Book burning

[stebo0728]

You missed the point. Lobbing rockets at civilian populations is terrorism, regardless of who's doing it. We can condemn those acts without getting into calling an organization a "terrorlst" organization. Labeling like that gets us into tricky situations where we say we want the Palestinians to elect their own government, but then refuse to recognize and deal with that government because they've elected a "terrorlst organization."

Sorry, maybe you prefer to not be so black and white, but if an organization endorses acts of terror, they are a terrorlst organization. Stop d!ck around with political correctness and call the gorilla a gorilla.

[heliochrome85]

You missed the point. Lobbing rockets at civilian populations is terrorism, regardless of who's doing it. We can condemn those acts without getting into calling an organization a "terrorlst" organization. Labeling like that gets us into tricky situations where we say we want the Palestinians to elect their own government, but then refuse to recognize and deal with that government because they've elected a "terrorlst organization."

Sorry, maybe you prefer to not be so black and white, but if an organization endorses acts of terror, they are a terrorlst organization. Stop d!ck around with political correctness and call the gorilla a gorilla.

the definition of terrorlst differs from the defintion of patriot by only the viewpoint of the person writing the history.

to the british, John Adams, and the other Framers of the Constitution were terrorists.

so much for gorillas.

[stebo0728]

the definition of terrorlst differs from the defintion of patriot by only the viewpoint of the person writing the history.

to the british, John Adams, and the other Framers of the Constitution were terrorists.

so much for gorillas.

Can you find me a history book anywhere that actually DOES refer to any of the American Revolutionists as terrorists? I think you would be hard pressed to make that jump. Acts of aggression of a patriotic nature do not typically focus on random killing regardless of whether your civilian or military.

[IBCoupe]

What if the organization is the one who is supporting their members in lobbing those rockets? What if that very organization is calling for the extermination of all Jews?

Then it's an organization that commits acts of terrorism. There are cries that our use of drones are terroristic when we take out civilian targets. And that phrase, "take out civilian targets," becomes even fuzzier when we admit that we're not attacking a government per se. Is the United States Government a terrorlst organization?

My point, the Imam's point, and the UN's point is that we don't need the label to do whatever it is we want to do. It doesn't really matter if the members of an organization are committing terrorlst acts with or without the organization's blessings. Nothing is gained by having a "zero tolerance" labeling policy.

Sorry, maybe you prefer to not be so black and white, but if an organization endorses acts of terror, they are a terrorlst organization. Stop d!ck around with political correctness and call the gorilla a gorilla.

It's not "political correctness," stebo. If you're living in a world where your only options are ever to make ninety-degree turns left or right, it's a lot harder to get where you want to go. If you have any intention of solving a problem through any means other than "Kill 'em all," you're going to have to accept some gray.

Labeling any given organization as a "terrorlst organization" comes with some hefty implications, not only for that organization but for us, as the labelers - in both how we treat that organization and how we carry ourselves from here on out.

[audtatious]

Is the United States Government a terrorlst organization?

Of course we are. Our military targets civilians and babies in the night, just ask people like John Kerry.

[IBCoupe]

Okay.

[szh]

Sorry, maybe you prefer to not be so black and white, but if an organization endorses acts of terror, they are a terrorlst organization. Stop d!ck around with political correctness and call the gorilla a gorilla.

the definition of terrorlst differs from the defintion of patriot by only the viewpoint of the person writing the history.

to the british, John Adams, and the other Framers of the Constitution were terrorists.

And, also according to the British, so were David ben Gurion and Menachem Begin and other founders of Israel. Yet, today, since they were successful in founding the country of Israel, they are among those countries founders and revered.

Z

[szh]

you are a better man than me if thats the case. I have little tolerance for that sort of open faced bigotry. not in this case, and not in the case of the morons who issue fatwas against farting, jews, and eveyrthing under the sun.

Hmmm ... while I think that Pastor Jones is an incredibly stupid and bigoted person for his statements and beliefs, I must still defend his right to make those statements and hold those beliefs, etc. That is one of the things this country stands for.

Along with freedom comes responsibility and there are plenty of people like him who will be irresponsible. Regardless of which, I blame the media for their blatant over-hype of such small and ridiculous situations - they know better and should be more responsible.

And, yes, I agree. There are morons elsewhere in the world who have the same kind of stupid beliefs and issue ridiculous fatwas at the drop of a hat - I find them totally unacceptable too, but by American freedom standards, they can make those statements, no? We cannot be hypocritical.

Z

[szh]

the definition of terrorlst differs from the defintion of patriot by only the viewpoint of the person writing the history.

to the british, John Adams, and the other Framers of the Constitution were terrorists.

so much for gorillas.

Can you find me a history book anywhere that actually DOES refer to any of the American Revolutionists as terrorists?

Exactly the point, isn't it? Victors write the history.

The British government at the time considered them to be akin to what we call terrorists today, even though some of the random violence did not happen in that manner. Plenty of British newspapers and also members of Parliament were all saying the same - including calls for the British Army to suppress the revolutionists with very harsh penalties (akin to what some people want today for the terrorists!)

Acts of aggression of a patriotic nature do not typically focus on random killing regardless of whether your civilian or military.

The word was not in use in that manner when the events occurred, and history books do not use them for the same reason, and so it is not applied to them.

But the definition is still applicable - if you look at the British Army reactions and the British news of the time, this would be more obvious.

Z

[AZhitman]

Big difference: The colonists didn't attack Great Britain. They defended their newfound turf against invasion by British troops.

"Terrorism" was brought to these shores by the crown.

Obviously, we could go into a long discussion of the implications of settling land that was already occupied by native Americans, but we were discussing European immigrants.

[IBCoupe]

Greg, you're absolutely right. That's an important distinction that's often missed, even today. Too often, the Media mislabels things to this day. For example, the former Iraqi guard that perpetrated attacks against US and Iraqi forces weren't "terrorists" or "insurgents," they were most aptly named "Partisans." Similar for Taliban, as the former government of Afghanistan, fighters. Insurgents would be new people that rise up against the US or supported governments in their countries.

[heliochrome85]

Big difference: The colonists didn't attack Great Britain. They defended their newfound turf against invasion by British troops.

"Terrorism" was brought to these shores by the crown.

Obviously, we could go into a long discussion of the implications of settling land that was already occupied by native Americans, but we were discussing European immigrants.

that may have been the case after the revolutionary war. until America defeated GB in the Revolutionary war, the land they were on, was very much GBs and the troops were well established there. When the Americans attacked the troops, those troops were not occupying foreign land. The Americans did not recognize the legitimacy of the state. Sounds like the palestinians doesnt it?

the technology has changed, but the ideology is the same.

[AZhitman]

Greg, you're absolutely right. That's an important distinction that's often missed, even today. Too often, the Media mislabels things to this day. For example, the former Iraqi guard that perpetrated attacks against US and Iraqi forces weren't "terrorists" or "insurgents," they were most aptly named "Partisans." Similar for Taliban, as the former government of Afghanistan, fighters. Insurgents would be new people that rise up against the US or supported governments in their countries.

That distinction isn't lost on me. While I abhor the idea of some US soldier being harmed in the M.E., I'm cognizant of the fact that NONE of those people are "terrorists". They're enemy combatants. Hell, I'll even go so far as to call them "patriots" (..suck it, liberals), because being misguided doesn't preclude being a patriot.

[IBCoupe]

Just so long as you don't go so far as to call them Real Iraqis/Afghanis...

[stebo0728]

I heard a line in a comedy bit somewhere last year:

"Afgan war? You mean we are fighting over a blanket? WTF?"

[heliochrome85]

I heard a line in a comedy bit somewhere last year:

"Afgan war? You mean we are fighting over a blanket? WTF?"

that would be an improvement of what we have now.

[IBCoupe]

I'd love it if there was a chance that we'd get a blanket out of the deal.

[heliochrome85]

I'd love it if there was a chance that we'd get a blanket out of the deal.

they make damn good ones.

[IBCoupe]

And shaggy dogs.

[heliochrome85]

if i ever was to get a dog, it probably would be one. so classsssssssy

[IBCoupe]

Too big and hairy. I prefer the Shiba Inus.

[heliochrome85]

eh, still not a dog person, but not bad.

ive got two cats here. one is a russian blue, and the other is a siamese/persian mix. and yes, they are plotting world domination.

[AZhitman]

Aghans (wolfhounds) are p******.

My 3-legged elderly cat cornered one in our garage when I was a kid. Damn thing had pissed all over itself and was shaking like a leaf..

[heliochrome85]

i didnt know dogs could be Democrats?

[AZhitman]

i didnt know dogs could be Democrats?

Well done, good sir.

[heliochrome85]

i hate the defeatocrats. they refuse to debate any issue because they are too scared to stand up for their ideas.

[IBCoupe]

I couldn't stand the way people acted like a 60-seat Democratic Senate majority was anything to brag about. I've said it before: the closest thing to a viable third party in this country is, at any given time, half of the Democrats.

[audtatious]

It would have been something to brag about if the heads of the Dem party were pushing legislation that was fully agreed upon by all the elected Dems. Super-majority gave them the opportunity.

[IBCoupe]

My point is that, on the face of it, there's no such legislation.

[audtatious]

You lost me, are you talking about something specific? I was talking in generalities.