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.

 

Whose a Terrorist?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Just to let you (not all of you) know, there are American terrorists. Look at Eric Rudolph, Timothy McVey (wrong spelling), the guy found in Afghanistan, and oh yeah our Founding Fathers.


If it wasn't for our Founding Fathers, the U.S. would still be under Britain's rule.

Any post-industrialized nation that occupies another country are terrorists. England, which made fortunes from the diamonds and gold in Africa and India, were terrorists. Taking the New World from the Indians were terroristic acts. Anyone can be a terrorist.




posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 04:36 PM
link   
The real doozie is when you realise that those who make the accusations usually fit the description of who they are accusing .
Coercion , Terrorism , overwhelming force , moving a legal system beyond the grasp of those who it is supposedly designed to protect.......by...of....for......WHO?.



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by phlantz
Just to let you (not all of you) know, there are American terrorists. Look at Eric Rudolph, Timothy McVey (wrong spelling), the guy found in Afghanistan, and oh yeah our Founding Fathers.


Yeah look what happened to them. Except the Founding Fathers they dont use truck bombs on a federal building. The only thing that happened was the Sons of Liberty on a British ship and throwing a Tea Party. That provoked the Brits.



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 04:50 PM
link   
I don't understand the last comment. Technological advancements allow terrorists to blow up cars, buildings, towns, etc. Colonialists did not have that type of technology to pull off such a horrific act. But, during the Revolutionary War, the colonialists broke the rules of war by conducting gorilla war tactics to ensure victory. It surprised the red coats so much that victory was ours. Terrorists use whatever resources that are available. In Japan, the use of samarai swords were the weapon of choice until americans went in and introduced the gun to them, same thing goes for the native americans. Terrorists have always existed, but attacks were carried out in different manners depending on what weapon was available. I don't agree with it, but it's the truth.



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by phlantz
I don't understand the last comment.


Even if truck bombs dont exist. Im certain that the Founding Fathers have other means to attack the British. Remember John Paul Jone's famous attack on Britain? And our Founding Fathers dont support the attacks on innocent civilians. That was sarcastic remark.



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 10:26 PM
link   
Terrorism is an objective label.
One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. I think the modern distinction must come under the religious fundamentalism umbrella.
These Iraqis aren't really rebelling against the overthrow of their leadership, or the occupation by western superpowers. The problem is the minority Sunnis, who have always been dominant in religious/political affairs, having to come to terms with democracy. A democracy which puts them in the minority and the Shia version of Islam in the driving seat.

They rebel and suicide bomb the authorities they believe are colluding with the opposition Shia, and we take that as a threat to our own countries which it isn't. The only Muslem terrorists likely to emerge in the western world are nationalised teenagers, disillusioned with life in their college or high school, feeling persecuted like minorities always do. Losing all semblance of sanity and setting bombs off in our transport networks.

I implore you all never to mention to any Islamic that it is possible to place a bomb and run away. They don't seem to have noticed that yet.

Christians are equally culpable for any death caused by these Muslems. Just stay out of it is my advice.

[edit on 19-12-2005 by evilgus]



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 10:36 PM
link   
If you think about it, the Founding Father & The Sons Of Liberty, used terrorist tactics, to get what they wanted. You know what they wanted? No taxation, without representation.

Now, what is so different from this, than what all these other "terrorists" have done? Of course, you have the fact that they're using bombs, guns, & WMD to make their point, but at the same time, they're trying to do the same things as we did, in the beginning of our countries History.

I'm not necessarily saying that they're wants are better than ours.

They want freedoms, which the US is usually is the process of denying them. I am not expressing that I condone their tactics or their regimes, at all, what I am condoing, is the fact they're trying to fight for freedoms.

Something every man, woman, & child in this World should attempt to do.



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 11:25 PM
link   
The question is who is a terrorist? The answer is any individual or entity who willfully decides and chooses to engage civilians as hostile targets for political or personal goals, which benefit an "organized" ideal, or goal.



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Actually, about the founding fathers - In a sense, they were the terrorists of their day and age. They used many unconventional methods of warfare to defeat the better trained and better equipped British Imperial Army.

One of these being the first tactical use of Sniping and targeting the enemy officers - in the hopes of breaking their ranks and instilling fear amongst the infantry.

Much like the kidnappings of today, terrorism appears in all forms, and we are all guilty of committing it - the problem is, what are you willing to do to stop it?



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 05:26 PM
link   


The answer is any individual or entity who willfully decides and chooses to engage civilians as hostile targets for political or personal goals, which benefit an "organized" ideal, or goal.


Does the allied carpet bombing of Axis cities in WW2 make the Allies terrorists then? Because it does fit that defenition, though I would hardly feel comfortable describing it as a "terrorist" campaign.

I forget where I saw the quote, it may have been on here actually, but "a terrorist is a guy with a bomb but without an Air Force."

Really, "terrorist" has come to mean so many things to so many people that it's almost impossible to define objectively any more. I've heard anti-war protestors described as "terrorists" for causing traffic jams, Bush described as a "terrorist" for launching the Iraq War, and about a dozen other things that don't really seem to fit the bill.


[edit on 12/20/05 by xmotex]



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex


The answer is any individual or entity who willfully decides and chooses to engage civilians as hostile targets for political or personal goals, which benefit an "organized" ideal, or goal.


Does the allied carpet bombing of Axis cities in WW2 make the Allies terrorists then? Because it does fit that defenition, though I would hardly feel comfortable describing it as a "terrorist" campaign.

[edit on 12/20/05 by xmotex]



Actually, the first of the civilian bombings were considered to be a terrorist action by Hitlers Luftwaffa - both sides wished to leave the civilian aspect out of any part of their campaign as they wished to win over the other side - and bombing them wasn't the way to do it. It occurred during the Battle of Britain, where the targets were mainly British Airfields, but a Luftwaffa bomber went of course and dropped a few bombs on London itself. The Allies would later retaliate by bombing a port city in Denmark - Consequently creating a massive firestorm in which many civilians perished.

After that, there was no going back, and all was fair game.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex


The answer is any individual or entity who willfully decides and chooses to engage civilians as hostile targets for political or personal goals, which benefit an "organized" ideal, or goal.


Does the allied carpet bombing of Axis cities in WW2 make the Allies terrorists then? Because it does fit that defenition, though I would hardly feel comfortable describing it as a "terrorist" campaign.


Yes, you could say the Germans thought of us as terrorists, as did their allies, while we bombed and killed them to win the war.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by phlantz
Just to let you (not all of you) know, there are American terrorists. Look at Eric Rudolph, Timothy McVey (wrong spelling), the guy found in Afghanistan, and oh yeah our Founding Fathers.


If it wasn't for our Founding Fathers, the U.S. would still be under Britain's rule.

Any post-industrialized nation that occupies another country are terrorists. England, which made fortunes from the diamonds and gold in Africa and India, were terrorists. Taking the New World from the Indians were terroristic acts. Anyone can be a terrorist.


I wanted to point out that the USA would definatly not be under British rule in the Modern age - civil war or no civil war.

There is plenty of examples of former British colonies that have there own independance and identity.

If there was no civil war i do admit that you probably would of been a British colony uptil about 100 years ago.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by NumberCruncher
I wanted to point out that the USA would definatly not be under British rule in the Modern age - civil war or no civil war.


Just means I'd be saying "cheers" more often, and not be able to shoot my weapons,



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join