Freedom isn't Free

[Doktor Howl]

I understand it was satire, im just playing along.

My bad.

I just assume that if you post in the same thread as me, it's a shot at me.

[The Johnny]

Thats too bad.

Maybe I should avoid using "straight-faced" satire to avoid misunderstandings.

[BabylonHoruv]

I was, incidentally, also trying to be slightly satirical.  Not sure if that got lost, but my point was to use a catch phrase and writing style typical of military supporters and point out that the freedoms of soldiers are defended by domestic terrorists (by the definition of the Patriot act) just as the rights of domestic terrorists are protected by soldiers.

[Don Coyote]

I was, incidentally, also trying to be slightly satirical.  Not sure if that got lost, but my point was to use a catch phrase and writing style typical of military supporters and point out that the freedoms of soldiers are defended by domestic terrorists (by the definition of the Patriot act) just as the rights of domestic terrorists are protected by soldiers.

Um, do you know how many freedoms soldiers don't have just by virtue of being a soldier?

[The Johnny]

I was, incidentally, also trying to be slightly satirical.  Not sure if that got lost, but my point was to use a catch phrase and writing style typical of military supporters and point out that the freedoms of soldiers are defended by domestic terrorists (by the definition of the Patriot act) just as the rights of domestic terrorists are protected by soldiers.

I dont even know what to say to this. Care to elaborate while i reread the OP more carefully?

[BabylonHoruv]

I was, incidentally, also trying to be slightly satirical.  Not sure if that got lost, but my point was to use a catch phrase and writing style typical of military supporters and point out that the freedoms of soldiers are defended by domestic terrorists (by the definition of the Patriot act) just as the rights of domestic terrorists are protected by soldiers.

Um, do you know how many freedoms soldiers don't have just by virtue of being a soldier?

Not specifically, but I do get the general idea.  Soldier isn't a permanent thing though, soldiers re-enter the civilian lifestyle.  They're also being protected (albeit ineffectively, we need more terrorists) from being deployed in unneeded ways by domestic terrorism.

[BabylonHoruv]

I was, incidentally, also trying to be slightly satirical.  Not sure if that got lost, but my point was to use a catch phrase and writing style typical of military supporters and point out that the freedoms of soldiers are defended by domestic terrorists (by the definition of the Patriot act) just as the rights of domestic terrorists are protected by soldiers.

I dont even know what to say to this. Care to elaborate while i reread the OP more carefully?

Protesters, agitators, and activists are a vital part of preserving the freedoms of everyone.

[Don Coyote]

I was, incidentally, also trying to be slightly satirical.  Not sure if that got lost, but my point was to use a catch phrase and writing style typical of military supporters and point out that the freedoms of soldiers are defended by domestic terrorists (by the definition of the Patriot act) just as the rights of domestic terrorists are protected by soldiers.

Um, do you know how many freedoms soldiers don't have just by virtue of being a soldier?

Not specifically, but I do get the general idea.  Soldier isn't a permanent thing though, soldiers re-enter the civilian lifestyle.  They're also being protected (albeit ineffectively, we need more terrorists) from being deployed in unneeded ways by domestic terrorism.

I think you must be high.

[Doktor Howl]

Wait.

Terrorists are fighting for our freedom?

STEP OFF, MISTER MAN!
\

[BabylonHoruv]

Wait.

Terrorists are fighting for our freedom?

STEP OFF, MISTER MAN!
\

yes.  Terrorists as defined by the Patriot act.

[The Johnny]

The only way i can make sense of what you are saying is that, you are not making an explicit distinction between "terrorism" and "terrorism^tm"

I dont think its good to compare say, activists with federal building bombers.

I understand that in the government rhetoric they equate it as different degrees of the same thing, opposing their agenda that is - but you dont have an agenda aligned to the government *i hope* which is the only thing that would stop you from making that distinction of categories of "actions denounced as terrorism" and "real terrorism".

[Doktor Howl]

Wait.

Terrorists are fighting for our freedom?

STEP OFF, MISTER MAN!
\

yes.  Terrorists as defined by the Patriot act.

So, John Brown would have been okay, if it weren't for the PATRIOT Act?   

Dok,
Didn't realize murdering children was okay before that law was passed.

[Don Coyote]

Ok, I definitely do not like anarchists now.

Peace out. Taking a short break from some people.

[Doktor Howl]

Ok, I definitely do not like anarchists now.

It was all done for God. Or Allah. Or The Perfect State™. Or communism. Or Capitalism and "free" markets. Or the superior tribe's right to expand. Or the superior race's need for cultural purity. It is the Holy Peoples' Will, and though unfortunate, these things must be done, do you understand? You can't make omelets without breaking eggs, and you can't make Big Things happen without breaking children.

[BabylonHoruv]

The only way i can make sense of what you are saying is that, you are not making an explicit distinction between "terrorism" and "terrorism^tm"

I dont think its good to compare say, activists with federal building bombers.

I understand that in the government rhetoric they equate it as different degrees of the same thing, opposing their agenda that is - but you dont have an agenda aligned to the government *i hope* which is the only thing that would stop you from making that distinction of categories of "actions denounced as terrorism" and "real terrorism".

I don't personally have the same view of terrorism as the federal government's official line no.  (which is different than their stance toward it, they support groups that use the exact same tactics as groups they condemn as terrorist against targets they want targeted)  however the point of the rant was, partly, to use a ardent patriot military supporter thought tunnel and in that thought tunnel the official classification of protestors, activists, and dissidents as terrorists needs to be taken at face value.

I obviously stepped in it with John Brown, who has been dead long enough that I am not sure I am comfortable judging him by contemporary morals anyways.