Talk in the chat room and get busted?

OH! Ok they are morally challenged:rolleyes: Glad we got that straight! That's why the little ba$tard$ are hiding in caves in the dessert so we can't findem, right?
 
Terrorists are cowards! They hit from your blindside
Click to expand...

I believe the British voiced exactly that same opinion about the Americans they were fighting. You know, the Americans sometimes hid behind trees, wore non-descript clothing, etc., instead of meeting the British face to face like men of honor would.
 
Richard Hanson said:
They do not lack physical courage, rather they lack morality.
Click to expand...
Religious terrorists have their own moralities, which they strictly observe. They merely lack your or my morality.
 
Religious terrorists have their own moralities, which they strictly observe. They merely lack your or my morality.
Click to expand...

Is is moral to intentionally target inocent women and children for death?

If your assertion is true and Islamic terrorists are acting morally with respect to the Muslim faith, then it is not just the terrorists that are evil, but also Islam itself.

Perhaps there is no objective morality, perhaps God does not exists to define what is good and what is evil and morality is subjective, but I have no doubt that intentionally targeting children for death is immoral, is evil.

Respectfully,
Richard
 
Francis Marion was a tatical genius, NOT a terrorist. Any American that would compare a Revolutionary war HERO to a cowardly (immoral:rolleyes: ) terrorist just ain't right! As far as the Americans hiding behind trees to fight the british, I'm not sure how you can link this to terrorism, never remember any suicide horse drawn wagon bombers in the Revolutionary war.:D
 
If your assertion is true and Islamic terrorists are acting morally with respect to the Muslim faith, then it is not just the terrorists that are evil, but also Islam itself.
Click to expand...

it is all about moral relativity, but like chris rock said

muslims can't eat pork, pork will kill you, you go to hell for eating pork... sure a pork chop would kill you back in the days, before we had refrigerators!?... If you're starving, a pork chop is your best friend....you mean to tell me, if I was a good person, did all the right things, but ate a pork chop, I'd go to hell?!... I can go and blow up a bus full of women and children and make it to heaven but I eat one bite of pork and I go to hell? what kind of [stuff] is that?!
Click to expand...

granted we speak of just the beleivers, some things make you wonder why there is not a bit more logic involved...
 
Back then, anything but lining up in huge formations and taking turns shooting volleys was "unsporting". The practice of sniping officers was analagous to a war crime.

People in Iraq who fight against us will always be "dawgone turrists" to mainstream America, and I'm pretty sure that most of them are in fact scumbags -- especially the cowardly bombers, and the foreign imports -- , but the fact stands that not very many of them would have been coming over here, and that some of them, out of misplaced courage, saddam loyalty, being misguided or whatever reason are fighting for what they see as patriotism.

We watch Red Dawn and fantasize about fighting an invasion. They're actually doing it.

I in no way support them or hold contrary goals to those of the interests of the US of A. I'm merely stating that if we were watching someone else in Iraq, the perspective might be very different.

One man's evil rebel is another man's freedom fighter, to properly mangle an old saw.
 
As to the original question -
It is generally accepted that internet forums are PUBLIC spaces. So if one would not talk about leaking sarin gas into an orphanage over dinner in a crowded restaurant then maybe one should thing twice about discussing it on a message board where millions more people are privy to the conversation.

If two cops arrested some people for plotting out loud to blow up an airplane while standing in line at the bank, would we not expect them to be arrested?

Indeed.

About the comparison between the American Revolution and the War in Iraq - it is a valid comparison. The motives do not matter, nor does the mentality behind the strategy, only the actions matter. I can assure you that those misguided souls blowing us up every day are every bit as dedicated to their cause as were those who rose up against the British in 1776. If we are honest with ourselves, we can admit that even though the situations are completely different and our cause was arguably just - there are certain inescapable parallels.

At the risk of sounding like I am defending those idiot muslim extremists, let me try to put it in perspective. Many of the people attacking us over there are not ideologically driven. They are hungry, poor, and desperate. The people manipulating them are ideologically driven, however.... many of these people truly believe they are fighting to save their country, as screwed up as that is.

The comment that "The patriot is just the terrorist who won their war" is very appropriate. Why? Because I can assure you that the British thought those rebels from 1776 were indeed terrorists.
If these muslim extremists win their war, they will no longer be terrorists - because then it will be our turn.

Perception is reality, and history is written by the victors. Cliche but true.
 
One man's evil rebel is another man's freedom fighter...
Click to expand...
Because I can assure you that the British thought those rebels from 1776 were indeed terrorists.
Click to expand...

Which is why all of the thirteen rogue colonies sent their most feared assassins to a meeting in Philadelphia and voted as a legislative body. And also why the leader of the voluntary forces reliquished his command at the end of the conflict. and if you can think of terrorist acts the colonists commited, how many were acctually killed? yeah, the boston tea party after they chucked the tea in the harbor they swept up and cleaned off the decks of the ships and then replaced a lock they broke in order to get in, real terrorists?
The british saw the revolution as an economic loss, and reacted as a father would when trying to correct a child, not as a threat to their way of life. at the same time the colonist acctually lined up in battle against the british and fought what most would have called a civilized fight. people need to stop watching mel gibson movies. comparing the revolutionary war to the terrorists today is absurd in the least when there are so many differences, especially in the context of how the war turned out.

did we capture and behead british soldiers? no.
did we bomb carriages with women and children in london? no.
did we slaughter thousands becasue of their religious beleifs? no.
did we send cryptic messages from wanna be dictators in hiding? no.
did we hide in hospitals and churches and schools? no.
did we use women and children as human shields? no.
did we topple the tower of london or try to attack parliament? no.

did we democratically start carry out and end the war? yes.
did the war result in more freedom for the people? yes.
did we become allies with our former enemy? yes.
did the will of the people manifest itself in the constitution? yes.

Perception is reality, and history is written by the victors...
Click to expand...
you are right on the perception/reality thing but history is written by those who teach it, something to think about.
 
Heck, Castro was a freedom fighter, sorta. Pretty much anybody who fights, fights for freedom of some sort.
Others fight for some other ideology, or money. Then there's the invading armies. But I repeat myself.
I think people need to remember that if they were born to a different mother in a different country in a different condition, they might have a different point of view.
 
Pickpocket,
Let's carry your analogy a little further.
Supposing 2 guys were in a cafe and were discussing blowing up the Hoover dam. They had no money, no experience with explosives, no capability to actually do it.
Yes, we might expect to see them get arrested, but what about made to disappear? No chance to face the charges, no legal representation?

Here's another, more chilling analogy:
It's 2016. President Teddy Rodham Feinstein (teehee) has signed a presidential signing statement nullifying the 2nd Amdt. Members of the militant website "the firing line" are rounded up and made to disappear by the ATF under charges of treason.....
 
There are parallels and analogies.

What was terrorism in the 18th century and what is terrorism today, 300 years later, are not at all the same.

Some will get it, while others are blinded by their own narrow worldviews.
 
How amusing that those who can perceive the differences that easily distinguish between the modern terrorist and the American Patriot of our Revolutionary war are considered "... blinded by their own narrow worldviews ...", while those who can not consider themselves enlightened.
 
should we discuss a more broad world view?

let's use the French revolution then a comtemporary of the american revolution and use it as an example. the people were revolting for their rights, were they not? both revolutions were based ont he same ideologies by Descartes, Rousseau, Voltaire, and others, but the french went about it in a very different manner. i think most people know about the guillotine, and marie antoinette and all that but what most people dont consider is the sheer brutality that was found in the turning over of the government.

literally hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed, men women and children. and although many were killed by the "humane" guillotine countless others were tied to barges and sunk in rivers, hung in rural towns or died fighting rival factions, not to mention the famine caused by turmoil. infact the word terrorist comes from the name of someone who was any government agent during the period after the french revolution known as "the terror". Robspierre killed anyone in his way who dared to defy the revolution (pretty much whoever he wanted) and in turn became more feared than respected. in the end even he was decapitated and france remained in turmoil until someone strong enough to subdue the people came to power.

yeah it was Napoleon. he drug out the wars that revolutionary france fought which had casualty rate of almost 90% (over all not per battle) and then installed a brutal dictatorial regime.

none of this happened to the united states during or after its revolution so we can see that in a broader world view the american revolution still was extremely tame and lacked terrorists even in the loosest sense of the word.
 
Obviously the rebels of the American Revolution weren't terrorists, and most of the people involved in the 'insurgency' are using terroristic (and foully REPREHENSIBLE) techniques like bombs and indiscriminate killing. They aren't actually working toward a goal that can be achieved. I wouldn't go so far as to call more than very few of them 'patriots' considering the weight that our past patriots puts on the word, or praise them like some members of the media would.

I think what everyone is trying to touch on is that some people from anywhere, even France, will fight a long and bitter fight when they see some else's uniforms in their back yard, and that this doesn't have anything to do with whether they are right or wrong, it's just a spec of human nature and instinct that comes up. Some people don't like the idea that anyone could be so arrogant as to resist them, whether it's those backward Continentals, the french, or Abdul the Rugweaver.

Suppose China invades the US in twenty years.

Would anything we do be different than what the insurgents in Iraq try to do? I would wager a large amount of money that more spectacular things would be done with more competancy. Even the compton crips would be carbombing them.
 
Enlightened? Hardly the word I would choose. Try pragmatist.

Or, you can use what my wife calls me... Pessimistic optimist. :rolleyes:
 
Jericho, you cannot compare the French Revolution to the American Revolution, for one very simple reason: we didn't have a revolution. It was a secession. We only sought to break away from England, not overthrow the English government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top