Freedom isn't Free

[BabylonHoruv]

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.

I wasn't arguing against the patriot act.  I was using it's definitions. 

And John Brown was definitely fighting for our freedoms (with our defined as humanity in General, his specific focus was black people)  he was doing it in a bad way but yes, he was absolutely fighting for our freedoms.

[BabylonHoruv]

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.

Higher purpose is what drives people to make sacrifices.  Yes, most terrorists are ideological fanatics, they aren't going to be willing to take the risks necessary otherwise.  That includes the best, Ghandi for instance

(yes, I just called Ghandi a terrorist,  by the definitions I am using he absolutely was one.  He wreaked economic terror on the colonial system in India)

[Cain]

By the definition of "fascist" I use, you most certainly are one.

Hey guys, did you know if you just make up your own definitions, you can define people however you like?

[East Coast Hustle]

by the definition of "toolbox" I'm using, this thread absolutely is one.

[Cain]

That's true of every definition of the word.

[Doktor Howl]

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. 

So, what's the expiration date on child murder?  Because I'm pretty sure it shocked his people, so it couldn't have been a cultural norm.

[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.

Higher purpose is what drives people to make sacrifices.  Yes, most terrorists are ideological fanatics, they aren't going to be willing to take the risks necessary otherwise.  That includes the best, Ghandi for instance

(yes, I just called Ghandi a terrorist,  by the definitions I am using he absolutely was one.  He wreaked economic terror on the colonial system in India)

So, yeah, under the PATRIOT Act, which article makes Gandhi a terrorist?

[Adios]

The really amusing thing is the only difference between the petty terrorists whom a certain kind of anarchist will profess sympathy for and the states they despise is, well, scale.

That's exactly my point.  Except in reverse.

Not helping your case.

Only if scale is considered irrelevent.

Okay.

How many murdered children are too many?  Please be specific.

One.

[Adios]

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.

I wasn't arguing against the patriot act.  I was using it's definitions. 

And John Brown was definitely fighting for our freedoms (with our defined as humanity in General, his specific focus was black people)  he was doing it in a bad way but yes, he was absolutely fighting for our freedoms.

Um, no he wasn't.

[trippinprincezz13]

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.

Higher purpose is what drives people to make sacrifices.  Yes, most terrorists are ideological fanatics, they aren't going to be willing to take the risks necessary otherwise.  That includes the best, Ghandi for instance

(yes, I just called Ghandi a terrorist,  by the definitions I am using he absolutely was one.  He wreaked economic terror on the colonial system in India)

So, yeah, under the PATRIOT Act, which article makes Gandhi a terrorist?

You know, the paragraph about the terrorists. That one over there...

OP, really, who are you targeting with this? If what you're actually talking about activists and protestors and not people who blow up children and other innocent people because THAT'LL SURE SHOW THE GOVERNMENT!, then most people with a brain in their head aren't going to agree that these people should be considered terrorists despite what Mr. Government says and it'll just sound like you're supporting the blowing people up guys.

People who take the government's word at face value will likely just agree that these people are trouble-makers, and the word "terrorist" will just spark that knee-jerk reaction that brings to mind blowing-people-up guys.

And the government will just put you on the terrorist watch list for supporting terrorists.

[The Johnny]

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. 

Ok, then the rant does make sense. Just a suggestion, remember who the target audience is, because an everyday person might just get confused (not necessarily in the good way) and persons in this board, well, you noticed, and it is a justified response, because without clarification you just seem to be trying to be edgy.

Now, concerning John Brown...

Late in the evening, they called at the house of James P. Doyle and ordered him and his two adult sons, William and Drury (all former slave catchers) to go with them as prisoners.... The three men were escorted by their captors out into the darkness, where Owen Brown and one of his brothers killed them with broadswords. John Brown, Sr. did not participate in the stabbing but fired a shot into the head of the fallen James Doyle to ensure he was dead.

...Brown and his band then went to the house of Allen Wilkinson and ordered him out. He was slashed and stabbed to death by Henry Thompson and Theodore Winer, possibly with help from Brown's sons...

...William Sherman was led to the edge of the creek and hacked to death with the swords by Winer, Thompson, and Brown's sons.

Not judging him by "contemporary morals",  i perceive as a cop-out - do you not have morals of your own?

Even within the framework of a collective monkey fight (war), killing a prisoner of war is way beyond being an asshole.

Slavery at its core was a political-civil conflict, whereas in a political-militar conflict between, say, nations, with soldiers fighting, it is justifiable to kill all enemy soldiers (that dont surrender) because they will try to do the same.

But considering all civilian opposition as combatants, thats a cruel and retarded notion of total war - or are you the kind of person that would say that the nukes in japan during WWII that killed many civilians, was justifiable to end the war?

I think your answer will make everything else be easier to understand.

[Adios]

John Brown was a rampaging murderer who had the cover of slavery to operate under.

As far as Japan, there is talk that they were going to fight to the last man, until they realized there was going to be one. I dunno about that one.

[The Johnny]

John Brown was a rampaging murderer who had the cover of slavery to operate under.

As far as Japan, there is talk that they were going to fight to the last man, until they realized there was going to be one. I dunno about that one.

Yea, one could interpret he was just looking for an excuse, like most, if not all extremists.

And well, im not sure there was a majority consensus about fighting to the last man - like, in afghanistan and all those places, there have been civilians fighting, but i wouldnt consider it justifiable to kill civilians preemptively as a solution; even more so, im sure all those dead people of "collateral damage" or "misidentification" knew people that will develop a grudge and fight. Of course, unless you plan on killing everyone, but what does that make you?

I wonder what number of japanese have a grudge agaisnt the usa - because im sure a lot of afghans do.

[Adios]

John Brown was a rampaging murderer who had the cover of slavery to operate under.

As far as Japan, there is talk that they were going to fight to the last man, until they realized there was going to be one. I dunno about that one.

Yea, one could interpret he was just looking for an excuse, like most, if not all extremists.

And well, im not sure there was a majority consensus about fighting to the last man - like, in afghanistan and all those places, there have been civilians fighting, but i wouldnt consider it justifiable to kill civilians preemptively as a solution; even more so, im sure all those dead people of "collateral damage" or "misidentification" knew people that will develop a grudge and fight. Of course, unless you plan on killing everyone, but what does that make you?

I wonder what number of japanese have a grudge agaisnt the usa - because im sure a lot of afghans do.

Your comparison of wars is epic fail. Afghanistan in no way resembles a world war and will never approach the number of dead. Even if the entire country was killed.

[Doktor Howl]

I wonder what number of japanese have a grudge agaisnt the usa -

To those particular Japanese, I can only say "Don't wage total war and lose."