Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If you want the truth, ask an Indian. You'll find them on the crappiest lands in the empire. Get there early. They'll probably be all fucked up trying to forget their past and dismal future.
Gotta go !
Here comes murkins with the casino and tax free tobacco noise !
Using the definition we use today, were the founding fathers "terrorists?" I submit that they were, only there might be a time and a place to be one.
The Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism.
they even dressed as Indians.
I went back and read some of the accounts of Lexington and Concord, there are eye witness accounts preserved from both sides. The British pretty much called us Rebels......
I went back and read some of the accounts of Lexington and Concord, there are eye witness accounts preserved from both sides. The British pretty much called us Rebels......
morons will always try and say terrorists terrorize, therefore all who terrorize are terrorists.
Used to be when kids did something wrong they were terrified their parents would find out, and they suffered through terror when the parents did find out. Thank god parents are not terrorists anymore...now their fucking kids are
Using the definition we use today, were the founding fathers "terrorists?" I submit that they were, only there might be a time and a place to be one.
I would disagree.
Did they seek to assassinate leaders of the British Government? No.
Did they seek to blow up civilian targets in Britain? No.
Did they form a regulated army to meet the British forces in open battle? Yes.
Did they seek to assume the resonsibilities of a well-regulated government? Yes.
They wee certainly rebels against lawful authority. But they were not terrorists.
Using the definition we use today, were the founding fathers "terrorists?" I submit that they were, only there might be a time and a place to be one.
I would disagree.
Did they seek to assassinate leaders of the British Government? No.
Did they seek to blow up civilian targets in Britain? No.
Did they form a regulated army to meet the British forces in open battle? Yes.
Did they seek to assume the resonsibilities of a well-regulated government? Yes.
They wee certainly rebels against lawful authority. But they were not terrorists.
1. They did seek to terrorize, torture, and kill leaders and associates of the British government. Sons of Liberty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2. They did destroy by violence and arson civilian targets associated with the rule of Great Britain. Sons of Liberty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
3. and 4. are already admitted
To suggest that as violent as were the Sons of Liberty and other organizations that somehow they were the equivalent on Al Quada is simply wrong.
I see no reason to use the propagandistic terminology of the U.S. military, which is notorious for twisting the recognized meanings of words to excuse and hide their own horrible crimes -- for instance, their crimes of murder and torture and terrorism in Vietnam and Iraq.How ignorant can you be? In Iraq and Afghanistan we used two terms 'insurgents' and 'terrorists'Using the definition we use today, were the founding fathers "terrorists?" I submit that they were....
Using the definition we use today, were the founding fathers "terrorists?" I submit that they were, only there might be a time and a place to be one.
:The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.I see no reason to use the propagandistic terminology of the U.S. military, which is notorious for twisting the recognized meanings of words to excuse and hide their own horrible crimes -- for instance, their crimes of murder and torture and terrorism in Vietnam and Iraq.How ignorant can you be? In Iraq and Afghanistan we used two terms 'insurgents' and 'terrorists'Using the definition we use today, were the founding fathers "terrorists?" I submit that they were....
I am quite satisfied to use the standard definitions of the word found in the Unabridged Webster's Dictionary, Third New International Edition. It is a surprisingly short article; there are only two very short definitions.
terrorism :
1 : an atmosphere of threat or violence
2 : the systematic use of terror as a means of coercion
(of course, by definition number one, almost all of normal life in the United States is marked by terrorism)
also of interest : terrorize :
1 : to fill with terror or anxiety
2 : to coerce by threat or violence
3 : rule by intimidation
By definitions #2 and #3, many of the people who post on this forum arguably fit the criteria of being terrorists, and presumably, under the very elastic provisions of the "Patriot" Act, could be charged in court as terrorists, if they were found to be sufficiently annoying to those in power.
.
No because they won.