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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 05:26 AM
link   
Northern Indians are proud and spiritual people and calling them or even compare them to terrorists is moronic. They even saved US the WWII. If there were no Navaho language codes could be broken and American soldiers would suffer more casaulties than they had. So if i were American i would go to them and thank them for the service and sacrifice.

By the way when does the lease contract end on Manhattan. I think that this land was never bought from N. Indians.




posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 05:32 AM
link   
Good question and the simple answer is yes, look at the mandate!

Indians were not considered to have a "right" to defend themselves, the land was supposed to be for the whites, so any resistance from the indians was not seen as justified, and if the word had been around in that day, yes, the lable "terrorist" would have been slapped on them in no time.

The literature of the time describes felling indians like trees to make way for the invaders, so you can rest assured that any indian resistance was seen as then "just being difficult" and "not accepting their place in the scheme of things" which is EXACTLY how we react today when Iraqis "have the nerve to say no".

They are labelled terrorists NOT freedom fighters!

[edit on 18/3/2005 by Corinthas]



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Corinthas
Good question and the simple answer is yes, look at the mandate!

Indians were not considered to have a "right" to defend themselves, the land was supposed to be for the whites, so any resistance from the indians was not seen as justified, and if the word had been around in that day, yes, the lable "terrorist" would have been slapped on them in no time.

The literature of the time describes felling indians like trees to make way for the invaders, so you can rest assured that any indian resistance was seen as then "just being difficult" and "not accepting their place in the scheme of things" which is EXACTLY how we react today when Iraqis "have the nerve to say no".

They are labelled terrorists NOT freedom fighters!

[edit on 18/3/2005 by Corinthas]



Well said but Native Americans fought for their survival as a race. The US isn't practicing genocide in Iraq. The US has no intentions of keeping Iraq anymore that we kept Germany or Japan. I am positive that there are freedom fighters in Iraq that want us to get out. If I were an Iraqi I would want us out. No one likes to be occupied by a foriegn army. But can you say with complete confidence that the insurgents are 100% Iraqi's? I certainly cannot. I can however say with some level of confidence that the insurgents ranks are swelled by outsiders, aka; Terrorists
If it looks like a duck....................................



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 09:57 AM
link   
American indians are more human than the white american cowboys posting crap on ATS will ever be and i have nothing but respect for them. Its a real shame what happened to them.
They were true warriors that fought the much stronger enemy to the end, not those pussies dropping bombs from a safe height, thats not bravery, thats disgusting, its TERRORISM.

And my i say to the person that is balooning himself for being a cowboy, you dont have the guts nor the bravery nor the gun to call yourself cowboy.... last time i checked some "cowboys" like you got beat up sensless by some local bosnians here for terrorising women, thinking theyre on top of the world just becouse theyre US marines. Bunch of uneducated terrorists....show some respect when you come to another country.

And lets say we are living in a Roman empire, that would make Jesus a ..........?



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 10:12 AM
link   
no..native americans were not terrorists, nor are cowboys aka american citizens. native americans were fighting to protect their homeland as other people have since written history. the cowboys as we call them cause we like to think of them as catchy and cool names are just people looking for better lives either with violence or peaceful means. you have seen in history where all humans try to achieve their needs for pleasure and survival.



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Hey, My Great-Grandpa immigrated from Minn. to Austin, Texas in the late 1800's and my family still owns the ranch. I wear a 10 gallon hat, own guns, take my family to church on Sundays and I drive a 3/4 ton pick-up truck.

I guess that makes me a Redneck. Its too bad people in here are all-too-quick to insult others who have a different POV than theirs. You guys can call me raciest, Terrorist, Redneck and whatever, but I know the Indians that slaughtered innocents were killed because of their actions against settlers.....they gambeled and they lost.

You make is sound as if Indians had never had a war before the white man came......everything was Peaches-and-Creame? Read up on some history, Indians fought each other for hunting grounds.. access to water and salt etc etc.

Maximu§



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by LA_Maximus
Well livinlife and Souljah....my "cowboy" mentality is what makes me stronger than you. Im all for violence to solve serious problems when words fail....just as my country America uses violence around the world to kill our blood enemies.

The Indians were in our way and got slapped aside, Sure we burned down some tee-pee's and gunned down some blood-thirsty tribes, but whoever said building a country was a bed of roses?

They had it....we wanted it and we took it. Period! The strong survive and the losers whine like babies. Our ancestors built this into a great nation that Im proud to live in.


The Indians were in our way and got slapped aside
That is what the Nazi were saying for the Jews during the WW2. So basicly your statement equals your "cowboys" with german SS troops? You know SS were responsible for a systematic genocide of jewish population in eastern europe and Russia. They burned villages and murdered who knows how many INNOCENT civilans. Why? Because they were in "their way" between Third Reich and Moscow.

They had it....we wanted it and we took it. Period! The strong survive and the losers whine like babies.
They had it, and you took it? Like Iraqi oil you mean?
And what gives your THE RIGHT to take what is not yours?
What gives your nation the right to do that?
Are you a superior race? Like Nazis?



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Originally posted by dancer
"Maybe the word terrorist should be defined as "one of an organisation of Freedom fighters without a sanctioned country to back them".


GhostSoldier:
Thats the best explanation of a "terrorist" I've ever heard...


Exactly, I'm a Gypsy (Rom) and I don't have any state to back me in my Guerilla Warfare against the World so then I must be a Gypsy Terrorist now shouldn't I?



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by 00PS
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]


justified, because Souljah said so?



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Uhm... ok ... Yes

Because Souljah is right...


He's a true souljah!



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 10:58 AM
link   
i have great respect for the navive people (i even have some in my background). they were badly mistreated by the french, english, americans, and even canadians.

the fact is they did commit acts that today are considered to be terrorisim. so did the americans. heck the english even used bialogical warfare on the natives. none of this was right by any partys involved.but the facts remain.

i certainly would murdering civilians is terrorisim. and it was not just people who had settled on land that the natives claimed as theirs. they also murdered those who were only moveing though an area in wagon trains. the reason for wagon trains? to try to help protect each other from attacks that had no justification today we call this terrorism plain and simple.



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by nukunuku

And lets say we are living in a Roman empire, that would make Jesus a ..........?

don't know how i missed this earlyer.

what reason do you try to refer to jesus as a terrorist?

who did he kill? i can not think of one. (he did bring someone back from the dead tho). for crying out loud he did NOT even advocate violance. the only possible "violant" act i can think of him doing was when he threw the money lenders out of the temple. in fact while he was being arrested for trumped up charges he was not guilty of, one of his followers cut off the ear of one of the soldures arresting him. jesus healed it and chastized the one who did it. how can you even THINK about calling him a terrorist?



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Who here believes in survival of the fittest?



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Usually the winner determines who was terrorist and who was liberator.

I would think topugh that typical terrorist actions are done in a civilian setting as opposed to all out battle bewteen two armies...



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by LA_Maximus
Hey, My Great-Grandpa immigrated from Minn. to Austin, Texas in the late 1800's and my family still owns the ranch. I wear a 10 gallon hat, own guns, take my family to church on Sundays and I drive a 3/4 ton pick-up truck.

I guess that makes me a Redneck. Its too bad people in here are all-too-quick to insult others who have a different POV than theirs. You guys can call me raciest, Terrorist, Redneck and whatever, but I know the Indians that slaughtered innocents were killed because of their actions against settlers.....they gambeled and they lost.

You make is sound as if Indians had never had a war before the white man came......everything was Peaches-and-Creame? Read up on some history, Indians fought each other for hunting grounds.. access to water and salt etc etc.

Indians slaughtered innocents? How many of innocent american civilians did the indians slaughter? By conservative estimates, the population of the United states prior to European contact was greater than 12 million. Four centuries later, the count was reduced by 95% to 237 thousand. So how many "innocent civilians" did the Europeans slaughter? These Europeans that later formed the United States known today? Roughly 11 million. Sir, do you have any numbers for the innocent american victims that have died in those years of Euro-Indian Wars?

I am sorry Sir, but your American history is full of FACTS that what you did to the Indian population is pure and utter genocide.

1. According to Ward Churchill, a professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado, the reduction of the North American Indian population from an estimated 12 million in 1500 to barely 237,000 in 1900 represents a "vast genocide . . . , the most sustained on record." By the end of the 19th century, writes David E. Stannard, a historian at the University of Hawaii, native Americans had undergone the "worst human holocaust the world had ever witnessed, roaring across two continents non-stop for four centuries and consuming the lives of countless tens of millions of people." In the judgment of Lenore A. Stiffarm and Phil Lane, Jr., "there can be no more monumental example of sustained genocide—certainly none involving a 'race' of people as broad and complex as this—anywhere in the annals of human history."

2. During American expansion into the western frontier, one primary effort to destroy the Indian way of life was the attempts of the U.S. government to make farmers and cattle ranchers of the Indians. In addition, one of the most substantial methods was the premeditated destructions of flora and fauna which the American Indians used for food and a variety of other purposes. We now also know that the Indians were intentionally exposed to smallpox by Europeans. The discovery of gold in California, early in 1848, prompted American migration and expansion into the west. The greed of Americans for money and land was rejuvenated with the Homestead Act of 1862. In California and Texas there was blatant genocide of Indians by non-Indians during certain historic periods. In California, the decrease from about a quarter of a million to less than 20,000 is primarily due to the cruelties and wholesale massacres perpetrated by the miners and early settlers. Indian education began with forts erected by Jesuits, in which indigenous youths were incarcerated, indoctrinated with non-indigenous Christian values, and forced into manual labor.

3. Genocide or the deliberate extermination of one ethnic group by another is not new, for example in 1637 the Pequot Indians were exterminated by the Colonists when they burned their villages in Mystic, Connecticut, and then shot all the other people -- including women and children -- who tried to escape. The United States Government has refused to ratify the U.N. convention on genocide. There are many facets of genocide which have been implemented upon indigenous peoples of North America. The list of American genocidal policies includes: Mass-execution, Biological warfare, Forced Removal from homelands, Incarceration, Indoctrination of non-indigenous values, forced surgical sterilization of native women, Prevention of religious practices, just to name a few.

4. Genocide by the provisions of the convention of the United Nations in Dec. 1948 is defined as: Genocide by the provisions of the convention of the United Nations in Dec. 1948 is defined as: "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, and includes five types of criminal actions: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

5. "...Let me remind you only of the witch-hunts of the middle ages, the horrors of the French revolution, or the genocide of the American Indians... in such periods there are always only a very few who do not succumb. But when it is all over, everyone, horrified, asks `for heaven's sake, how could I?' ", Albert Speer, Hitler's minister of war production, writing from prison in 1953.

"Manifest Destiny, primitive savages, cowboys and indians, dirty injuns living in the dirt, bloodthirsty savages, can't even hold their liquor, the only good injun is a dead injun, Custer's last stand..."Hitler's concept of concentration camps as well as the practicality of genocide owed much, so he claimed, to his studies of English and United States history. He admired the camps for Boer prisoners in South Africa and for the Indians in the wild west; and often praised to his inner circle the efficiency of America's extermination - by starvation and uneven combat - of the red savages who could not be tamed by captivity." P. 202, "Adolph Hitler" by John Toland.

Wow. Even Adolph Hitler himself admired your American way of genocide. Really nice work. So how can you CLAIM that this Indian people attacked and slaughtered your "innocent civilians", when your American people eliminated eleven million of them? How can you label such people as criminals? How can you not give them the Right to defend themselves? How dare you call them terrorists?

But I understand your point of view. Judging by your signature, I think you stand by these words, that says it all about the Cowboy attitude towards the Indian people:

"Manifest Destiny, primitive savages, cowboys and indians, dirty injuns living in the dirt, bloodthirsty savages, can't even hold their liquor, the only good injun is a dead injun, Custer's last stand..."



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by drogo

Originally posted by nukunuku

And lets say we are living in a Roman empire, that would make Jesus a ..........?

don't know how i missed this earlyer.

what reason do you try to refer to jesus as a terrorist?

who did he kill? i can not think of one. (he did bring someone back from the dead tho). for crying out loud he did NOT even advocate violance. the only possible "violant" act i can think of him doing was when he threw the money lenders out of the temple. in fact while he was being arrested for trumped up charges he was not guilty of, one of his followers cut off the ear of one of the soldures arresting him. jesus healed it and chastized the one who did it. how can you even THINK about calling him a terrorist?



Exactly! He was not a terrorist if you know the facts, but im sure he was considered public enemy no.1 back then, just like "terrorists" that are really something else are today. and the "empire" saw him as a threat and had him killed. Gun or no gun, there are better ways to fight wars like you already know.
In that perspective, he was a martyr to people and an enemy of a big empire. Soooo, if you are part of the empire, you consider him a terrorist.

Anyway, You cant call someone fighting on his land a terrorist, terrorist acts are of political nature and are mostly done to intimidate and shift political views. They have nothing to do with defending your home.

And i notice good people here saying that terrorists kill civilians.....

I cant agree with that, in case you hadnt noticed, in any war, basically only people to get killed are in fact civilians, or what is called "collateral damage" and are mostly always killed by the army that is attacking. I mean the numbers in Iraq go up to 100.000 i think. And how many soldiers died?

The question should be Were settlers terrorists?



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 12:26 PM
link   
ooops double post

[edit on 18-3-2005 by nukunuku]



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 02:03 PM
link   
So, according to Bush rules they were terrorists fighting terrorists. Terrorists using conventional weapons fighting terrorists using biological weapons. And yet the darn injuns were the bad guys..... I know, if we hadn't America wouldn't be as big as today, as powerful, I understand that, but doesn't make it right. We made treaties, then killed them, breaking the treaties.

Custer's greatest victory? Black Kettle, an Indian village of women, children, and old people, slaughtered by Custer and his troops. Of course, can't blame the troops, you don't follow orders you are killed. Of course, Indians did kick ass using the same tactics again and again. Have two indians attack troops, run into the woods, troops follow, ambushed by a couple hundred indians. It wasn't until American Troops stopped killing Indian POWs that the Indians lost, for now the US Army had Indian scouts/spies.



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 03:56 PM
link   
it was a clash of two different cultures no more, and back then word terrorist didnt exist, it was called survival.

according to Bush, probably




[edit on 18-3-2005 by nukunuku]



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Souljah, its interesting that your quoting Ward Churchill, a professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado as one of your sources.

Im sure you've read that this fake Indian is a total clown and liar! He lied about being Indian, he lied about his service in Vietnam and he's a liar about everything else, but you've made your point and Ive made mine.

Maximu§



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join