Printable View
Yeah, yeah... CIA told us there where WMD's as well.... ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
They are all terrorists. The fact that we agree with some of them is irrelevant. There are some good terrorists, them we call freedom fighters, because it's more PC...... ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
They didn't fight in formation, they did run though....... ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
How mant tmes do we have to explain the difference to you? AS has been said even all the insurgents in Iraq are not terrorists.Quote:
They are all terrorists. The fact that we agree with some of them is irrelevant. There are some good terrorists, them we call freedom fighters, because it's more PC....
Nonetheless, they were using a definition that was pulled from law. I would be interested in seeing equivalents from other modern international sources. I suspect they will differ only slightly.Quote:
Originally Posted by bmolsson
The judgement problem here is yours because you have made no attempt to understand the differences. It's pretty obvious when you try to lump things into "good terrorists" and bad terrorists. If you make a more objective perusal you will find terrorism is more a methodology than a political ideology. Unlike you, I'm not trying to define terrorism based on their political, national, religious, or ethnic background, but upon their methods and action. So if you want to have a real discussion, put your U.S. bashing aside and try to understand the modern definitions.Quote:
They are all terrorists. The fact that we agree with some of them is irrelevant. There are some good terrorists, them we call freedom fighters, because it's more PC...... ~;)
Actually, the Continentals held up rather well in formation. They were only a portion of the total army since they fought together with the militia. The Continentals formed the backbone of the army and they could stand up to some of the best disciplined soldiers in the world at the time, the British. Doesn't mean they would win head-to-head, but they could stand and fight. The militia often ran since they were not disciplined trained soldiers.Quote:
They didn't fight in formation, they did run though....... ~D
A rebellion is not terrorism - its a rebellion against the government. Can a rebellion have acts of terrorism committed in it by those who claim to be rebels - sure.
But the Contential Army does not fit the describtion of a Terrorist organization even in the most liberal of terms. Nor does the individual state Militia's that fought in the War of Independence fit within the defination of terrorists.
Someone has a major problem in understanding history.
And werent the British guilty of terrorism in the way they used the indians?
That has to be one of the biggest piles of crap(amongst many) you have ever posted Gawain .
Would you like me to continue ?,beyond he fact that it was thier land in the first place (until the Dutch,French , British , Spanish .....{others} ) siezed it .
Would you like to examine the British proposals on native rights , would you like to examine your countries legal findings on native rights ? or why your government has blocked some of those findings ?
But the Contential Army does not fit the describtion of a Terrorist organization
Rubbish , a terrorist organisation is what ever the ruling people decide is a terrorist organisation . What do you think makes the "continental army" so different ?
No you just posted the biggest line of crap Ive ever seen. Did the US or Britain take the 13 colonies from the Indians. We took it from them not the indians.And dont tell me they didnt use the indians to terrorize us. Or that Col Tarleton wasnt a terrorist.At best he should be considered a war criminal.Quote:
And werent the British guilty of terrorism in the way they used the indians?
That has to be one of the biggest piles of crap(amongst many) you have ever posted Gawain .
Would you like me to continue ?,beyond he fact that it was thier land in the first place (until the Dutch,French , British , Spanish .....{others} ) siezed it .
Would you like to examine the British proposals on native rights , would you like to examine your countries legal findings on native rights ? or why your government has blocked some of those findings ?
Quote:
Rubbish , a terrorist organisation is what ever the ruling people decide is a terrorist organisation . What do you think makes the "continental army" so different ?
I se so then we could call Marti Luther King and those who followed him terrorists. This is insane, Please tell me some acts of terrorism by the Continental Army.
Agree.. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
So do you or anyone else here think they were?Quote:
Actually, that's just what Hoover did.
If that is the definition, why would for example the Kurdish PKK be a terrorist organisation in the eyes of CIA ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
CIA appoint terrorist stamps based on current politics. The definitions listed would classify themselves as terrorists.
Methodology ? How would you classify a nuke then ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
why would for example the Kurdish PKK be a terrorist organisation in the eyes of CIA ?
What about the PUK or KDP , how can one be described as a terrorist organisation yet not others , they are all doing the same things , yet at different times they become classed as nasty foriegn backed evil terrorists or foriegn backed good freedom fighters .
Col Tarleton wasnt a terrorist.
No he was an officer of the governments army , he was fighting traitorous rebel terrorists who were seeking to overthrow their rulers .
Please tell me some acts of terrorism by the Continental Army.
They took up arms against their rulers , they are terrorists just like the IRA or ANC . Just because they won doesn't change the fact that they were terrorists .
Then if it were a decent army he should have been courtmartaled. He exectuted his prisoners and in every way acted as a terrorist. If the British army approved of his actions then they are terrorists.Quote:
No he was an officer of the governments army , he was fighting traitorous rebel terrorists who were seeking to overthrow their rulers .
What a bunch of bullocks.Quote:
They took up arms against their rulers , they are terrorists just like the IRA or ANC . Just because they won doesn't change the fact that they were terrorists .
Then if it were a decent army he should have been courtmartaled. He exectuted his prisoners and in every way acted as a terrorist. If the British army approved of his actions then they are terrorists.
He offered no quarter to guerillas operating in Carolina , if he was guilty of anything then the Continentals should have laid charges when they captured him , they didn't did they .
When he was released and returned to Britain he wasn't courtmarshalled was he , in fact he was promoted to General , elected to parliament and Knighted by the King .
So if neither the British or Americans persued any charges (military or civil) against him how can you label him a terrorist or a criminal ?
What a bunch of bullocks.
No , that is generally reffered to as a herd . ~;)
Since you take issue with my statement can you tell me in what way the American rebels differ from the Irish or South African rebels ?
Just give it up. Your definitions are farcical.Quote:
Originally Posted by bmolsson
Not at all. They are just non-biased...... ~:grouphug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
Actually . . .
In addition to armed revolt using organized militias and following standard guerilla war tactics, there was a considerable amount of terrorism by both sides during the American Revolutionary War. Stores were looted, homes were burned, and partisans murdered by both sides. Pretty common knowledge.
ichi :bow:
One mans hero is another mans terrorist.... ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by ichi