It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Were Indians Terrorists?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Ok, in Iraq, we invaded them and the people are fighting back, we are calling them terrorists. But look into the past, we invaded NA and the Indians fought back, does this make the Indians terrorists? They didn't wear blatant uniforms, they didn't stand in a line and die like the old days of fighting,(stand in a line and get shot but hope to get a shot off before this happened) and they weren't with America. According to the Bush Administration, the Indians were terrorists. I know, we were there to "save" the heathens, so we were the good guys, right? But we still invaded the land of the Indians, which then fought back.

So, were the Indians terrorists? According to Bush&Co rules they were Terrorists that put the Islamic terrorists to shame. Hell, and we did to them what we do now to the ME, kill a few thousand civillians to get five terrorists then say the terrorists are evil for killing 3 sodiers.........




posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Good point james, to the bush administration anyone who "aint with us" is a terroist. The word terroist has been used on so many people now days i think it is probably applicable to me!
My next post will probably be from guantanomo bay!



posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Sure, you could called Indians terrorists, but it would be anachronistic to do so.



posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 09:56 PM
link   
If someone invades us and we fight back, will you consider us terrorists?
Course not. Will they consider us terrorists? course not.

Gross missuse of the word.



posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Thats right dgtempe......but ask the common citizen in america if the iraq "resistance" are terroists?.....what do u think they will say?



posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 10:00 PM
link   
This is just getting to be stupid now...

Were the French fighting the Germans terrorists?
Were the Native Americans fighting the Europeans (saying that America invaded the Indian's lands shows your ignorance) here in the current United States terrorists?
etc. etc.
You cannot compare those events to now.




Ok, in Iraq, we invaded them and the people are fighting back, we are calling them terrorists.

No, the people are not fighting back.
The people fought back for their country already back in January when they voted.
These insurgents aren't fighting for Iraq or it's freedom (otherwise, why would they be killing more innocents than coalition soldiers?). They're killing for their own selfish reasons.
What they are doing would be equivilant to current Native Americans burning their houses and businesses on thier reservations claiming their trying to take back their country.

[edit on 16-3-2005 by ThatsJustWeird]



posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 10:04 PM
link   
ThatsJustWeird, how is it ignorant to say America fought the Indians? The longest war in American History was the American Indian War. Hapened before Mexican American War, lasted until after the Civil War. You are the ignorant one not knowing this.

Yeah, fought back, vote or we won't feed you..... Great fighting.



posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 11:32 PM
link   
The Injuns that scalped innocents and burned homes were terrorists and they paid the price for not wanting to share the land. Y'all can thank the US Cavalry for the good work.


Maximu§



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 12:14 AM
link   
But I suppose the Americans that ran down indian villages and killed all the occupants were just "protecting" themselves huh?



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 01:33 AM
link   
Did the invaders use biological weapons (WMDs) against the native Indians? (smallpox blankets)



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 02:00 AM
link   
The word "terrorism" is merely an over-inflated term used to further segregate the populous, it is just used by one organisation against another for strategic reasons... and to some extent legitamise certain actions taken by a government...

ie the invasion of Iraq



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 02:46 AM
link   
I want to give you the literal definitions of "terrorism".

dictionary.reference.com...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

or

the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Using these definitions, most countries and peoples organizing and using intimidation or violence to influence their own set beliefs are considered terrorists. Are there many countries who have not fallen into this?

To answer your first questions in regard to the Indians and terrorism. Both the Indians of many tribes, the American, French, and British soldiers used forms of terrorism in the aim to accomplish their goals.



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 10:11 AM
link   
fighting back is not terrorism, blowing up civilians in order to bring about or influence change in government is terrorism. the terrorists in iraq are trying to destroy the new and frail democracy in iraq. they are not fighting the US occupation. of course, they want the US soldiers out too, but more than that, they want to destroy the democratic government. it is not "the people" fighting either, it is a very small portion of people in the country, some of which are citezens, some of which are not.

the difference is, the native americans were fighting the US cavalry and only attacking civilians when they were in indian territory, or, trespassing, which is even still debatably legal today. of course, there were disputes on what was indian territory, but regardless, the 2 situations cannot be compared.

as far as what we, the US would do if invaded? well, some, the metrosexuals, the hippies, the softies, would all lay down and wait for the bullet in the back of the head while the slight majority of people would grab the millions of guns available on any street corner or their closet at home and the invader would be in for a world of hurt, a can of whoop-ass. again, though, a different situation, we wouldn't be blowing up our own people to get the job done, we'd be attacking their military.



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 10:47 AM
link   
NO the Indians were not terrorists!

They were the guerrilla fighters (what was left of them). They were pushed into the corner and systematicly removed from the land they called Home. So what do you do when foreign people take your land and home?

You fight back!

So if you ask me who the real terrost was in the Indian wars, it was again the US Army.


[edit on 17-3-2005 by Souljah]



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Well Souljah, whatrs the difference? Also, it is ok for us to give them smallpox, one of the first uses of bio weapons, to slaughter entire villages of women and children and call it a victory, but not ok for them to kill ur troops? I am reffereing to both wars....



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Right Souljah, they were Guerillas


Now... They attacked Civilian too!

See Attack Civilians is not Terrorism it is Justified and Legitimate Guerilla Warfare...

Just Don't Be A Bad Civilian And You Won't Die

[edit on 17-3-2005 by 00PS]



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by LA_Maximus
The Injuns that scalped innocents and burned homes were terrorists and they paid the price for not wanting to share the land. Y'all can thank the US Cavalry for the good work.


Maximu§



Just a point of fact, it was the french that taught the "Injuns" how to scalp.
Bounties were put on certain tribes and english settlers by the french. The proof for payment was the scalp. The first settlers were accepted and welcomed. "Injuns" taught them to hunt, fish and plant native crops. It is the settlers that kept breaking the treaties and encroaching on "Injun" land. The US practiced government sanctioned genocide, wiping out entire tribes. It is a sad part of American history. What is even worse is this threads lame attempt to take such a tragic event in our history and turn it into a debate on terrorism. Sorry but I do not see the connection nor the justification for such blatant misrepresentation.



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yorga
Just a point of fact, it was the french that taught the "Injuns" how to scalp.
Bounties were put on certain tribes and english settlers by the french. The proof for payment was the scalp. The first settlers were accepted and welcomed. "Injuns" taught them to hunt, fish and plant native crops. It is the settlers that kept breaking the treaties and encroaching on "Injun" land. The US practiced government sanctioned genocide, wiping out entire tribes. It is a sad part of American history. What is even worse is this threads lame attempt to take such a tragic event in our history and turn it into a debate on terrorism. Sorry but I do not see the connection nor the justification for such blatant misrepresentation.


Yorga is the same guy saying that the US soldiers of today are of the higest Morals and Ethics...

Yet the founding of this country was only possible by government sanctioned genocide...

Something wrong here....



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by fledgling666
as far as what we, the US would do if invaded? well, some, the metrosexuals, the hippies, the softies, would all lay down and wait for the bullet in the back of the head while the slight majority of people would grab the millions of guns available on any street corner or their closet at home and the invader would be in for a world of hurt, a can of whoop-ass. again, though, a different situation, we wouldn't be blowing up our own people to get the job done, we'd be attacking their military.


If the metrosexuals, the hippies and the softies joined the army of the invading country to fight against American resistors would you then consider those people to be legitimate targets?

That's what's happening in Iraq.
The majority of the bombing have been aimed at Iraqi soldiers, police and recruits who have joined the fight against Iraqi resistors.



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Well Souljah, whatrs the difference? Also, it is ok for us to give them smallpox, one of the first uses of bio weapons, to slaughter entire villages of women and children and call it a victory, but not ok for them to kill ur troops? I am reffereing to both wars....

I dont understand your question:
Whats the difference?

Whats the difference between a terrorist and a guerrilla fighter?
Whats the difference between Indians and the Americans?

They were defending themselves. Isn't it enough that they have to fight their local tribes all the time? And always remember that they were here first, and they lived here for a long long time before any white men from the east came; before any spanish, portual, english or dutch ship ever sailed here, there were indian tribes.
So why shouldnt they defend their land?


[edit on 17-3-2005 by Souljah]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join