'll give you this..

"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."

I have already posted how the act was repealed and it is historically accurate. Having someone tared and feathered or stamps crammed down your throat does not compare to being blown up or beheaded.

Sorry but your examples are not even close to the modern dictionary definition of a terrorist.

I've been through this with Aquapub -

http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057924367-post396.html

- and various others who cannot believe SOME of the founding fathers used terror against civilian stamp collectors - maybe it's worth going over some of the ground I covered there and you may wish to use some of the American history books that I suggested he read too.

I'll be here when you get back.

Some of them were ruffians but not terrorists. Again does not compare at all.

What is even more ridicules is that a relatively bloodless strong arming of a few individuals is now terrorism? Wow.

Careful what you say..

Give me a break. :roll:

Many of the stamp collectors were colonists, born and bred. You have read about the warning given by the Sons of Liberty when they spoke in New York. Fairly straightforward and easy to understand threat against civilian targets I'm afraid. I'll see if you can find it - if not, I'll happily post a link for you.

The threat was against supporters of the crown who were civilians. A threat does not make one a terrorist.
 
Think we didn't kill civilians in Vietnam? Think civilians didn't die in either Iraq? What about Clinton's missile strikes, nothing? You said:

Wrong.


Originally Posted by Bodhisattva
Our military does not target civilians. End of story.

Until you can show us/me where it is in the military strategic planning/doctrine that expressly dictates that our United States Military is ordered to SPECIFICALLY TARGETS CIVILIANS... you aint got ****. Sorry sweatheart. :cool:

End of Story.

WWII is in the past. We are in the present. The Iraq War is the PRESENT WAR.
WWII is Irrelevant.
Vietnam is Irrelevant.
The Civil War is Irrelevant.

Show where in Clintons Missile Strikes it indicated or specified that our military was to engage and kill civilians please. Thanks.

I am not sure that you understand the difference between collatoral damage and what is a specific agenda.


This is an absolute statement, I merely had shown that these aren't absolutes. And now just absurdity from your part because you got beat. Don't make absolute statements, sorry but we have targeted civilians and we don't necessarily pull out if is a civilian element. We've often stuck where there were civilians. So basically you said:

Striking where civilians are is not targeting civilians. You didn't beat anything.
You are merely showing that you don't understand what specifically targeting civilians means. ;)



I told you when we did, you said it's not valid even though you made an statement of absolution. You should watch your rhetoric. Also, just to be clear when I agreed with talloulou; you were not saying the same exact thing as her. She showed how McVeigh could have been relying on terror to get his way; that's a valid claim to terrorism. You're basically defining terrorism as people who blow up things whom we don't like. Al Queda is a terrorist organization. They use terror to try to influence the People and governments. That's what makes a terrorist. Merely blowing something up isn't an act of terrorism, there has to be more to it.

I was not saying that his sole purpose of blowing **** up was to cause terror.
I never said that. I said that he was a terrorist. Show me where I said that
his sole goal was to cause terror or keep your assumptions to yourself.

I have also differentiated between simply blowing things up and what terrorists do...

One reason that McVeigh blew up those buildings was to cause terror, that
is also a byproduct of war, but it is still terrorism if that is in your agenda.

What Tal and I said were very similar. To the extent that we were basically
saying the same thing. I never said that we said the exact same thing, you did.
I think that you need to get off of the assumption train and read what I am
actually saying instead of misinterpreting things so out of context.
 
-- I have already posted how the act was repealed and it is historically accurate. Having someone tared and feathered or stamps crammed down your throat does not compare to being blown up or beheaded.

Sorry but your examples are not even close to the modern dictionary definition of a terrorist.

The highlighted part of your reply is where your problem starts. I won't ask you to find the modern dictionary definition that tells us a terrorist ONLY uses methods that we associate with those who blow up or behead people. In 100 years time when whatever new technology is being used by terrorists - will that make Al Q'aeda into "freedom fighters" because they only beheaded people when methods 100 years away may be so different?

-- Some of them were ruffians but not terrorists. Again does not compare at all.

Afraid it does - don't confuse intention with tactics. The tactic was to instill fear and to intimidate. A terrorist beheading one person does not instill fear in that person - but in others who might follow. Hamas know their unguided missiles have a very low percentage chance of hitting human targets - it's the fear that terrorises.

What is even more ridicules is that a relatively bloodless strong arming of a few individuals is now terrorism? Wow.

Wow - but true. Again, it is not the tactics but the intention behind the strong arming. The tactic was to instill fear and make all stamp agents resign their jobs for FEAR of being targetted.

Give me a break.

Not because you're an American I won't.

A threat does not make one a terrorist.

What do you think sending unguided missiles into Israel is? The chances of an accurate hit are miniscule but the fear that people in Israel live with daily is palpable I'm afraid.

Did you get the chance to look at any of those books? I'll hang on - some of them are by American Professors of history at US colleges so I'm happy to use US sources. I won't bother to source JSTOR for this unless you have access to Academic Research gateways.
 
Sorry but your examples are not even close to the modern dictionary definition of a terrorist.
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.
 
Did you get the chance to look at any of those books? I'll hang on - some of them are by American Professors of history at US colleges so I'm happy to use US sources. I won't bother to source JSTOR for this unless you have access to Academic Research gateways.

I am not in college, and have not been for a very long time so I have no access.

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

Like I said all terrorists are rebels, but all rebels are not terrorists.
 
Back
Top Bottom