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 Mel Gibson Film "The Patriot" Should Have Been Titled "The Traitor"

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
I was watching that highly fictionalised film "The Patriot" when it occured to me that the title was wrong. It should have been titled "The Traitor". As the people of The 13 Colonies where in fact British Subjects, if they wanted to be known as Patriots then that would mean being patriotic toward The British Crown.

Definition Of Patriot:-

www.thefreedictionary.com...


A Person who vigorously supports his country and it's way of life.


As a British Subject their country was Britain.

Anyone disagree?




posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   
It had Mel Gibson in it. It should be renamed 'The Racist.'



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   
All I have to say is this:

The Founding Fathers and every single person who fought in the Revolutionary War is a terrorist according to modern U.S. law.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   
From a wikipedia article about the American Revolution.



Patriots
Main article: Patriot (American Revolution)
Further information: Sons of Liberty
At the time, revolutionaries were called "Patriots", "Whigs", "Congress-men", or "Americans". They included a full range of social and economic classes, but were unanimous regarding the need to defend the rights of Americans and uphold the principles of republicanism in terms of rejecting monarchy and aristocracy, while emphasizing civic virtue on the part of the citizens.



So, yes....i disagree.


edit on 11-12-2011 by type0civ because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck
 


You use the term "Revolutionary War". This is in fact incorrect. When British Subjects fight against fellow British Subjects it in fact becomes a civil war.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by type0civ
 


They can call themselves whatever they wished too. That still doesn't take away the fact they where British Subjects. In fact thousands of colonists fought on the side of the British Crown because they saw to do otherwise was an act of treason.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnIntellectualRedneck
All I have to say is this:

The Founding Fathers and every single person who fought in the Revolutionary War is a terrorist according to modern U.S. law.

Agree: Sign me up for that list( I should be so strong in my convictions)...keep licking the boots of your masters.

"We"( our founders) broke away from despotic British rule; I for one will not be apologizing. When the rule of mans law no longer applies to all; the inviolable rules of physics( muzzle velocity; ballistics and and energy) still apply.

When dictatorship arises I still get to vote!

edit on 11-12-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
I only serve one King (Jesus Christ), everyone else licks his boots, even your queen. Obama will lick his boots, Putin will lick his boots and even the hardest atheist will beg to lick his boots.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by alldaylong
 


Certainly, but that's a narrow view of life in the colonies at that time. They had built a new country and were patriotic toward what they had built. A look a the the Declaration of Independence will show what their issues were. Ironically they are similar to ours today.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
I only serve one King (Jesus Christ), everyone else licks his boots, even your queen. Obama will lick his boots, Putin will lick his boots and even the hardest atheist will beg to lick his boots.



I don't recall ever seeing "boot licking" anywhere in the bible.
I thought Jesus wore sandals?

As far as the OP....

You are correct and we would like to return the following states to Great Britian:
New Jersey
Arkansas (Take lonewolf19792000 with you!)





edit on 11-12-2011 by tvtexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by type0civ
 


To some degree you are correct that they "Built A New Country". However a far amount of it was financed both by The British Crown and also British Business. They Colonies where more or less a solely dependent on their defence being contibuted by the British Military. In fact a fair percentage of the tax paid in the colonies went toward defence. i.e the cost of garrisoning troops.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 
Is jesus a nazi with some kind of perverted boot licking fetish now then? Do you even read what you write? I personally do not believe in him, but from what i understand of his teachings, the last thing he would want is anyone licking his boots. Call yourself a christian


OP gibson is very anti english, the only people he hates more are jews. Which is odd considering holywood has more jews than Israel

edit on 11-12-2011 by Atzil321 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by alldaylong
 


I'm honestly not aware of how their tax money was spent, but i recall the standing military was soon to be used to watch over the American Colonies. Also if you look at the time line the "patriots" of that time were several generations removed from the original colonists who would have been loyal to the crown. And I believe their policy of conquering and colonizing would have also made indigenous people royal subjects as well. So where would their patriotism naturally be? Like India, Africa. and the rest of the Empire. It's a bit more complex than your question, i think.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
I only serve one King (Jesus Christ), everyone else licks his boots, even your queen. Obama will lick his boots, Putin will lick his boots and even the hardest atheist will beg to lick his boots.


"Jeezuz" 'dis guy again.."Yeah, you said that elsewhere today already".Anything new to add "on topic"?



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by type0civ
 


The indigenous peoples of India, Africa etc became British DEPENDENTS unlike the peoples of the 13 Colonies who where British SUBJECTS. The native American indians where if anything British Dependents within the colonies.
The English (Then British) East India Company where a major investor in the 13 Colonies:-

en.wikipedia.org...

You may recognise their flag. It was the flag used by the 13 colonies during the war.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by tvtexan

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
I only serve one King (Jesus Christ), everyone else licks his boots, even your queen. Obama will lick his boots, Putin will lick his boots and even the hardest atheist will beg to lick his boots.



I don't recall ever seeing "boot licking" anywhere in the bible.
I thought Jesus wore sandals?

As far as the OP....

You are correct and we would like to return the following states to Great Britian:
New Jersey
Arkansas (Take lonewolf19792000 with you!)





edit on 11-12-2011 by tvtexan because: (no reason given)


"Cali" toooooooooooo! Please?"



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by alldaylong
 



Again a complex subject spanning centuries, but here is the simple definition of A british subject at that time. from Wikipedia



Prior to 1949

At common law, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the English and later British Crown was an English or British subject. This meant that to be a subject, one simply had to be born in any territory under the sovereignty of the Crown. The only exception at common law was that the children of foreign ambassadors took the nationality of their fathers, who were immune from local jurisdiction and from duties of allegiance. From time to time, statutes were passed expanding the class of persons who held the status of subject, e.g. the statute 25 Edw. III st. 2 that naturalised the children of English parents born overseas.[1]




posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by type0civ
 


It gets even more complicated because before 1707 there was no "Britain" Britain came about through the "Act Of Union"

en.wikipedia.org...

As most of the 13 Colonies where established before 1707 they where in fact English Colonies.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by tvtexan

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
I only serve one King (Jesus Christ), everyone else licks his boots, even your queen. Obama will lick his boots, Putin will lick his boots and even the hardest atheist will beg to lick his boots.



I don't recall ever seeing "boot licking" anywhere in the bible.
I thought Jesus wore sandals?

As far as the OP....

You are correct and we would like to return the following states to Great Britian:
New Jersey
Arkansas (Take lonewolf19792000 with you!)





edit on 11-12-2011 by tvtexan because: (no reason given)


You can have it, take all the atheists with you. BTW theres nothing in New Jersey except the Pine Barrens. Even the statue of liberty doesn't want to look at it, she's facing the other way



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by alldaylong
reply to post by type0civ
 


To some degree you are correct that they "Built A New Country". However a far amount of it was financed both by The British Crown and also British Business. They Colonies where more or less a solely dependent on their defence being contibuted by the British Military. In fact a fair percentage of the tax paid in the colonies went toward defence. i.e the cost of garrisoning troops.


Yes"defense" like writing their own search warrants to enter the colonists homes to inspect all papers for the"kings stamp"( The stamp act) and by the way involuntarily "quartering" troops in peoples homes.Two things specifically made illegal under our then new constitution. Thanks but no thanks for British "protection". Nobody but your officers said you had to wear bright red coats and stand bolt upright abreast in afield while engaged in combat...


( "aim small-miss small"!)
edit on 12-12-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-12-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join