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.

 

The term 'Terrorist'.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 11:37 AM
link   
"Terrorist" - seems to have had it's meaning changed over the last several years. If we are terrorists to them, and they are terrorists to us, who in fact is the terrorist?
------------------------------------
WAS:
terrorist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trr-st)
n.
One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.

adj.
Of or relating to terrorism.
-------------------------------------
NOW:
terrorist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trr-st)
n.
The label given to a group that is forced on the public to give the illusion that they are the ones at fault which allows us to perform acts of terrorism in return.

adj.
Of or relating to having a different view than that of the USA.




posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Source for the NOW defintion please, or is this your own interpretation?

regards
seekerof



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 11:43 AM
link   
They are just an enemy combatant fighting for what they think is right. To them, we are terrorist.



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Anyone who dares disagree with heir Bush, of course!



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Anyone who dares disagree with heir Bush, of course!


lol EastCoastKid, that is soo true. Terrorist is someone which uses "terror" to put pressure on govnment(S). Thats what i thought it meant



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Nothing but great massive control by the governments, further restricting fundamental rights of expression.



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Strictly a political strategy. Making the state that was "terrorized" lose faith in all of their leaders. Making the society crumble from within.



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 12:39 PM
link   
By definition, our founding fathers were "terrorists."



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
By definition, our founding fathers were "terrorists."


Okay I'll bite, in what way?



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Terrorist or Patriot, one can be both, depending on what side you are one.

The Boston Tea Party was a "terrorist" act, although to my knowledge they did not hurt anybody.



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Terrorist or Patriot, one can be both, depending on what side you are one.

The Boston Tea Party was a "terrorist" act, although to my knowledge they did not hurt anybody.


Patriots do not target innocent civilians.

Terrorists do.

[Edited on 4-3-2004 by COOL HAND]



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Terrorist or Patriot, one can be both, depending on what side you are one.

The Boston Tea Party was a "terrorist" act, although to my knowledge they did not hurt anybody.


Patriots do not target innocent civilians.

Terrorists do.

[Edited on 4-3-2004 by COOL HAND]


History 101: We were under British rule at the time, Cool Hand. It was considered by the crown to be an act against the state.



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 01:36 PM
link   
History 101: We were under British rule at the time, Cool Hand. It was considered by the crown to be an act against the state.

Your point is what? It was an act to draw attention to their cause, something that happens here all the time.



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
By definition, our founding fathers were "terrorists."


Okay I'll bite, in what way?


Humm..... killing indians and infecting them with small pox. I think that counts as terrorism



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Terrorist or Patriot, one can be both, depending on what side you are one.

The Boston Tea Party was a "terrorist" act, although to my knowledge they did not hurt anybody.


Patriots do not target innocent civilians.

Terrorists do.

[Edited on 4-3-2004 by COOL HAND]


Like I said killing indians (mostly women and chlidren) and inffecting them with small pox



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND
History 101: We were under British rule at the time, Cool Hand. It was considered by the crown to be an act against the state.


Your point is what? It was an act to draw attention to their cause, something that happens here all the time.

This is ridiculous, Cool Hand. Did you take history lessons in school? Do you recall what year that was? They were rebelling against the established government. Hello?



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaTruth

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
By definition, our founding fathers were "terrorists."


Okay I'll bite, in what way?


Humm..... killing indians and infecting them with small pox. I think that counts as terrorism


Ah DaTruth.. but that was America's 'manifest destiny,' remember?



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaTruth

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
By definition, our founding fathers were "terrorists."


Okay I'll bite, in what way?


Humm..... killing indians and infecting them with small pox. I think that counts as terrorism


And those were intentional how?



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 01:49 PM
link   
No offense Cool Hand, but I don't have time to give you a lesson in American History. I suggest you immerse yourself in a truckload of reading.

The killing of and herding of native indians onto the reservations that sat upon worthless lands is and was an atrocity of the highest order. My best friend in the Army was a Navajo indian and I was able to spend some time out on the reservation. It's still 100 years behind.



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 01:50 PM
link   
This is ridiculous, Cool Hand. Did you take history lessons in school? Do you recall what year that was? They were rebelling against the established government. Hello?


I have to think back to my graduate level courses on American History.

Rebelling against an established government is not the same as being a terrorist. Aren't democrats currently rebelling against a Republican government? Does that make them terrorists? According to your thinking, yes.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join