Were our Founding Fathers terrorists?
- Thread starter Danzig
- Start date
This is going nowhere and frankly I'm shocked that some people cannot seem to condemn evil for what it is. I'm assuming that some of you are parents. If bin Laden sawed the head off of your child chanting to Allah you might see things in a different light. Is that feasible or is that pure exaggeration?
Instead of calling these actions for what they are some of you seem to be unable to do so without blaming America for provoking it. Fine and dandy, list the reasons, tangible reasons, that caused terrorists to attack us. Research it and list the reasons you believe that caused the hostage situation in Iran, the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon, the 1st attack on the WTC, the USS Cole, and finally the 2nd attack on the WTC. Leave the whole, tired, worn out we're friends with Israel excuse out of it because it's none of their business who we align ourselves with. If they have a problem with Israel then let them fight it out with Israel. Really, I want to know what would make them so full of hatred that they would ignore our military bases in Saudi Arabia as well as other military installations of ours in the region and come here.
An evil act is a evil act. Nobody is arguing that.
My question about Israel wasnt about our alliance with them.
The question was do you consider the Israelis use of terror tactics in dealing with others for the founding of Israel good or bad?
Terrorism is a means or a way to achieve a goal. Is terrorism good or evil in itself or just an instrument used by good and evil people?
BoringAccountant
New member
Well to be honest...my original post didnt have anything to do with the initial question. Sorry about the ranting, but
To get the thread back on topic...
Were our Founding Fathers terrorists?
I would argue that no, they were not. Were they radicals, yes. Is this a debate about what the definition of terrorism is and how you would describe someone who is willing to fight for his or her ideals?
I tend to disagree with this statement. The major fact that the reason we have this country today and the very freedoms we enjoy is because of those radical founding fathers. The quote above if read out of context could be used to describe the Blank Panthers, the KKK, or any other contra-government organization. The one thing missing from the statement is the ideals, and reasoning behind the very "terroristic" fashions in which they believed. They were being oppressed and needed their own freedoms and values to call their own and they accomplished that and gave us what we have today...well today we dont have the exact same thing, but some of the founding principles are here.
IMHO, when I think of terrorists I think of the Taliban, Al-Queda, Osama bin Laden, Al-zarquawi, Mohammed Farah Aidid, Hugo Chavez, ones that are pursuing irrational goals by irrational means. Again, its just my opinion and we know how many of those there are out there.
To get the thread back on topic...
Were our Founding Fathers terrorists?
I would argue that no, they were not. Were they radicals, yes. Is this a debate about what the definition of terrorism is and how you would describe someone who is willing to fight for his or her ideals?
I tend to disagree with this statement. The major fact that the reason we have this country today and the very freedoms we enjoy is because of those radical founding fathers. The quote above if read out of context could be used to describe the Blank Panthers, the KKK, or any other contra-government organization. The one thing missing from the statement is the ideals, and reasoning behind the very "terroristic" fashions in which they believed. They were being oppressed and needed their own freedoms and values to call their own and they accomplished that and gave us what we have today...well today we dont have the exact same thing, but some of the founding principles are here.
IMHO, when I think of terrorists I think of the Taliban, Al-Queda, Osama bin Laden, Al-zarquawi, Mohammed Farah Aidid, Hugo Chavez, ones that are pursuing irrational goals by irrational means. Again, its just my opinion and we know how many of those there are out there.
oh, I will be PMing you when I get a chance, there is nothing I like more than a religious discussion
Danzig
To preform a copy and paste of a PDF Document you have to click on the FILE TAB and select to open the Document as TEXT then you can convert it from the Note Pad into Word or what ever makes you happy.
I usually convert it into Microsoft Word then copy the text from WORD then paste it where I want to, it's a long way around but it gets the job done, I am not a Tech. and someone may have a shorter way of doing it but this method does work.
To preform a copy and paste of a PDF Document you have to click on the FILE TAB and select to open the Document as TEXT then you can convert it from the Note Pad into Word or what ever makes you happy.
I usually convert it into Microsoft Word then copy the text from WORD then paste it where I want to, it's a long way around but it gets the job done, I am not a Tech. and someone may have a shorter way of doing it but this method does work.
Terrorists? no. Men (and women) acting in their own best interests against a repressive and authoritarian government who controlled every aspect of business and life in a far off colony. The British restricted trade, controlled commodities and crafts, taxed the life out of every facet of American business. restricted land ownership, promoted slavery, and repressed any sign of resistance to their interests. It was a rebellion folks. Individuals may have committed acts that were designed to inspire terror, but the goals were concrete and stated publicly.
Islamic terrorists use tactics to inspire fear in people in order to justify their own impotence in world affairs. They are powerless to control world affairs even though they are in command of the most important resource on Earth. Their religion(as told by Imams) is one of hate. They hate everyone who isn't like them(infidels). They fear their own women and repress them. They have evolved the idea that to kill everyone else but them is pleasing to the God who created all. In effect it is mass insanity and the world will evenually stamp them out.
The founders of our country were NOT terrorists, nor were they gods. Just men looking out for their own interests. In the doing they wrote some of the finest words ever set down on paper. It is our job to live those words.
Islamic terrorists use tactics to inspire fear in people in order to justify their own impotence in world affairs. They are powerless to control world affairs even though they are in command of the most important resource on Earth. Their religion(as told by Imams) is one of hate. They hate everyone who isn't like them(infidels). They fear their own women and repress them. They have evolved the idea that to kill everyone else but them is pleasing to the God who created all. In effect it is mass insanity and the world will evenually stamp them out.
The founders of our country were NOT terrorists, nor were they gods. Just men looking out for their own interests. In the doing they wrote some of the finest words ever set down on paper. It is our job to live those words.
Terrorism has absolutely nothing to do with law. It is an act of individuals to make themselves feel powerful if only for a short (bang) while. It has very little to do with religion except as a convenient justification. Terrorism is insanity, It is the ultimate act of selfishness.
biglabsrule
New member
The winner of wars write the history books...
seeker_two
New member
Depends....do you consider unconventional warfare (as a whole) terrorism?
Or does the choice of targets determine a terroristic act?
Based on their actions against legitimate British government targets and their supports, I would NOT call the Founding Fathers terrorists any more than I would call Lee's Confederate Army a group of terrorists.
What's the difference? Look at Lee's tactics and targets and compare them to the James Brothers......
Or does the choice of targets determine a terroristic act?
Based on their actions against legitimate British government targets and their supports, I would NOT call the Founding Fathers terrorists any more than I would call Lee's Confederate Army a group of terrorists.
What's the difference? Look at Lee's tactics and targets and compare them to the James Brothers......
Double Naught Spy
New member
I think a lot of people here seem to think that terrorism is non-conventional warfare or bloodthirsty warfare. This isn't right. It may be horrific or terrifying, but that does not make it terrorism. Terrorism is a particular type of activity.
Terrorism is the intentional use of force against non-military targets for the purposes of bringing about social, political, or religious change, generally through the changing of opinion or breaking the spirit, etc. of the non-military population so as to influence those in control to change.
By this definition which is paraphrased from the FBI's definition, much of historic warfare practices fall into this realm. Original allied conflicts with Iraq were some of the first major warfare events in recent history to focus on military and command and control targets with the goal of not inflicting collateral damage. We were not trying to break the will of the people.
Were our founding fathers terrorists? Yes and no. They were not terrorists in the sense that they engaged in fighting that was typical of the day. They did make examples of British sympathizers for the purpose of "sending a message" to other sympathizers and to the British. The same was done by the British to colonial sympathizers. By today's standards, those would be terroristic acts just as would be the Germans making examples of civilians with public executions to show what will happen to those found to be in the favor of the Allies...just as would be considered the burning of villages in Vietnam by the French and later by the Americans for those villages thought to be friendly to the VC or the similar acts of the VC on those villages not friendly to their goals.
Heck, Hitler hoped to break the will of the British by destroying all of London, not because London was a political center, but because it symbolized what it meant to be British. He felt that if London would fall, the will of the British people to support the war effort would collapse and hence the military would surrender. That was considered nominal strategy of the day, but would be terrorism by today's standards.
Terrorism is the intentional use of force against non-military targets for the purposes of bringing about social, political, or religious change, generally through the changing of opinion or breaking the spirit, etc. of the non-military population so as to influence those in control to change.
By this definition which is paraphrased from the FBI's definition, much of historic warfare practices fall into this realm. Original allied conflicts with Iraq were some of the first major warfare events in recent history to focus on military and command and control targets with the goal of not inflicting collateral damage. We were not trying to break the will of the people.
Were our founding fathers terrorists? Yes and no. They were not terrorists in the sense that they engaged in fighting that was typical of the day. They did make examples of British sympathizers for the purpose of "sending a message" to other sympathizers and to the British. The same was done by the British to colonial sympathizers. By today's standards, those would be terroristic acts just as would be the Germans making examples of civilians with public executions to show what will happen to those found to be in the favor of the Allies...just as would be considered the burning of villages in Vietnam by the French and later by the Americans for those villages thought to be friendly to the VC or the similar acts of the VC on those villages not friendly to their goals.
Heck, Hitler hoped to break the will of the British by destroying all of London, not because London was a political center, but because it symbolized what it meant to be British. He felt that if London would fall, the will of the British people to support the war effort would collapse and hence the military would surrender. That was considered nominal strategy of the day, but would be terrorism by today's standards.