ISIS Beheads Another Brit

[frigidweirdo]

You are wrong. According to the times back then, they would NOT have been. If they fought a war that way today, then perhaps so, but really what does this have to do with ANYTHING that is taking place today?

What are you going on about?

It's called finding EMPATHY and other such things. It's putting into context the way people feel so people like you can get their heads around something they will not empathize about because they're so stuck up the ass with propaganda that they won't even listen.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Good point, revolutionists did not purposely go after innocent citizens, torture, maim and murder them.

Unless of course they were black or Native American. George Washington has a history of massacring innocent Native Americans.

 

[Slyhunter]

Good point, revolutionists did not purposely go after innocent citizens, torture, maim and murder them.

Unless of course they were black or Native American. George Washington has a history of massacring innocent Native Americans.

Why do liberals always bring up ancient history to justify things being done in the present? What happened in the past happened in the past. What happens now is what we deal with.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Revolutionist attack the military, terrorist attack the civilians. Only a liberal can't see the difference.

No, that's not the definition of a terrorist at all.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Good point, revolutionists did not purposely go after innocent citizens, torture, maim and murder them.

Unless of course they were black or Native American. George Washington has a history of massacring innocent Native Americans.

Why do liberals always bring up ancient history to justify things being done in the present? What happened in the past happened in the past. What happens now is what we deal with.

Did you read what I wrote? Maybe you should go back and see what I wrote.

Also, things that happened in the past happened, you want to ignore the past because.....? I don't know why. Did Washington not do bad things?

The point being here, that you need to look at things from a new perspective but your head is so far up ********* that you won't even listen.

 

[ChrisL]

Good point, revolutionists did not purposely go after innocent citizens, torture, maim and murder them.

Unless of course they were black or Native American. George Washington has a history of massacring innocent Native Americans.

Why do liberals always bring up ancient history to justify things being done in the present? What happened in the past happened in the past. What happens now is what we deal with.

Did you read what I wrote? Maybe you should go back and see what I wrote.

Also, things that happened in the past happened, you want to ignore the past because.....? I don't know why. Did Washington not do bad things?

The point being here, that you need to look at things from a new perspective but your head is so far up ********* that you won't even listen.

Things that were acceptable in the past are no longer acceptable in today's world. That is all that needs to be said on that matter. The things that happened hundreds of years are NOT what we are dealing with today.

 

[ChrisL]

Good point, revolutionists did not purposely go after innocent citizens, torture, maim and murder them.

Unless of course they were black or Native American. George Washington has a history of massacring innocent Native Americans.

Even if this was true, what does this have to do with what is happening today with the terrorists?

 

[ChrisL]

Revolutionist attack the military, terrorist attack the civilians. Only a liberal can't see the difference.

No, that's not the definition of a terrorist at all.

Yes it is. Terrorists "terrorize". Hence the word "terrorist."

 

[Slyhunter]

Good point, revolutionists did not purposely go after innocent citizens, torture, maim and murder them.

Unless of course they were black or Native American. George Washington has a history of massacring innocent Native Americans.

Why do liberals always bring up ancient history to justify things being done in the present? What happened in the past happened in the past. What happens now is what we deal with.

Did you read what I wrote? Maybe you should go back and see what I wrote.

Also, things that happened in the past happened, you want to ignore the past because.....? I don't know why. Did Washington not do bad things?

The point being here, that you need to look at things from a new perspective but your head is so far up ********* that you won't even listen.

You can't change the past. You can only work on changing the present. It's the problems of the present that count because it is the problems of the present we can do something about.

 

[Mindful]

I tend to agree with these sentiments. From Mike Cunningham:

Terry Waite, the enormously self-important Anglican envoy who flew to Beirut because he just ‘knew’ that his contacts in Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and the ordinary Beirut Arabic slime underground could be implicitly trusted. He has been assured that all was ‘safe’! So he climbed on to a pick-up truck crammed with armed terrorists, again trusting them all because they were all muslim, and therefore completely ‘trustworthy’: and promptly disappeared for five years. Tied to radiators, hidden in underground cells, his only contact was another hostage; until he was released after a huge ransom was paid. ‘Trustworthy’ is as trustworthy does.

Similarly, ‘humanitarian volunteer’ Alan Hemming was travelling in an ‘Aid convoy’ into the darkest place on this Earth, war-torn Syria, because he ‘wanted to help’; ‘wanted to make a difference’, and all the other bullshit phrases used to attempt to excuse the actions of a man who just ‘knew’ that he would be safe, ‘knew’ that he would compete his mission; ‘knew’ that everyone else was wrong, and he alone was ‘right’: going into a muslim maelstrom where no-one is or can be trusted, because, in the end, they all hate us, they call us ‘infidel’, they call us ‘kuffar’.

And now his bereaved family has the audacity to state that the British government should and could have done more to rescue this idiot, should have risked the lives of soldiers, because the family felt that, as a ‘volunteer’, he should have been given special treatment; despite his ignoring every knowledgeable Government Department stating the bleedingly obvious, that Syria was a no-go place, that Europeans, no matter how well-meaning, no matter how well-intentioned; simply should not be there, because their lives would be at risk the second they drove across the border.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Things that were acceptable in the past are no longer acceptable in today's world. That is all that needs to be said on that matter. The things that happened hundreds of years are NOT what we are dealing with today.

Hence the reason why I said "would have been", it's grammar, it's not difficult, yet people who don't seem to understand the difference between verb tenses will hammer me for it anyway.

I didn't say the foundering fathers WERE, I said "would have been", ie, if they were in the modern era they WOULD HAVE BEEN considered terrorists.

Jeez, it's impossible on a board where people can't even do ENGLISH.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You can't change the past. You can only work on changing the present. It's the problems of the present that count because it is the problems of the present we can do something about.

A) I didn't write this to change the past. However you can LEARN from the past.
B) I said this to show what it means to people to be a terrorist. It's the same as being a freedom fighter, only, it's the negative word for it, for the perspective of those who don't support them.

The British though the founding fathers wrong. Hence, why they WOULD HAVE BEEN (If you don't know the grammar it isn't MY fault) considered terrorists by the British at least, and probably the Russians and anyone who wasn't the French.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Revolutionist attack the military, terrorist attack the civilians. Only a liberal can't see the difference.

No, that's not the definition of a terrorist at all.

Yes it is. Terrorists "terrorize". Hence the word "terrorist."

Oh God, please help me with people who really don't have a clue and make stuff up to suit their needs.

So, they can't terrorize the military then? Hence the word, terrorist?

terrorist definition of terrorist in Oxford dictionary American English US

A person who usesterrorism in the pursuit of politicalaims.

Origin
late 18th century: from French terroriste, from Latin terror (see terror). The word was originally applied to supporters of the Jacobins in the French Revolution, who advocated repression and violence in pursuit of the principles of democracy and equality.

Definition of ldquo terrorist rdquo Collins English Dictionary

a person who employs terror or terrorism, esp as a political weapon

Synonyms
= freedom fighter, bomber, revolutionary, gunman, guerilla, suicide bomber, urban guerilla, cyberterrorist

terrorist definition meaning - what is terrorist in the British English Dictionary Thesaurus - Cambridge Dictionaries Online

someone who uses violentaction, or threats of violentaction, forpoliticalpurposes:

terrorism - definition in the American English Dictionary - Cambridge Dictionaries Online

terrorism

violentaction for political purposes

So, do you see the term civilians here?

 

[paulitician]

Follow the money. First thing they do is seize control of the banking systems. Then they begin the plundering of natural resources. And if their puppets don't behave, they remove them by any means necessary. Average Citizens don't benefit from Permanent War. Only the Elites do. Hopefully, Americans will figure that out at some point.

And when they find out they'll be happy because they're getting rich off this.

The Ruling-Class Globalist Elites thrive off of war & chaos. Only the average citizens suffer. The Elites don't send their children to die in all these Interventions/Wars. Only the little people send their children to die. They never benefit at all from these wars. Only the Elites do. It's very sad.

 

[Ava]

I CLAIM it's the Brits problem.

And who's problem will this be, if and when it happens, as threatened.


The militant group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS) released a video purportedly showing the execution of British hostage Alan Henning, which closes with a threat against Peter Edward Kassig, an American citizen who served with the US Army Rangers. [ Peter Kassig, converted to Islam and has gone by the name Abdul-Rahman since 2013]


Read more: ISIS Threatens Peter Kassig - Business Insider

 

[ChrisL]

Revolutionist attack the military, terrorist attack the civilians. Only a liberal can't see the difference.

No, that's not the definition of a terrorist at all.

Yes it is. Terrorists "terrorize". Hence the word "terrorist."

Oh God, please help me with people who really don't have a clue and make stuff up to suit their needs.

So, they can't terrorize the military then? Hence the word, terrorist?

terrorist definition of terrorist in Oxford dictionary American English US

A person who usesterrorism in the pursuit of politicalaims.

Origin
late 18th century: from French terroriste, from Latin terror (see terror). The word was originally applied to supporters of the Jacobins in the French Revolution, who advocated repression and violence in pursuit of the principles of democracy and equality.

Definition of ldquo terrorist rdquo Collins English Dictionary

a person who employs terror or terrorism, esp as a political weapon

Synonyms
= freedom fighter, bomber, revolutionary, gunman, guerilla, suicide bomber, urban guerilla, cyberterrorist

terrorist definition meaning - what is terrorist in the British English Dictionary Thesaurus - Cambridge Dictionaries Online

someone who uses violentaction, or threats of violentaction, forpoliticalpurposes:

terrorism - definition in the American English Dictionary - Cambridge Dictionaries Online

terrorism

violentaction for political purposes

So, do you see the term civilians here?

AS has already been pointed out to you NUMEROUS TIMES. A terrorist targets INNOCENT civilians. THAT is not a freedom fighter. Get it yet?

 

[ChrisL]

Things that were acceptable in the past are no longer acceptable in today's world. That is all that needs to be said on that matter. The things that happened hundreds of years are NOT what we are dealing with today.

Hence the reason why I said "would have been", it's grammar, it's not difficult, yet people who don't seem to understand the difference between verb tenses will hammer me for it anyway.

I didn't say the foundering fathers WERE, I said "would have been", ie, if they were in the modern era they WOULD HAVE BEEN considered terrorists.

Jeez, it's impossible on a board where people can't even do ENGLISH.

No, you screwed up your grammar. That is not anyone's problem except for your own. OWN your own mistakes and don't try to blame others.

 

[ChrisL]

You can't change the past. You can only work on changing the present. It's the problems of the present that count because it is the problems of the present we can do something about.

A) I didn't write this to change the past. However you can LEARN from the past.
B) I said this to show what it means to people to be a terrorist. It's the same as being a freedom fighter, only, it's the negative word for it, for the perspective of those who don't support them.

The British though the founding fathers wrong. Hence, why they WOULD HAVE BEEN (If you don't know the grammar it isn't MY fault) considered terrorists by the British at least, and probably the Russians and anyone who wasn't the French.

Apparently you do not know what a terrorist is at all. Pathetic. A terrorist deliberately targets innocent people, even their OWN people.

Freedom Fighter or Terrorist What is the Difference Beyond the Cusp

Now comes the most crucial determination, what are the differences between terrorists and freedom fighters. If they both have similar methods and goals, how do we discern one from the other? The most glaring difference is that of target selection. Where both will target the occupation forces, freedom fighters attempt to avoid collateral deaths among the people they purport to be helping while the terrorists often target those they are supposedly assisting. Freedom fighters will often own up and apologize when their actions go awry and the indigenous population suffers from their actions while terrorists blame the occupation forces for forcing them to attack and kill the indigenous population. Basically this is the major and defining difference but it is a most serious and easily observable difference. The next time somebody argues that the terrorists are simply freedom fighters whose motives we happen to disagree upon, just tell them that the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists is denoted by their targeting strategy. If they have a narrow scope aimed at inflicting damage solely on the occupation forces, then they are freedom fighters, but if they target indiscriminately or intentionally target the indigenous peoples, then they are terrorists. It is that simple.

 

[Ava]

I'm glad O has our back.

O may take some action on this next target by ISIS. Boy ISIS is sure begging him to, as this next American had converted to Islam:

The parents of a former Army Ranger threatened with beheading by the Islamic State militant group released a letter written by their son earlier this year in which he said he was afraid to die, but was at peace with his conversion to Islam.

Ed and Paula Kassig said in a statement Sunday that they had been told by a former hostage that their son Peter had voluntarily converted to Islam sometime between October and December of last year when he shared a cell with a Syrian Muslim. They said that their son "took Islam's practices seriously, including praying the five daily prayers and taking on the name Abdul-Rahman."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Parents of ex-Army Ranger held by ISIS release letter written by son Fox News

 

[Rotagilla]

You know...there are some good reasons ISIS isn't beheading russians or chinese civilians...just sayin...