Who do you admire the most?

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How can you possibly compare and simplify something that happened more than 200 years ago with something that happened today?<span id='postcolor'>

I am merely applying your logic and standards to the situation. That it is a 200 year old situation has no bearing on the matter. If I described the acts of the Revolutionary Army to you in modern terms, by your criteria they would be terrorists.

It is a greivous flaw in logic to apply standards to only the situations you want to fit them into.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It is a greivous flaw in logic to apply standards to only the situations you want to fit them into.

<span id='postcolor'>

Sure............

Well, since the UN represents just about every country in the world, I am inclined to agree with them on that matter. I think the only country that recognized them was Iran.

You cant just simplify something and try and make some idiotic comparison to an event that happened more than 200 years ago.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ May 12 2002,01:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You cant just simplify something and try and make some idiotic comparison to an event that happened more than 200 years ago.<span id='postcolor'>

I think that it makes entirely sense. The only thing is that the winners write the history.

[Mora2 0]

Denoir

"Edit: If we believe the US government there are a lot of terrorist on Cuba, namely in camp xray  "

You also forgot spanish ETA terrorists protected and financed by Cuba´s government.....

Of course the terrorists in camxray also count....

[ralphwiggum 6]

ok..here's the prob w/ Talibans.

They did not have distinguishable uniform. but they fought with US army in militaristic fashion.

comparison btw America's founding fathers and terrorists are not well set. AFF(America's founding fathers) did not exist after geneva convention. furthermore AFF had legit reasons: they were oppressed.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ May 12 2002,04:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">AFF(America's founding fathers) did not exist after geneva convention.<span id='postcolor'>

The geneva convention doesn't cover terrorism.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">furthermore AFF had legit reasons: they were oppressed.<span id='postcolor'>

I don't think the British would concur on that. Anyway everybody fighting a revolutionary war feels that they are oppressed. The talibans thought that the religion of islam was oppressed by the previous government. The palestinans think that they are oppressed by the Israeli. The Rebel Allience think that they are oppressed by the Empire.. and so on, and so on..

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ May 12 2002,04:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ May 12 2002,04:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">AFF(America's founding fathers) did not exist after geneva convention.<span id='postcolor'>

The geneva convention doesn't cover terrorism.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">furthermore AFF had legit reasons: they were oppressed.<span id='postcolor'>

I don't think the British would concur on that. Anyway everybody fighting a revolutionary war feels that they are oppressed. The talibans thought that the religion of islam was oppressed by the previous government. The palestinans think that they are oppressed by the Israeli. The Rebel Allience think that they are oppressed by the Empire.. and so on, and so on..<span id='postcolor'>

Why are we suddenly comparing America's revolutionaries to terrorists?

They were fighting in a legitamite military fashion, and as soon as was possible, they developed a regular army. They didnt hop on ships and try and take Britains Parlaiment hostage, or assassinate King George. They fought like soldiers, not terrorists. Also, they didnt kill or imprison the people who opposed them after they were victorious (Castro, *cough*).

Noone ever called revolutionaries terrorists, and I have no idea how we even got on this subject.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ May 12 2002,05:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They were fighting in a legitamite military fashion, and as soon as was possible, they developed a regular army. They didnt hop on ships and try and take Britains Parlaiment hostage, or assassinate King George. They fought like soldiers, not terrorists.<span id='postcolor'>

Political assasinations. Destruction of civilian property. Killing of civilian collaborators. Guerilla warfare. Combat without proper uniforms and military insignia.

If you want, I can give you a concrete example of each and every one of those.

It was first when they started to win, towards the end of the revolution that proper military form began to take place. Just like any revolutionaries in the war.

Terrorist = negative term for revolutionary

Freedom fighetr = positive term for revolutionary

It just depends who you ask.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Noone ever called revolutionaries terrorists, and I have no idea how we even got on this subject.

<span id='postcolor'>

Because that is a new word. During the IRA days in Ireland at the begining of the century it wasn't called terrorism it was called 'mischief and mayham'.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Terrorist = negative term for revolutionary<span id='postcolor'>

So the dickheads who piloted planes into the WTC and the Pentagon, killing thousands of civilians, were revolutionaries? I would call that criminal. They might have thought otherwise, but that does not make it right.

The founding fathers of the U.S. had different motives than the religous fanatics of Islam do. If anyone tries to argue this, they are just plain stupid. The majority of people in the 13 colonies felt 'opressed' by the rule of England, so they fought for their independence. Islam hates any government that does not have Islamic leadership. I hardly see Suadi Arabia or just about any other middle-east nation as being 'opressed'. The religous fanatics might think so, but most people with any common sense dont.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">rev·o·lu·tion·ar·y Pronunciation Key (rv-lsh-nr)

adj.

often Revolutionary Relating to or being a revolution: revolutionary war; a museum of the Revolutionary era.

Bringing about or supporting a political or social revolution: revolutionary pamphlets.

Marked by or resulting in radical change: a revolutionary discovery.

<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">ter·ror·ism Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)

n.

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.<span id='postcolor'>

Terrorist=person who does this.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It just depends who you ask.<span id='postcolor'>

That can be a moot point. Just because people might think an act of terrorism was right does not make it right.

Tyler

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ May 12 2002,07:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So the dickheads who piloted planes into the WTC and the Pentagon, killing thousands of civilians, were revolutionaries? I would call that criminal. They might have thought otherwise, but that does not make it right.<span id='postcolor'>

Revolutionaries after a fashion. They fight against US involvement in their part of the world. It's not like they woke up one morning and decided that to crash jets into large buildings might be fun. They fought and died for a cause that they thought was just. It just happens that we don't agree on that and therefor we call them terrorists.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The majority of people in the 13 colonies felt 'opressed' by the rule of England, so they fought for their independence. <span id='postcolor'>

As the IRA fights for the Catholics in Northern Ireland that feels oppressed too. I think that there we have a good comparison, better then with the Taliban: the IRA and the american revolutionaries.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Islam hates any government that does not have Islamic leadership. <span id='postcolor'>

Wow, if you think that I feel really sad for you.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That can be a moot point. Just because people might think an act of terrorism was right does not make it right.

<span id='postcolor'>

Well, who is to say what is right and what is not? George W. Bush?

[USSoldier11B 0]

My definitions.

Act of terrorism: An act carried out by an individual or group against a non-military target with the intent of malicious wounding or death in order to make a political or religious statement.

Act of war: An act carried out by an individual or group against a legitimate military target to make a political or religious statement.

Thus I do not consider the bombing of the USMC barracks, or of the USS Cole an act of terrorism. I believe an act of terrorism can be an act of war, but not so inversely.

So Denoir, you can argue the terrorist = revolutionary theory all you want, but I will still thing you are a bleeding heart liberal that is full of crap. A revolutionary commits acts or war and maybe even treason, but is not a terrorist. The moment that he begins killing or harming civilians to instill fear, he becomes a terrorist.

[RedStar 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (USSoldier11B @ May 12 2002,09:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My definitions.

Act of terrorism: An act carried out by an individual or group against a non-military target with the intent of malicious wounding or death in order to make a political or religious statement.

Act of war: An act carried out by an individual or group against a legitimate military target to make a political or religious statement.

Thus I do not consider the bombing of the USMC barracks, or of the USS Cole an act of terrorism. I believe an act of terrorism can be an act of war, but not so inversely.

So Denoir, you can argue the terrorist = revolutionary theory all you want, but I will still thing you are a bleeding heart liberal that is full of crap. A revolutionary commits acts or war and maybe even treason, but is not a terrorist. The moment that he begins killing or harming civilians to instill fear, he becomes a terrorist.<span id='postcolor'>

I would agree completely with this.

The word terrorist is being banded about too much these days, this will result in either a complete hardening of human suffering of people of a different belief or persuasion (as I have seen on most sites with "kill all ragheads" and the such) or no-body caring about any life anymoreand by not knowing the background or history of a conflict and using the exuse "Oh they are just terrorists" to get their way.

Living in a war zone all of my life I can understand this.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (USSoldier11B @ May 12 2002,09:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So Denoir, you can argue the terrorist = revolutionary theory all you want, but I will still thing you are a bleeding heart liberal that is full of crap.<span id='postcolor'>

What does that have to do with my political views?!? I think that your problem is that you are very naÄf. You have a very limited personal experience of the world. Have you ever been outside the United States? Have you ever had the chance to in person see the effects of a military conflict? You really think that the world is black and white?

I would recommend you to see the world and form an opinion of your own. See things for yourself instead of just repeating meaningless official platitudes.

My points here are in no way meant to be US criticizm. I am only trying to get you to get some perspective on official definitions. There is no such thing as a clean revolutionary war. I state again that the only difference between the label terrorist and freedom fighter is the party that puts the label.

The French celebrate the French Revolution. It was during that revolution that the term 'terror' was coined. Do you think that the official French version is that their revolutionaries were terrorists?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The moment that he begins killing or harming civilians to instill fear, he becomes a terrorist.<span id='postcolor'>

Ok, so then you agree that the revolutionaries were terrorists?

There were many cases of documented killings of civilians loyal to the British during the revolutionary war. About civilian property damage: How about the Boston tea party? Wouldn't you call that an act of terrorism.?

What about later? What about the atrocites commited during your Civil War? Or the slaughter of native Americans?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">TERRORISM DEFINED :The DOD definition of terrorism is "the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."<span id='postcolor'>

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RedStar @ May 12 2002,12:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I would agree completely with this.

The word terrorist is being banded about too much these days, this will result in either a complete hardening of human suffering of people of a different belief or persuasion (as I have seen on most sites with "kill all ragheads" and the such) or no-body caring about any life anymoreand by not knowing the background or history of a conflict and using the exuse "Oh they are just terrorists" to get their way.

Living in a war zone all of my life I can understand this.<span id='postcolor'>

Again, there is and never has been a thing as a clean war. I have seen a KFOR soldier smashing the teeth of an elderly civilian woman with the butt of his rifle just because she wouldn't give him cigarettes. Ther were two high rankning officers that witnessed this and yet did nothing. Does that make KFOR the bad guys? Of course not, but that was a criminal act. Now, if you try to say to me that KFOR didn't commit any military crimes in Kosovo, I will laugh you in the face.

The same thing is calling one type of insurgents for freedom fighters and the others for terrorists. They all use unconventional warfare. Some are worse then others but the principle holds.

[christophercles 0]

The people in camp x-ray arnt soldiers who where fighting to protect thier country, they where terrorist's fighting american troops to protect themselves while being protected by the taliban. Anyone who was afgani soldier, and not an alqieda *spelling* terrorist, who was captured by american forces, was not taken to Guantanamo Bay.

[Mora2 0]

"As the IRA fights for the Catholics in Northern Ireland that feels oppressed too. I think that there we have a good comparison, better then with the Taliban: the IRA and the american revolutionaries."

i´m starting to get a little bit amazed.....

Are you calling IRA terrorists revolutionaries?

So you will do the same with Eta terrorists right???

And Sinn feinn what is then??? a political party that defends human beings?

[nordin dk 0]

All are groups that wish to change the current state of things, to turn things around, (revolution = turning)

All revolutions are bloody and ugly.

IRA are revolutionaries.

I certainly don't agree with the way they are conducting their revolution, but historically speaking there's nothing that seperates them from the revolutionaries of the French revolution, or the American revolution...

Perspective is a very valuable tool...

[WKK Gimbal 0]

Holy crap, yet again I fully agree with Denoir. Maybe because ussoldier11b indeed is naiv in his views or maybe because I too am a bleeding heart liberalist ... who knows, who cares.

[Supah 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IceFire @ May 11 2002,15:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hey, Supah, are you into Herman Brood?    I was just curious, cause I know alot of Dutchmen who are into him.<span id='postcolor'>

I am most definatly not. His music was crap and his lyrics are written aparently by his 6 year old daughter by the looks of the english and his art would have great benefited from a good caoting of white wash. The man was a drug addict to the extreme and people somehow thought it was cool well i wasnt one of them.

[ralphwiggum 6]

the comparisson nof AFF(America's founding fathers) and Taliban seems to be some waht ludcrious to me.

AFF had to pay taxes, yet got no representation. i.e., they had no voice to refelect upon what spending scheme can be done from tax that was collected from them.

Taliban or AFghanistan did not get ripped-off by US. did US steal everything from Afghanistan? I doubt it. So US and Afghanistan had little or no one-sided interaction. yet, Taliban/AQ decides to attack US, claming that US is the root of all evil.

in other words, relationship btw Brits and AFF and colonies are different from that of Taliban and US.

speaking if IRA, i'm sorry to many ppl in N.I, but you guys were sent their thanx to some king of hundreds of years ago who thought invading NI was a good idea. Was his decision just? i don't think so. then naturally, what should happen? UK should withdraw from NI, or at least give Catholic part of NI to Ireland.

[Warin 0]

Ralph,

No one was really comparing the American Revolutionaries to the Taliban.

The comparison was brought up because someone decided to state that because the Taliban fighters were not the army of a recognized government, the Taliban forces were terrorists and thus not eligible for the protection of the Geneva convention. I then pointed out that to the British of the time, the Revolutionary Army was not the arm of a legitimate government and thus could easily (at that time) have been labelled as 'terrorists' Had they lost, I am sure they would have faced far more severe punishment than what the Taliban are getting at Camp X-Ray.

It all comes down to perspective, and as Denoir pointed out, that perspective is often that of the winners.

It is easy to say that they are getting better treatment than they would if they were still in Afghanistan. But the measure of how reasonable the treatment is is this: Would you subject your own citizens to equal conditions?

[Sadico 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Holy crap, yet again I fully agree with Denoir. Maybe because ussoldier11b indeed is naiv in his views or maybe because I too am a bleeding heart liberalist ... who knows, who cares. <span id='postcolor'>

I agree too.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sadico @ May 12 2002,19:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Holy crap, yet again I fully agree with Denoir. Maybe because ussoldier11b indeed is naiv in his views or maybe because I too am a bleeding heart liberalist ... who knows, who cares. <span id='postcolor'>

I agree too.<span id='postcolor'>

What a coincidence, so do I!

[Minsc 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (nordin dk @ May 12 2002,14:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">IRA are revolutionaries.<span id='postcolor'>

July 21, 1972 An Irish Republican Army (IRA) bomb attacks killed 11 people and injured 130 in Belfast, Northern Ireland. Ten days later, three IRA car bomb attacks in the village of Claudy left six dead.

8th March 1973 the IRA explode 2 bombs in London, killing one person and injuring 200.

21st November 1974 The IRA explodes a series of bombs in Birmingham England- 21 people are killed.

February 9 1996 An Irish Republican Army bomb detonated in London, killing two persons and wounding

more than 100 others, including two U.S. citizens.

June 15 1996 An IRA truck bomb detonated at a Manchester shopping center, wounding 206 persons, including two German tourists, and caused extensive property damage.

And many many more.

Yeah, killing innocent civillians is really revolutionary.

The IRA are murdering terrorists, plain and simple.

[Guest]

As nordin pointed out the term revolutionary has only to do that they want to change the political situation by force. This is regardless of methods. You can disagree with the way they are conducting their revolt, but they are revolutionaries neverthelss.