Kerry calls U.S. troops terrorists

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
A terrorist is one who terrorizes. You can't be one without doing the other.


I disagree. Call it semantics if you like, but while a terrorist does indeed terrorize people, one who terrorizes isn't necessarily a terrorist.

It all depends on the INTENT.

Dentists instill terror into me. I'm terrified of them. I take very good care of my teeth and have not been to a dentist in over 20 years. And I won't go. They terrorize me.

They don't mean to, just as our soldiers don't mean to terrorize Iraqis, they're both just doing their job.

A terrorist is one who intends to terrorize; whose purpose is to instill terror; to cause fear. One who terrorizes may do so without trying to.




posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by centurion1211
A terrorist is one who terrorizes. You can't be one without doing the other.


It all depends on the INTENT.



If (and that's a big if) U.S. troops are actually doing what was reported, somehow I doubt that the average iraqi citizen would make much distinction between them and what the so-called insurgents are doing. Both would be seen as equal in the terroroism department. So I have to disagree with you on intent being the only measure (and it's also a semantics defense) and go back to the dictionary-type definition.

[edit on 12/17/2005 by centurion1211]



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
If (and that's a big if) U.S. troops are actually doing what was reported...


You mean you think they aren't going into homes in the middle of the night unannounced? If that's your argument, that's an entirely different subject. You think Kerry's lying about what the troops are doing?



So I have to disagree with you on intent being the only measure (and it's also a semantics defense) and go back to the dictionary-type definition.


Go ahead and use the dictionary.
ter·ror·ize
1. To fill or overpower with terror; terrify.
2. To coerce by intimidation or fear. See Synonyms at frighten.

The first meaning of the word Kerry used is to fill with terror. Not to be a terrorist.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
Another mitigating factor as Bob LaoTse has just pointed out is that conservatives....


And another sure sign that one is dealing with a true believer is their reflexive tendency to assign any who might disagree with them to the "opposition."



That's also why liberals "suck" at "this." They tend to have integrity.


A person of integrity would've addressed my statements, rather than simply hurling ad hominem pedantry somewhere in my general direction.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 01:46 PM
link   
ter·ror·ist (trr-st)
n. One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism

definition of terrorist

So, that shows that Kerry's use of the word and being called a terrorist are one and the same thing.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
More semantics ...

Exactly.




ter·ror·ist (trr-st)
n. One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism

So, that shows that Kerry's use of the word and being called a terrorist are one and the same thing.


No it doesn't. YOU used the words terrorist and terrorism, he didn't. But like you said, it's all semantics. It's up to the thinking individual to discern what he meant and it's clear what you want him to mean. Even if you had to put words in his mouth to get him to mean it.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 03:10 PM
link   
While all of my previous statements still stand, I really don't consider Kerry to have called our troops terrorists. Now yes, his remarks were offensive to our troops and wrong of him to say, but I don't believe that he was calling our troops terrorists in the fashion that some people are implying. To me, a terrorists (Or at least the ones we're fighting), is someone who uses terrorism as a means of coercion. The boogyman terrorizes people, but he's not necessarily a terrorist. Yeah, he'd be terrible (If he's real, which he's not...another line that can be drawn to Kerry's statement
), but he wouldn't really be a terrorist. That's kind of how I feel about Kerry's statement. Offensive, uncalled for, unrealistic, but he didn't necessarily call our troops terrorists.



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
ter·ror·ist (trr-st)
n. One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism

definition of terrorist

So, that shows that Kerry's use of the word and being called a terrorist are one and the same thing.


No, because that definition of "terrorist" depends on another definition, for "terrorism."

Terrorism is:

"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."

So --

A "terrorist" is one that unlawfully uses or threatens use of force or violence against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Is our troops' use or threat of force unlawful?

No.

Is it done with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments?

No.

Are our troops, then, terrorists?

No.

But are they terrorizing Iraqi civilians?

Yes.

Like it or not, words mean things. They do not mean the third cousin twice removed of those things. One who "terrorizes" is not necessarily a "terrorist." Thus, one who says a person "terrorizes" is not necessarily calling the person a "terrorist."

It pays to learn the language by which we communicate.



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 12:45 AM
link   
The fact that we're still discussing this is not only sad it's depressing.
Seriously reading this thread makes me want to pull my hair out of my head in clumps.

Well welcome to the America of the 21st century I guess. A land of apathy ignorance and repressed rage.

I feel like Captain Nemo.



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by boogyman
The fact that we're still discussing this is not only sad it's depressing.

Since I stopped posting to this thread, I've been putting crushed glass under my eyelids... it's been such a relief and much more enjoyable.



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by boogyman
The fact that we're still discussing this is not only sad it's depressing.


Sometimes I just feel compelled to keep trying, Know what I mean? Like maybe if I explain it with just the right words and in just the right spirit, someone might just catch a glimpse of what I'm saying... And sometimes they do. Sometimes when I've discussed a subject long enough, I learn something that I wouldn't have, had we given up on it.



Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Since I stopped posting to this thread, I've been putting crushed glass under my eyelids... it's been such a relief and much more enjoyable.


After a few days away from this thread, I gave into the draw and came back. But then again, I didn't try the glass thing... That does sound mighty refreshing...



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Since I stopped posting to this thread, I've been putting crushed glass under my eyelids... it's been such a relief and much more enjoyable.

ROFLMAO.
I just saw this, and though I know it had an effective meaning and message behind it, I am still laughing over how it was humorously expressed.






seekerof



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Seekerof
As such, the issue of whether Kerry called US troops serving in Vietnam as "baby killers" is subjective and interpreted by those who remember such first-hand.


If people said he said it (or implied it), then he said it, huh? Just like here where he 'called the troops "terrorists"'... Believe what you will, Seekerof, but I don't buy it. I'm not just taking your word for it. Besides, I believe my brother. The soldiers killed babies. Are you implying they didn't?
[edit on 8-12-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]


Killing children is Sick! However, I wish to ask one question about Nam:

Who were the sick, twisted Bastards planting Bombs on babies so they would blow up when moved?

The Viet Con were no better! They used their own children as bait for booby traps!


Two wrongs will never equal a right, no matter how long we argue!

Tim

[edit on 3-1-2006 by ghost]



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 01:48 AM
link   
There is nothing incorrect about what Kerry said. Only an arrogance and ego of the kind that is taught in imperial nations would urge to deny it. And indeed any other self-critical truths, even far milder ones that are angrily and irrationally refuted. We must face our wrongs to be worthy of any patriotism.

It is called redemption.

[edit on 12/1/07 by SteveR]





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join