Terrorists are just like our founding fathers [Archive]

Stringer_Bell

05-20-2010, 10:44 AM

How universities rot the mind.

By the way, could this "scholar" possibly, like, use the word "like" more?

gYnyueBB2A8

Did you see the guy in the background (upper right corner) between 1:25-1:30? He was like "wtf, bitch, are you on crack?" :lol

I think "universities [rotting] the mind" is a little far to go, there's always tools like this in every school on both extremes regardless of the current political climate. I was pretty fortunate to attend a high school/university and have teachers that made it clear they didn't have all the answers, the text didn't have all the answers, and I'd have to think for myself eventually.

Really, her use of the word "insidious" was insidious.

DarrinS

05-20-2010, 10:51 AM

its common knowledge that our founding fathers were considered terrorists in their day.

Your indoctrination is complete.

George Gervin's Afro

05-20-2010, 10:53 AM

Your indoctrination is complete.

they were considered terrorists by the UK... you do know that right?

DarrinS

05-20-2010, 10:54 AM

Did you see the guy in the background (upper right corner) between 1:25-1:30? He was like "wtf, bitch, are you on crack?" :lol

:lol I didn't notice that.

I think "universities [rotting] the mind" is a little far to go, there's always tools like this in every school on both extremes regardless of the current political climate. I was pretty fortunate to attend a high school/university and have teachers that made it clear they didn't have all the answers, the text didn't have all the answers, and I'd have to think for myself eventually.

Really, her use of the word "insidious" was insidious.

Maybe "rotting the mind" was a bit too far, but I do believe the liberal arts depts. of major universities are filled with leftist wackjobs. I remember taking a Texas History class back in the late 80's and all the prof. wanted to talk about was how great communism was and how it was superior to capitalism. I wanted my money and time back after that semester.

George Gervin's Afro

05-20-2010, 10:55 AM

:lol I didn't notice that.

Maybe "rotting the mind" was a bit too far, but I do believe the liberal arts depts. of major universities are filled with leftist wackjobs. I remember taking a Texas History class back in the late 80's and all the prof. wanted to talk about was how great communism was and how it was superior to capitalism. I wanted my money and time back after that semester.

I'm convinced...:lmao

DarrinS

05-20-2010, 10:55 AM

they were considered terrorists by the UK... you do know that right?

They went to England and killed British citizens? I seem to recall something about "redcoats".

MannyIsGod

05-20-2010, 11:01 AM

They went to England and killed British citizens? I seem to recall something about "redcoats".

So the only way to consider someone a terrorist is if they come here to kill American citizens?

Were the USS Cole bombers terrorists?

DarrinS

05-20-2010, 11:03 AM

So the only way to consider someone a terrorist is if they come here to kill American citizens?

Were the USS Cole bombers terrorists?

The Cole bombers were simply fighting for their independence? :rolleyes

You and GGA are really helping me make my case.

George Gervin's Afro

05-20-2010, 11:05 AM

The Cole bombers were simply fighting for their independence? :rolleyes

You and GGA are really helping me make my case.

show where i stated today's terrorists are fighting for their independence. in order for your argument to hold any water you need for me to compare the two. Show me where I do..

when you can't find it then you will have to backtrack from the 'making my argument' for me crap..

Wild Cobra

05-20-2010, 11:06 AM

I think we should just do away with higher education all together.. it serves no purpose and everyone knows that all of the academic world hates america..
The problem I see is that it now takes a few years of college to get the equivalent education of an 8th grader of the 50's.

rjv

05-20-2010, 11:12 AM

The problem I see is that it now takes a few years of college to get the equivalent education of an 8th grader of the 50's.

damn straight. why the heck would all those high falutin docs, engeeneers, pretty ladies at the hospitals, and those high brow snots in lab coats need anything more than grade school ?

RandomGuy

05-20-2010, 11:16 AM

show where i stated today's terrorists are fighting for their independence. in order for your argument to hold any water you need for me to compare the two. Show me where I do..

when you can't find it then you will have to backtrack from the 'making my argument' for me crap..

That is what is known as a "strawman" logical fallacy.

Specifically:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
General list of bad logic:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

The more bad logic someone uses to make their case, the more skeptical you should be about their ultimate conclusions.

DarrinS

05-20-2010, 11:18 AM

damn straight. why the heck would all those high falutin docs, engeeneers, pretty ladies at the hospitals, and those high brow snots in lab coats need anything more than grade school ?

You completely missed his point.

MannyIsGod

05-20-2010, 11:24 AM

The Cole bombers were simply fighting for their independence? :rolleyes

You and GGA are really helping me make my case.

How can I make your case when I never made any statements about the Cole bombers? I asked you a question which you have yet to answer.

What definition of terrorist?

MannyIsGod

05-20-2010, 11:25 AM

The problem I see is that it now takes a few years of college to get the equivalent education of an 8th grader of the 50's.

In Math? Absolutely. Probably in other subjects as well. The number of students who have to take remedial courses in college is amazing.

rjv

05-20-2010, 11:26 AM

You completely missed his point.

i got it. universities have, according to him, essentially have become stagnant. it is a ridiculous assertion. i know of know 8th grade curriculum that includes quantum physics, differential equations, C+ programming, network architecture, building design, autoCAD, anatomy and physiology, calculus based physics, organic chemistry, biochemistry, microbiology or even in the liberal arts demands essays on anything ranging from postmodern literature to epistemology.

and i certainly do not see grants being dished out to grade schools so as to facilitate the R&D that goes on at major universities.

but perhaps you and WC were already outhinking the average MIT freshman when you were pulling pigtails and throwing spitwads.

z0sa

05-20-2010, 11:29 AM

What definition of terrorist?

You said it's common knowledge that the founding fathers were terrorists. I'd like an explanation of that. Having taken my own share of college-level history classes, that doesn't jive with anything I know.

Big, huge, gargantuan difference between rebelling over lack of representation and liberty and being a terrorist. Even if that's sort of what the British Empire labeled them as for propaganda purposes.

MannyIsGod

05-20-2010, 11:29 AM

Although I think WC's statement was laced with hyperbole I do find the state of a great deal of high school graduates and early college students to be quite sad. I'm not sure how it compares to what was done in the 50s but I do not find the current situation satisfactory.

DarrinS

05-20-2010, 11:31 AM

How can I make your case when I never made any statements about the Cole bombers? I asked you a question which you have yet to answer.

What definition of terrorist?

I'll grant you that there is a distinction between the Cole bombers and, say, your run-of-the-mill suicide bomber.

Can you explain to me how the Minutemen of the American Revolution are like terrorists?

MannyIsGod

05-20-2010, 11:32 AM

You said it's common knowledge that the founding fathers were terrorists. I'd like an explanation of that. Having taken my own share of college-level history classes, that doesn't jive with anything I know.

Big, huge, gargantuan difference between rebelling over lack of representation and liberty and being a terrorist. Even if that's sort of what the British Empire labeled them as for propaganda purposes.

No, I didn't say it was common knowledge the founding fathers were terrorists.

Tell me, in your college level history classes did your professors ever comment on your reading comprehension? Perhaps you should go back and reread my statement and rethink your post. When you are able to read my post properly I'll be happy to answer any questions you have. Until then I'm not sure what the point of me addressing questions you have about statements I never made were.

Drachen

05-20-2010, 11:32 AM

The Cole bombers were simply fighting for their independence? :rolleyes

You and GGA are really helping me make my case.

Darrin,
Come on, be honest here. The comparison he made had nothing to do with freedom fighters, but when asked if you knew that those in the UK considered our patriots terrorists, your retort was that they didn't go to Britain to kill citizens. Then MIG said that by this definition that the USS cole bombers wouldn't be terrorists. He wasn't saying that they werent, or that they were freedom fighters. You insinuated that the only way for someone to be considered a terrorist they would have to travel to the homeland, and kill citizens. This isn't the case, one can also attack that homeland's interests. Additionally, the founding fathers did go to Britain and cause havoc. America was a British colony (i.e. british empire, i.e Britain), so they didn't have to go far. Am I glad they did it, damn straight, but you are glossing a little too much. Now this may be in reaction to the video which I haven't seen. If you disagree with the video, cool, but if you cant see that sometimes, someone you disagree with can say something that is true, then you begin at a disadvantage.

I know this happens on both sides, shoot, I may have done it too, though I make a concious effort not to, so I don't care about responses that say " that is the way the right always is, with their blinders on" because that usually comes from someone who, personality-wise, and debate-wise is DarrinS equal in all but side of the political spectrum.

Edited because I messed up a name.

Bartleby

05-20-2010, 11:32 AM

DarrinS

05-20-2010, 11:34 AM

i know of know 8th grade curriculum that includes quantum physics, differential equations, C+ programming, network architecture, building design, autoCAD, anatomy and physiology, calculus based physics, organic chemistry, biochemistry, microbiology or even in the liberal arts demands essays on anything ranging from postmodern literature to epistemology.

and i certainly do not see grants being dished out to grade schools so as to facilitate the R&D that goes on at major universities.

but perhaps you and WC were already outhinking the average MIT freshman when you were pulling pigtails and throwing spitwads.

:lmao

MaNuMaNiAc

05-20-2010, 11:35 AM

The Cole bombers were simply fighting for their independence? :rolleyes

You and GGA are really helping me make my case.

Since when does motivation have anything to do with the definition of terrorism?? :lol

Terrorism is about methods not motivation. If Timothy McVay was trying to save his family by planting a bomb in Oklahoma would that make him any less of a terrorist??

Motivation has nothing to do with it. Its about using tactics with the purpose of creating terror.

MannyIsGod

05-20-2010, 11:40 AM

I'll grant you that there is a distinction between the Cole bombers and, say, your run-of-the-mill suicide bomber.

I'm not sure what a run of the mill suicide bomber is. You still haven't answered the initial question, however. Are they terrorists or not? What is your definition of a terrorist?

Can you explain to me how the Minutemen of the American Revolution are like terrorists?

Lets be clear, I do not think the American revolutionaries were terrorists. To me a terrorist is someone who goes after civilians. I do however, see the parallel in using tactics considered unfair or dishonorable by the opposition.

Is there any doubt that if the Boston Tea Party occurred today it would be labeled an act of terrorism? (something I find all too ironic considering the what Tea Party stands for today)

Drachen

05-20-2010, 11:40 AM

+1

Don't get me started on the current state of college reading comprehension and writing proficiency.

I work at a college, makes me want to cry.

DarrinS

05-20-2010, 11:41 AM

Since when does motivation have anything to do with the definition of terrorism?? :lol

Terrorism is about methods not motivation. If Timothy McVay was trying to save his family by planting a bomb in Oklahoma would that make him any less of a terrorist??

Motivation has nothing to do with it. Its about using tactics with the purpose of creating terror.

Motivation has nothing to do with it?? Are you high?

MannyIsGod

05-20-2010, 11:43 AM

Motivation has nothing to do with it?? Are you high?

Terrorism is about tactics not ideology. Are you trying to insinuate that there was a motivation Timothy McVeigh could posses and justifiably carry out his acts?

DarrinS

05-20-2010, 11:44 AM

Lets be clear, I do not think the American revolutionaries were terrorists. To me a terrorist is someone who goes after civilians. I do however, see the parallel in using tactics considered unfair or dishonorable by the opposition.

I agree that a terrorist is one who targets civilians, which is why I would disagree with the girl in the video.

Is there any doubt that if the Boston Tea Party occurred today it would be labeled an act of terrorism? (something I find all too ironic considering the what Tea Party stands for today)

If it happened today, it would be considered a man-made disaster.

MaNuMaNiAc

05-20-2010, 11:46 AM

Motivation has nothing to do with it?? Are you high?

It doesn't. Unless you think the only qualification for being a terrorist involves hating the US and bombing American citizens. Terrorism is not code for "Anyone that hates America". :lol

DarrinS

05-20-2010, 11:46 AM

Terrorism is about tactics not ideology. Are you trying to insinuate that there was a motivation Timothy McVeigh could posses and justifiably carry out his acts?

WTF?

So, there's no ideology that motivates Al Qaeda?

George Gervin's Afro

05-20-2010, 11:46 AM

George Gervin's Afro

05-20-2010, 11:47 AM

WTF?

So, there's no ideology that motivates Al Qaeda?

I don't know, are they liberals or conservatives?

DarrinS

05-20-2010, 11:47 AM

It doesn't. Unless you think the only qualification for being a terrorist involves hating the US and bombing American citizens. Terrorism is not code for "Anyone that hates America". :lol

I think terrorism involves both ideology and tactics.

Winehole23

05-20-2010, 11:48 AM

Terrorism is a tactic. The motivation can be political, spiritual or organic (i.e., insanity). It's not defined by the ends but the means. That's probably what MaNuMaNiAc meant.

MaNuMaNiAc

05-20-2010, 11:48 AM

WTF?

So, there's no ideology that motivates Al Qaeda?

Ofcourse they have an ideology, but that's NOT what defines them as terrorist, and THEY are NOT the only terrorist organization in the world. I don't understand how that's difficult to understand.

DarrinS

05-20-2010, 11:51 AM

Ofcourse they have an ideology, but that's NOT what defines them as terrorist, and THEY are NOT the only terrorist organization in the world. I don't understand how that's difficult to understand.

Do you think there is a difference between El Al Flight 1862 and the flights hijacked on 9/11?

What is that difference? (wait for it)

rjv

05-20-2010, 11:52 AM

:lmao

now pendantism may be the real culprit of our times. and although associated with scholars, that certainly also seems to be the forte of the average 3rd grader so, in that regard, you have certainly mastered that skill. feel free to crown yourself the spell checker king of the forum. it may not be substantive but at least it's something.

MannyIsGod

05-20-2010, 11:52 AM

WTF?

So, there's no ideology that motivates Al Qaeda?

You make my head hurt man. The defining characteristic of what makes a terrorist a terrorist is their tactics of choice, not their ideology. No one said terrorists don't have ideologies.

DarrinS

05-20-2010, 11:54 AM

You make my head hurt man. The defining characteristic of what makes a terrorist a terrorist is their tactics of choice, not their ideology. No one said terrorists don't have ideologies.

Do you think there is a difference between El Al Flight 1862 and the flights hijacked on 9/11?

What is that difference? (wait for it)

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 11:56 AM

They went to England and killed British citizens? I seem to recall something about "redcoats".

They were in England and if they killed any people before America gained Independence, they killed British citizens.

I wish I had seen this thread earlier.

Drachen

05-20-2010, 11:57 AM

WTF?

So, there's no ideology that motivates Al Qaeda?

their ideology motivates them to commit terrorist acts, their ideology isn't in and of itself terrorism. If their ideology motivated them to try to organize the muslim world to boycott all American interests, this shouldn't be considered terrorism. It is the ACTS which are define terrorists.

DarrinS

05-20-2010, 11:58 AM

Strangely enough, I can't find a definition of terrorism that doesn't include:

motivation, goals, purpose, etc.

United States Law Code – the law that governs the entire country – contains a definition of terrorism embedded in its requirement that Annual Country reports on Terrorism be submitted by the Secretary of State to Congress every year. (From U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d)

(d) Definitions
As used in this section—
(1) the term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than 1 country;
(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;(3) the term “terrorist group” means any group, or which has significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism;
(4) the terms “territory” and “territory of the country” mean the land, waters, and airspace of the country; and
(5) the terms “terrorist sanctuary” and “sanctuary” mean an area in the territory of the country—
(A) that is used by a terrorist or terrorist organization—
(i) to carry out terrorist activities, including training, fundraising, financing, and recruitment; or
(ii) as a transit point; and
(B) the government of which expressly consents to, or with knowledge, allows, tolerates, or disregards such use of its territory and is not subject to a determination under—
(i) section 2405(j)(1)(A) of the Appendix to title 50;
(ii) section 2371 (a) of this title; or
(iii) section 2780 (d) of this title.

z0sa

05-20-2010, 11:59 AM

No, I didn't say it was common knowledge the founding fathers were terrorists.

You said it was common knowledge they "were considered terrorists."

The actual truth is, it is common knowledge that the US Founding Fathers being terrorists was propaganda.

Thanks for avoiding the question and blaming it on reading comprehension.

I have a new queston:

Which liberal professor taught you that our Founding Fathers were terrorists? Because he's wrong.

Tell me, in your college level history classes did your professors ever comment on your reading comprehension?

Besides compliment it? Nope. I actually get outstanding marks and input from my professors, but I'm ready for you to call me stupid; I know it's coming soon because you don't like me and need to compensate.

Perhaps you should go back and reread my statement and rethink your post. When you are able to read my post properly I'll be happy to answer any questions you have. Until then I'm not sure what the point of me addressing questions you have about statements I never made were.

No thanks. Reading your garbage about the Founding Fathers commonly being referred to as terrorists is enough for me.

MannyIsGod

05-20-2010, 11:59 AM

Do you think there is a difference between El Al Flight 1862 and the flights hijacked on 9/11?

What is that difference? (wait for it)

I'm not familiar with the first case but I'm sure there are a lot of differences.

DarrinS

05-20-2010, 11:59 AM

their ideology motivates them to commit terrorist acts, their ideology isn't in and of itself terrorism. If their ideology motivated them to try to organize the muslim world to boycott all American interests, this shouldn't be considered terrorism. It is the ACTS which are define terrorists.

I never said that.

DarrinS

05-20-2010, 12:01 PM

I'm not familiar with the first case but I'm sure there are a lot of differences.

El Al Flight 1862 was an Israeli flight that crashed into an apartment building in Amsterdam. Was a mechanical problem. They didn't crash into the building on purpose.

Duff McCartney

05-20-2010, 12:02 PM

I think even by the common defintion you could label the founding fathers terrorists...

Terrorism - the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

I would say the Tea Party would be considered a threat to intimidate and coerce the Crown into giving them representation.

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 12:02 PM

You said it was common knowledge they "were considered terrorists."

The actual truth is, it is common knowledge that the US Founding Fathers being terrorists was propaganda. got a link?

No thanks. Reading your garbage about the Founding Fathers commonly being referred to as terrorists is enough for me.

:lol I wanna post a "U Mad?" picture.

MannyIsGod

05-20-2010, 12:03 PM

You said it was common knowledge they "were considered terrorists."

The actual truth is, it is common knowledge that the US Founding Fathers being terrorists was propaganda.

Thanks for avoiding the question and blaming it on reading comprehension.

I have a new queston:

Which liberal professor taught you that our Founding Fathers were terrorists? Because he's wrong.

Besides compliment it? Nope. I actually get outstanding marks and input from my professors, but I'm ready for you to call me stupid; I know it's coming soon because you don't like me and need to compensate.

No thanks. Reading your garbage about the Founding Fathers commonly being referred to as terrorists is enough for me.

Don't get mad at me because you can't read what I write. You can put it quotes all you want, but I wrote what I wrote and when you make statements based on something completely different.

I have no need to call you stupid. Others here will read what you and I posted and make up their own minds.

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 12:03 PM

I have no need to call you stupid. Others here will read what you and I posted and make up their own minds.

You and I don't like each other. That being said, he's stupid.

MannyIsGod

05-20-2010, 12:03 PM

El Al Flight 1862 was an Israeli flight that crashed into an apartment building in Amsterdam. Was a mechanical problem. They didn't crash into the building on purpose.

So then whats the point of comparing it?

z0sa

05-20-2010, 12:04 PM

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 12:06 PM

That's called rebelling.
No it isn't.

Main Entry: 3re·bel
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈbel\
Function: intransitive verb
Inflected Form(s): re·belled; re·bel·ling
Date: 14th century

1 a : to oppose or disobey one in authority or control b : to renounce and resist by force the authority of one's government
2 a : to act in or show opposition or disobedience <rebelled against the conventions of polite society> b : to feel or exhibit anger or revulsion <rebelled at the injustice of life>

Unless you're trying to say the Tea Party is a rebellious movement.

z0sa

05-20-2010, 12:08 PM

Don't get mad at me because you can't read what I write. You can put it quotes all you want, but I wrote what I wrote and when you make statements based on something completely different.

You wrote that the Founding Fathers were commonly considered terrorists, which is untrue.

The Founding Fathers and the 13 colonies' peoples were rebels, not terrorists, and everyone from USA to France to England's King knew it.

In fact, if anyone was terrorizing, it was British soldiers.

I have no need to call you stupid.

That's a lie.

z0sa

05-20-2010, 12:09 PM

No it isn't.

Main Entry: 3re·bel
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈbel\
Function: intransitive verb
Inflected Form(s): re·belled; re·bel·ling
Date: 14th century

1 a : to oppose or disobey one in authority or control b : to renounce and resist by force the authority of one's government
2 a : to act in or show opposition or disobedience <rebelled against the conventions of polite society> b : to feel or exhibit anger or revulsion <rebelled at the injustice of life>

Unless you're trying to say the Tea Party is a rebellious movement.

So the Boston Tea Party was an incident that involved terrorists or rebels?

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 12:10 PM

You wrote that the Founding Fathers were commonly considered terrorists, which is untrue. Says who exactly?

The Founding Fathers and the 13 colonies' peoples were rebels, not terrorists, and everyone from USA to France to England's King knew it.

In fact, if anyone was terrorizing, it was British soldiers.

Where did you learn this?

Drachen

05-20-2010, 12:10 PM

I never said that.

So then their ideology isn't terrorism, but their acts, right?

z0sa

05-20-2010, 12:12 PM

Says who exactly?

I think I need some primary sources from a different entity than the British government, which state directly or indirectly the American Founding Fathers were terrorists and not rebels, before I answer who says what on my end.

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 12:13 PM

So the Boston Tea Party was an incident that involved terrorists or rebels?

That was an act of rebellion. Doesn't change the fact many "rebels" were also seen as terrorists before and during the war.

z0sa

05-20-2010, 12:15 PM

That was an act of rebellion. Doesn't change the fact many "rebels" were also seen as terrorists before and during the war.

You didn't answer my question. Was the Boston Tea Party staged by terrorists or rebels?

While we're at it, why don't you list me which Founding Fathers were directly involved with this "terrorist act".

Also, explain to me why the "terrorists" at other major harbors simply denied the their Tea shipments from being unloaded.

Duff McCartney

05-20-2010, 12:16 PM

That's called rebelling.

What was their ultimate goal? Representation.

How did they do this? With violence and threats...like dumping tea into a harbor and destroying property.

Hence they are terrorist by the common definition.

jack sommerset

05-20-2010, 12:19 PM

LOL@ debating if the founding fathers were terrorist!

That, um , like, well, you know, I think ,it's kind of like, witch trial girl in the youtube video really did a number on some of you dumbasses.

z0sa

05-20-2010, 12:20 PM

What was their ultimate goal? Representation.

Check.

How did they do this? With violence and threats...like dumping tea into a harbor and destroying property.

Which Founding Fathers directly were involved?

Hence they are terrorist by the common definition.

"They" being the Founding Fathers? Which Founding Fathers were directly involved with the Boston Tea Party event, specifically?

What violence and threats of violence did the Founding Fathers make in this context?

clambake

05-20-2010, 12:21 PM

al qaeda is simply rebelling.

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 12:21 PM

You didn't answer my question. Was the Boston Tea Party staged by terrorists or rebels?According to whom?

While we're at it, why don't you list me which Founding Fathers were directly involved with this "terrorist act".

Also, explain to me why the "terrorists" at other major harbors simply denied the their Tea shipments from being unloaded.

How about I don't because that's not at all what we're talking about.

I'll ask you this. What would you call violence against loyalists and tax-collectors? Hate crimes? :lol

boutons_deux

05-20-2010, 12:22 PM

"That was an act of rebellion"

Colonial tea smugglers paid the Tea Partiers to dress up as Indians and dump the tea because the King gave East India Company exclusive tea importing rights AND cut the tea tax, which made smuggling less profitable.

"Resisting the Tea Act

This 1775 British cartoon, "A Society of Patriotic Ladies at Edenton in North Carolina", satirizes the Edenton Tea Party, a group of women who organized a boycott of English tea.

In September and October 1773, seven ships carrying East India Company tea were sent to the colonies: four were bound for Boston, and one each for New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston.[35] In the ships were more than 2,000 chests containing nearly 600,000 pounds of tea.[36] Americans learned the details of the Tea Act while the ships were en route, and opposition began to mount.[37] Whigs, sometimes calling themselves Sons of Liberty, began a campaign to raise awareness and to convince or compel the consignees to resign, in the same way that stamp distributors had been forced to resign in the 1765 Stamp Act crisis.[38]

The protest movement that culminated with the Boston Tea Party was not a dispute about high taxes. The price of legally imported tea was actually reduced by the Tea Act of 1773. Protestors were instead concerned with a variety of other issues. The familiar "no taxation without representation" argument, along with the question of the extent of Parliament's authority in the colonies, remained prominent.[39] Some regarded the purpose of the tax program—to make leading officials independent of colonial influence—as a dangerous infringement of colonial rights.[40] This was especially true in Massachusetts, the only colony where the Townshend program had been fully implemented.[41]

Colonial merchants, some of them smugglers, played a significant role in the protests. Because the Tea Act made legally imported tea cheaper, it threatened to put smugglers of Dutch tea out of business.[42] Legitimate tea importers who had not been named as consignees by the East India Company were also threatened with financial ruin by the Tea Act.[43] Another major concern for merchants was that the Tea Act gave the East India Company a monopoly on the tea trade, and it was feared that this government-created monopoly might be extended in the future to include other goods.[44]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_tea_party

So it was the REDUCTION in tea tax that really pissed off the "American" smugglers.

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 12:22 PM

http://constanttrek.typepad.com/photos/picardie/strawman.JPG

z0sa

05-20-2010, 12:24 PM

According to whom?

You, for starters.

How about I don't because that's not at all what we're talking about.

I'll ask you this. What would you call violence against loyalists and tax-collectors? Hate crimes? :lol

You still haven't answered any of my questions, so I don't know why you feel inclined to start asking.

BTW, :lmao at which terrorist acts our FF participated in not being a relevant part of this discussion. That's exactly what we're discussing.

z0sa

05-20-2010, 12:27 PM

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 12:28 PM

You, for starters. Again, it doesn't matter what I think since we're talking about perceptions of others.

You still haven't answered any of my questions, so I don't know why you feel inclined to start asking.I'm not answering because they are straw men questions.

BTW, :lmao at which terrorist acts our FF participated in not being a relevant part of this discussion. That's exactly what we're discussing.You do have a reading comprehension problem. We're talking about how they were seen either in their own time or by historians.

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 12:28 PM

He's either really persistent in trying to change the subject or he's really dumb.

z0sa

05-20-2010, 12:30 PM

Again, it doesn't matter what I think since we're talking about perceptions of others.

And you have yet to quote any others, or answer yourself. :lol

I'm not answering because they are straw men questions.

...

We're talking about how they were seen either in their own time or by historians.

And I'm waiting on your source that proves Manny's original statement or whatever your argument is. You do have one, right?

z0sa

05-20-2010, 12:31 PM

He's either really persistent in trying to change the subject or he's really dumb.

You haven't proved, in any way, shape, or form, that the FF were terrorists or were perceived as terrorists by anyone other than the British government's propaganda machine.

Anytime you feel like joining in on the discussion, feel free.

clambake

05-20-2010, 12:32 PM

is a people that forces their will and ideals on another people considered terrorism?

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 12:34 PM

And you have yet to quote any others, or answer yourself. :lol Wait, did you find those "primary sources"?

...Straw Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)

And I'm waiting on your source that proves Manny's original statement or whatever your argument is. You do have one, right?

Here's something quick I found. I'll have to search google scholar later

Were they a terrorist organization? The British certainly believed they were. After all, the Sons were advocating overthrow of the status quo government and independence for the thirteen colonies

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/fall96/sons.html

I'm waiting on your proof the British didn't think the Americans were what we consider terrorists.

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 12:35 PM

At least he finally abandoned his straw man.

z0sa

05-20-2010, 12:36 PM

Wait, did you find those "primary sources"?

Why would I prove Manny's statement for him? And I don't know your argument.

Straw Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)

So nothing to do with this discussion. Dunno why you keep bringing it up unless you're ready to expose these strawmen logically.

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/fall96/sons.html

I'm waiting on your proof the British didn't think the Americans were what we consider terrorists.

That proves the Founding Fathers were terrorist? Because "the British certainly thought they were". :lol

Once again, commonly considered means everyone, including the other countries that supported the USA, considered them terrorist.

If Manny wishes to revise his statement as state, "the British government commonly considered the FF terrorists", I will agree 100%.

Try to not buy into that 250 year old propaganda, guys. :lol

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 12:39 PM

Why would I prove Manny's statement for him? And I don't know your argument.

Straw Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)

So nothing to do with this discussion. Dunno why you keep bringing it up unless you're ready to expose these strawmen logically.

That proves the Founding Fathers were terrorist? Because "the British certainly thought they were". :lol

Once again, commonly considered means everyone, including the other countries that supported the USA, considered them terrorist.

Try to not buy into that 250 year old propaganda, guys. :lol

Oh man I thought he got it. I was sooooo wrong :rollin

lefty

05-20-2010, 12:39 PM

Of course the FF were terorrists

They killed natives :stirpot:

DarrinS

05-20-2010, 12:40 PM

So then their ideology isn't terrorism, but their acts, right?

It's the combination of the two. Otherwise, the act of Dr. Hasaan at Ft. Hood was just the act of a crazy person, right?

z0sa

05-20-2010, 12:44 PM

I was sooooo wrong :rollin

Yeah, you are.

Where in that link does it specifically reference a FF?

Try to stay in topic. With all your strawmen references and lack of an argument, you've been bumping around and can't seem to focus on the issue at hand:

were the FF commonly considered terrorists in their day and age? The answer is no, only in political propaganda machines were they labeled anywhere close to terrorists and none of the great writers and thinkers of that day support the position.

I have yet to see a single source that specifically names a Founding Father and links him to a precisely terrorist, non-rebellious act. I have yet to find one document by a revered writer, author, or statesman that considered them such.

clambake

05-20-2010, 12:45 PM

he don't get it.

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 12:47 PM

What the American insurgents were doing piecemeal foreshadowed a pattern. Everywhere insurgents spend more energy attacking their fellow inhabitants than the foreign enemy. They do so in part, no doubt, because civilians are easier targets than soldiers, but this is not the crucial reason: it is that unless they can forge a solid core of like-minded people, they cannot hope to survive, much less to "win".

From Violent Politics: A History of Insurgency, Terrorism, and Guerrilla War, from the American Revolution to Iraq (http://www.amazon.com/Violent-Politics-Insurgency-Terrorism-Revolution/dp/0061236195)

Let's put aside the fact that you don't understand the argument we're having. Going by that passage, how do you think the British and other parties saw the people described?

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 12:48 PM

Yeah, you are.

Where in that link does it specifically reference a FF?

Try to stay in topic. With all your strawmen references and lack of an argument, you've been bumping around and can't seem to focus on the issue at hand: This is too funny

were the FF commonly considered terrorists in their day and age? The answer is no, only in political propaganda machines were they labeled anywhere close to terrorists and none of the great writers and thinkers of that day support the position.Proof? I've already given you two pieces of evidence that you're wrong.

I have yet to see a single source that specifically names a Founding Father and links him to a precisely terrorist, non-rebellious act. I have yet to find one document by a revered writer, author, or statesman that considered them such.Have you looked?

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 12:49 PM

he don't get it.

I think what's funny is that he doesn't realize he's the one who is going off topic. He keeps asking for evidence and has provided none himself.

z0sa

05-20-2010, 12:50 PM

From Violent Politics: A History of Insurgency, Terrorism, and Guerrilla War, from the American Revolution to Iraq (http://www.amazon.com/Violent-Politics-Insurgency-Terrorism-Revolution/dp/0061236195)

:lol I thought we were going off of primary sources and perceptions from that time period? This is neither and has no use in the current context of linking the FF with terrorists.

Let's put aside the fact that you don't understand the argument we're having.

:lol we aren't having an argument whatsoever. You haven't stated a position to argue over. I'm simply wasting time here at work while you post links that have nothing to do with the FF specifically.

z0sa

05-20-2010, 12:51 PM

I think what's funny is that he doesn't realize he's the one who is going off topic. He keeps asking for evidence and has provided none himself.

Why should I provide evidence for Manny's statement? You can stop changing the subject and answer this question.

clambake

05-20-2010, 12:51 PM

his declaration is that the US is immune to that label, regardless of action.

his programming is complete.

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 12:53 PM

:lol I thought we were going off of primary sources and perceptions from that time period? This is neither and has no use in the current context of linking the FF with terrorists.You dodged the question. So either you know by answering it you'll hurt your position or you don't understand why I was asking. I'm leaning towards the latter.

:lol we aren't having an argument whatsoever. You haven't stated a position to argue over. I'm simply wasting time here at work while you post links that have nothing to do with the FF specifically.

It doesn't name names, the founding fathers are absolved! Hoorah!

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 12:54 PM

Why should I provide evidence for Manny's statement? You can stop changing the subject and answer this question.

Are you trolling me?

I'm asking you to provide evidence to your point that people of the time didn't see the Americans as terrorists. Still waiting.

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 12:55 PM

his declaration is that the US is immune to that label, regardless of action.

his programming is complete.

It's like he reads the posts, the information gets midway into his brain, then it just evaporates.

MannyIsGod

05-20-2010, 12:59 PM

Had to deal with some insurance paperwork and a couple of patients but here we go:

http://www.britannia.com/history/docs/procreb.html

And because it is going to come up, the word terrorist is not used but the descriptions used to describe the founding fathers are synonymous with the usage of the word terrorist today. I'm not sure if the word terrorist was in actual usage in that time period, but the meanings are obviously the same.

Enjoy.

z0sa

05-20-2010, 01:01 PM

You dodged the question.

Conversation is over. Manny made the original statement, I asked for an explanation and some sources and you nor he has given them.

Please quote where you answered which entities from the time period, besides the British national government, call or imply the FF are terrorists, not rebels. If you didn't answer, please answer now.

It doesn't name names, the founding fathers are absolved! Hoorah!

:lol Absolved? Their names haven't been tainted, at least not by the terrorist moniker.

z0sa

05-20-2010, 01:02 PM

Are you trolling me?

I'm asking you to provide evidence to your point that people of the time didn't see the Americans as terrorists. Still waiting.

Burden of proof is on you and Manny. I will retort with the answer once you clarify which sources you are using as the basis for his and your position.

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 01:04 PM

Conversation is over.We never had one since you never provided any evidence to your own claim.

Manny made the original statement, I asked for an explanation and some sources and you nor he has given them. Yes we have.

Please quote where you answered which entities from the time period, besides the British national government, call or imply the FF are terrorists, not rebels. If you didn't answer, please answer now. I mean, who cares what the most powerful government of the era has to say about the matter. Citizens of that govt totally disagreed. <--- Prove this

This also brings up a nice little parallel between then and now. See if you can figure out what I'm talking about.

z0sa

05-20-2010, 01:04 PM

Had to deal with some insurance paperwork and a couple of patients but here we go:

no one cares

http://www.britannia.com/history/docs/procreb.html

And because it is going to come up, the word terrorist is not used but the descriptions used to describe the founding fathers are synonymous with the usage of the word terrorist today. I'm not sure if the word terrorist was in actual usage in that time period, but the meanings are obviously the same.

Enjoy.

:lol :lol :lol

That's the political propaganda machine I was talking about. Some non-British government sources for the 5th fucking time.

clambake

05-20-2010, 01:04 PM

it's over, fella.

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 01:05 PM

Burden of proof is on you and Manny.Why is that?

I will retort with the answer once you clarify which sources you are using as the basis for his and your position.
:lol Keep backpedaling. It suits you.

z0sa

05-20-2010, 01:05 PM

We never had one since you never provided any evidence to your own claim.

Because the burden of proof is not on me.

Fail.

Yes we have.

Quotes with primary sources from the time period again, please.

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 01:07 PM

Because the burden of proof is not on me.

Fail.
lol Why not? Is your next post gonna be "I'm not doing your homework for you"?

Quotes with primary sources from the time period again, please.
I'm still waiting on your primary sources.

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 01:09 PM

This is getting pretty tedious. He won't provide anything to support his own claims. He ignores or discounts anything we post. He's either a very good troll or he's an idiot who likes sticking his fingers in his ears.

z0sa

05-20-2010, 01:09 PM

Why is that?

Because Manny is the one who made the claim that Americans are commonly terrorists, genius.

I can criticize your claim any way I want and until you prove it with a source, I don't have retort to any of your arguments.

The logic (obviously, but you apparently haven't done much of this) is that you must prove your point before making me prove mine.

You can't prove your point without primary sources from the time period, and unless you're an idiot whose okay eating whatever the King told you, it needs to be from someone other than the government or the Founding Fathers.

:lol Keep backpedaling. It suits you.

Keep not understanding that you made the claim first, and thus must prove it before demanding I explain my arguments with your claim.

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 01:10 PM

Going by that passage, how do you think the British and other parties saw the people described?

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 01:12 PM

Because Manny is the one who made the claim that Americans are commonly terrorists, genius.And you are the one who made the claim that they were not. PROVE IT.

I can criticize your claim any way I want and until you prove it with a source, I don't have retort to any of your arguments. :rollin

The logic (obviously, but you apparently haven't done much of this) is that you must prove your point before making me prove mine.But you know this to be true. Why not just prove your point outright? Oh right, because you can't.

You can't prove your point without primary sources from the time period, and unless you're an idiot whose okay eating whatever the King told you, it needs to be from someone other than the government or the Founding Fathers.Go back to Manny's original post. Then think about what it meant for the King to say something in the 18th century. I'll wait here.

Keep not understanding that you made the claim first, and thus must prove it before demanding I explain my arguments with your claim.
God you are such a pussy. If you can prove your point, do it.

MannyIsGod

05-20-2010, 01:13 PM

no one cares

:lol :lol :lol

That's the political propaganda machine I was talking about. Some non-British government sources for the 5th fucking time.

Like I said, you fail at reading comprehension of my original statement.

I'm not sure why you're asking me to prove something other than what I said.

z0sa

05-20-2010, 01:13 PM

lol Why not? Is your next post gonna be "I'm not doing your homework for you"?

Pretty much. If you're so stupid that you can make claims and not back them up while demanding others do the opposite, you're not worth my time.

BTW, there's some rules to debate you clearly don't know. Why don't you wikipedia burden of proof instead of random links that aren't primary sources from the time period and educate yourself.

I'm still waiting on your primary sources.

I absolutely have them, but unless you can prove the FF were actually commonly considered terrorists, not the Americans who actually fought and rebelled, not the Americans in the BTP that had nothing to do with a FF specifically; unless you can actively link the Founding Fathers, specifically, to being labeled as terrorists by a multitude of contemporary sources, there's no need to prove you wrong, because you never proved yourself right.

Oh, Gee!!

05-20-2010, 01:13 PM

Because Manny is the one who made the claim that Americans are commonly terrorists, genius.

I thought Manny said the British Government considered our founding fathers terrorists? He didn't say Americans were commonly terrorists.

MannyIsGod

05-20-2010, 01:15 PM

I thought Manny said the British Government considered our founding fathers terrorists? He didn't say Americans were commonly terrorists.

Reading is hard. No really. Its tough. Saying that something is commonly known actually means that it was a common thought in the time period referenced.

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 01:17 PM

Pretty much. If you're so stupid that you can make claims and not back them up while demanding others do the opposite, you're not worth my time.I have backed them up with two links.

BTW, there's some rules to debate you clearly don't know. Why don't you wikipedia burden of proof instead of random links that aren't primary sources from the time period and educate yourself.I'll keep saying it. If you can prove your own point, why not do it?

I absolutely have them, but unless you can prove the FF were actually commonly considered terrorists, not the Americans who actually fought and rebelled, not the Americans in the BTP that had nothing to do with a FF specifically; unless you can actively link the Founding Fathers, specifically, to being labeled as terrorists by a multitude of contemporary sources, there's no need to prove you wrong, because you never proved yourself right.:lol You absolutely have them but REFUSE to post them. Sounds logical.

z0sa

05-20-2010, 01:17 PM

Like I said, you fail at reading comprehension of my original statement.

I'm not sure why you're asking me to prove something other than what I said.

You said the Founding Fathers, specifically, were commonly considered terrorists.

Except no one commonly considered them terrorists.

So if you think you've proven they were commonly considered terrorists because a King says something halfway along those lines about all Americans, more power to you, but you haven't proven anything about the FF. Not even a tiny bit.

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 01:17 PM

In any event, I can't watch that video, but its common knowledge that our founding fathers were considered terrorists in their day.

Here you go big guy. See if you can read this and understand the position of "common knowledge".

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 01:19 PM

You said the Founding Fathers, specifically, were commonly considered terrorists.

:lmao

That's not what he said at all.

MannyIsGod

05-20-2010, 01:19 PM

its common knowledge

IE the knowledge is not rare. Note the use of the word common is used to describe the prevalence of the data TODAY.

that our founding fathers were considered terrorists in their day.Note the word common does not appear in this portion of the sentence. This portion of the statement merely says that our founding fathers were considered terrorists in their day and it does not state how common such a belief was or who held it.

I know, the sentence was so tough to understand it required paragraphs to explain. Jesus.

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 01:21 PM

http://www.nyla.org/content/user_4/Store_jewelry_reading_first_pin.jpg

MannyIsGod

05-20-2010, 01:21 PM

You said the Founding Fathers, specifically, were commonly considered terrorists.

So, like I was saying....about your reading comprehension....

z0sa

05-20-2010, 01:23 PM

I have backed them up with two links.

:rollin You're an idiot. Those aren't contemporary sources. Those aren't a multitude of them.

Common knowledge must mean they were commonly being called terrorists, don't you think? And by prints, books, by the contemporary writers and thinkers of the time?

You have nothing, you've shown nothing, and you haven't even used your own standards.

You asked me to keep on the argument and how the perception of THAT time is what we must study, yet you provide tertiary source material.

Pathetic.

I'll keep saying it. If you can prove your own point, why not do it?

RIF, right?

:lol You absolutely have them but REFUSE to post them. Sounds logical.

Yeah, most college US history textbooks are filled with primary source documents proving the FF weren't commonly considered terrorists. It's really not worth my time finding specific cases that will best spell the point (IE, have a good debate) if you can't even prove they were actually commonly considered terrorists (ie, being a jackass who doesn't know WTF he's talking about).

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 01:25 PM

I wonder if he'll just ignore Manny's original statement and ask us to provide proof Manny used that syntax.

MannyIsGod

05-20-2010, 01:27 PM

I'd imagine the feeling I get when I see Zosa try to argue with me is a lot like the feeling the Spurs got when they got matched up with the Suns in the playoffs prior to this year.

The question is will I ever get old and lack a bench?

z0sa

05-20-2010, 01:27 PM

IE the knowledge is not rare. Note the use of the word common is used to describe the prevalence of the data TODAY.

Note the word common does not appear in this portion of the sentence. This portion of the statement merely says that our founding fathers were considered terrorists in their day and it does not state how common such a belief was or who held it.

I know, the sentence was so tough to understand it required paragraphs to explain. Jesus.

:sleep it's ridiculous, it really is. It's never been common knowledge the FF were terrorists, which is what I've been arguing this whole time.

RIF, or at least not assuming you know what a person is arguing a whole thread when you really, really don't.

George Gervin's Afro

05-20-2010, 01:28 PM

LOL@ debating if the founding fathers were terrorist!

That, um , like, well, you know, I think ,it's kind of like, witch trial girl in the youtube video really did a number on some of you dumbasses.

wow jack doesn't get it..par for the course..

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 01:28 PM

:sleep it's ridiculous, it really is. It's never been common knowledge the FF were terrorists, which is what I've been arguing this whole time.

RIF.

Oh my god. Serious question: Is English your first language?

MannyIsGod

05-20-2010, 01:29 PM

:sleep it's ridiculous, it really is. It's never been common knowledge the FF were terrorists, which is what I've been arguing this whole time.

RIF.

Cool argument bro. Too bad no one ever said otherwise.

We know what you've been arguing this whole time. I just don't know why. I tried to tell you that in my first post to you.

Keep on fighting the good fight! Maybe this afternoon you can argue against my statement that the sky is green.

Here, I'll start

The Sky is blue.

Now you go and ask me to back up my claim that the sky is green.

George Gervin's Afro

05-20-2010, 01:29 PM

:sleep it's ridiculous, it really is. It's never been common knowledge the FF were terrorists, which is what I've been arguing this whole time.

RIF.

they were considered terrorists who committed terrorist acts according to the British... I don't consider them terrorists but others did..how hard is that to understand?

MannyIsGod

05-20-2010, 01:30 PM

they were considered terrorists who committed terrorist acts according to the British... I don't consider them terrorists but others did..how hard is that to understand?

Very.

z0sa

05-20-2010, 01:32 PM

Oh my god. Serious question: Is English your first language?

It's never been common knowledge they were "considered" terrorists, either. Not then, which is when it'd have been actually documented (first part of my argument). Not shortly after, when the period was fresh in everyone's minds (second part). Not now, when people judge for themselves.

Never has it been common knowledge the FF were considered terrorists, were terrorists, terrorized, or anything to do with terrorism. If you want to argue facets of the rebellion they led were terrorist in nature, that's a totally different argument.

But never, in any class I've taken or book I've read, have the Founding Fathers, specifically been considered terrorists.

So, now that you finally understand my argument, I'll be waiting on those sources.

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 01:32 PM

http://www.learnenglish.de/grammar/sentencetext.htm

Here you go z0sa

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 01:34 PM

It's never been common knowledge they were "considered" terrorists, either. Not then, which is when it'd have been actually documented (first part of my argument). Not shortly after, when the period was fresh in everyone's minds (second part). Not now, when people judge for themselves.

Never has it been common knowledge the FF were considered terrorists, were terrorists, terrorized, or anything to do with terrorism. If you want to argue facets of the rebellion they led were terrorist in nature, that's a totally different argument.

But never, in any class I've taken or book I've read, have the Founding Fathers, specifically been considered terrorists.

So, now that you finally understand my argument, I'll be waiting on those sources.

I guess the British Govt and its citizens don't count.

z0sa

05-20-2010, 01:35 PM

Very.

Who, today and back then, considered the Founding Fathers, specifically, terrorist, and which Founding Fathers were terrorist, and for what acts did they consider them terrorist?

AFAIK, no one has ever called any of the the Founding Fathers a terrorist specifically, so I would really like to know.

z0sa

05-20-2010, 01:35 PM

I guess the British Govt and its citizens don't count.

Find me some British citizens who called the FF terrorists. There are none, to my knowledge. From that King's document, looks like not even the King was willing to specifically call the noble statesmen of our FF a name like terrorist.

So, to sum up:

1) Neither Manny nor Shasta proved, with any type of contemporary or modern source, that any of the FF were considered terrorists. Rebel Leaders is what the whole world recognizes them as both then and since, unless you bought into the King's propaganda.

2) Neither of them understood my argument until in the end; both assumed I was arguing one specific thing, which was only a facet of my argument, so in fact, they exhibited their own comprehension failures or assume too much.

3) Both are fond of ad hominem arguments and "you simply can't read" over arguing the premise if they think they're better than you.

clambake

05-20-2010, 01:36 PM

lol

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 01:39 PM

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 01:42 PM

Find me some British citizens who called the FF terrorists. There are none, to my knowledge. From that King's document, looks like not even the King was willing to specifically call the noble statesmen of our FF a name like terrorist.

Maybe the term not existing then has something to do with it.

Origin:
1785–95; terror + -ist; cf. F terroriste

Does a dictionary count as a primary source? If not I sincerely apologize and concede my assertion that the term didn't exist as erroneous.

z0sa

05-20-2010, 01:44 PM

Maybe the term not existing then has something to do with it.

He doesn't call them a name "like" terrorist, either.

Comprehension, you need some.

z0sa

05-20-2010, 01:48 PM

I'll be honest. I probably brought this on by not reading Manny's original post. I was responding to z0sa's response. He still doesn't understand though. Just admit you were wrong and move on. Is it so hard?

So you admit you never knew the premise of the argument yet argued with me still by asking some pointless questions and posting links that neither adhere to the standards you imposed or answer any questions pertaining to the argument.

Idiot. You call me out for comprehension and don't even read the posts you're arguing over. You didn't waste my time since I'm at work but you shouldn't try to act so stupid.

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 01:50 PM

He doesn't call them a name "like" terrorist, either.

Comprehension, you need some.

:lol Pretending you meant "like" as "such as".

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 01:51 PM

So you admit you never knew the premise of the argument yet argued with me still by asking some pointless questions and posting links that neither adhere to the standards you imposed or answer any questions pertaining to the argument.I was going by your understanding of what he said. Clearly it was my mistake to trust you understood anything.

Idiot. You didn't waste my time since I'm at work but you should try and not act so stupid.

I can't believe you've spent all this time posting from work. You boss wouldn't be too happy.

z0sa

05-20-2010, 01:51 PM

:lol Pretending you meant "like" as "such as".

Since you usually don't read anything, let me inform you that the word "terrorist" isn't used in that document. Which is why I said a name like terrorist.

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 01:53 PM

MannyIsGod

05-20-2010, 01:53 PM

No one specifically called them terrorists back then. I already addressed this in a post. If you choose to disagree, more power to you.

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 01:55 PM

Is he going to try to say his whole point this entire time was they weren't called terrorists because the term didn't exist?

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 01:55 PM

So z0sa, where do you work?

z0sa

05-20-2010, 01:56 PM

I was going by your understanding of what he said. Clearly it was my mistake to trust you understood anything.

Yeah, I've already clearly proven I knew exactly what he was saying the whole time.

I can't believe you've spent all this time posting from work. You boss wouldn't be too happy.

I can't believe you'd waste your time with arguing when you don't know what the issue is, what the person you're arguing with's position on the issue is, or the angle he's taking with his actual argument.

In other words, I can't believe you don't know that reading is fundamental.

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 01:58 PM

Yeah, I've already clearly proven I knew exactly what he was saying the whole time. :lmao

I can't believe you'd waste your time with arguing when you don't know what the issue is, what the person you're arguing with's position on the issue is, or the angle he's taking with his actual argument.You're right. It was my mistake to believe your direct response to his post was accurate in its assumptions. You clearly didn't understand what he was saying. You're really working those arms backpedaling though.

In other words, I can't believe you don't know that reading is fundamental.
You learn that at work?

z0sa

05-20-2010, 01:58 PM

No one specifically called them terrorists back then.

No one specifically called the FF terrorists ever.

MannyIsGod

05-20-2010, 01:59 PM

No one specifically called the FF terrorists ever.

Oh really? Why do you insist on making blanket statements that are so ridiculous?

z0sa

05-20-2010, 01:59 PM

You're really working those arms backpedaling though.

You backpedal with your arms? I use my feet, and that's actually the brake.

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 02:00 PM

Oh really? Why do you insist on making blanket statements that are so ridiculous?

He's probably trying to say that no one has named specific founding fathers as terrorists. Oh wait, he's still probably wrong.

z0sa

05-20-2010, 02:00 PM

Oh really? Why do you insist on making blanket statements that are so ridiculous?

:lmao after the ridiculous blanket statement you made, that I've arguing as such this whole, the irony just seeps out of this post.

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 02:01 PM

You backpedal with your arms? I use my feet, and that's actually the brake.

he didn't get it

z0sa

05-20-2010, 02:03 PM

He's probably trying to say that no one has named specific founding fathers as terrorists.

I'm "probably" trying to say that if you're an idiot with no comprehension. I am definitely, 100% saying that, have been the whole thread.

Manny is either 1) misinformed or 2) wrong.

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 02:03 PM

z0sa

05-20-2010, 02:04 PM

he didn't get it

You're thinking of a backstroke. Backpedaling implies steps or using your feet, since pedals are generally handled by your feet.

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 02:06 PM

I'm "probably" trying to say that if you're an idiot with no comprehension.try again

I am definitely, 100% saying that, have been the whole thread.

You said it's common knowledge that the founding fathers were terrorists.That's your first post in the thread. You can try and change your argument all you want. Everyone knows you're lying. It does help to keep calling people names though.

Manny is either 1) misinformed or 2) wrong.
Prove it.

z0sa

05-20-2010, 02:06 PM

Let's bring this full circle. If you went up to random people on the street, what percentage would answer yes to this question:

"Did you know the founding fathers were considered terrorists in their day?"

That's disingenuous as fuck. :lol Leading questions that are patently false your style, huh?

jack sommerset

05-20-2010, 02:06 PM

let's bring this full circle. If you went up to random people on the street, what percentage would answer yes to this question:

"did you know the founding fathers were considered terrorists in their day?"

.003 %?

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 02:06 PM

You're thinking of a backstroke. Backpedaling implies steps or using your feet, since pedals are generally handled by your feet.

He still doesn't get it. Look I can't explain every joke to you. You'll have to figure this one out on your own.

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 02:07 PM

That's disingenuous as fuck. :lol Leading questions that are patently false your style, huh?

:lol

I'm glad you responded. It shows that your assertion that you understood Manny's original post was false. Thanks for playing.

z0sa

05-20-2010, 02:07 PM

That's your first post in the thread.

... and I'm still sticking by it. It's never been common knowledge the FF were terrorists, were considered terrorists, whatever phrasing and semantics you want to continue arguing, it will be wrong because you cannot possibly back up such a ridiculous statement.

z0sa

05-20-2010, 02:08 PM

:lol

I'm glad you responded. It shows that your assertion that you understood Manny's original post was false. Thanks for playing.

So by me calling your question disingenuous and patently false, it means something about me? Try to focus on the subject at hand and not the person you're debating.

z0sa

05-20-2010, 02:09 PM

He still doesn't get it. Look I can't explain every joke to you. You'll have to figure this one out on your own.

It was stupid. Mainly because you don't backpedal with your arms.

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 02:09 PM

... and I'm still sticking by it. It's never been common knowledge the FF were terrorists, were considered terrorists, whatever phrasing and semantics you want to continue arguing, it will be wrong because you cannot possibly back up such a ridiculous statement.

THAT'S NOT WHAT MANNY SAID.

It's like talking to a wall. A wall that doesn't understand we can go back and look at his posts.

z0sa

05-20-2010, 02:11 PM

THAT'S NOT WHAT MANNY SAID.

It's never been common knowledge they were considered terrorists, either. Continue arguing semantics.

It's like talking to a wall. A wall that doesn't understand we can go back and look at his posts.

:lol everyone knows you don't go back and read posts.

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 02:13 PM

So by me calling your question disingenuous and patently false, it means something about me? Try to focus on the subject at hand and not the person you're debating.It means you don't understand the basic premise of what Manny said.

It was stupid. Mainly because you don't backpedal with your arms.
THAT'S the joke smart guy.

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 02:15 PM

It's never been common knowledge they were considered terrorists, either. Continue arguing semantics.Semantics :lol

You took what Manny said, misinterpreted it, then tried to say you were merely making more than one point. You suck so bad at lying.

:lol everyone knows you don't go back and read posts.
Not reading posts is better than reading and not understanding them.

z0sa

05-20-2010, 02:16 PM

'S the joke smart guy.

Sure it was. You're just an idiot. Go argue about some posts you didn't read.

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 02:16 PM

This is fun and all but we're just going in circles. It seems he'll never understand Manny's original post. Maybe when he admits as much I'll have something more to say.

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 02:17 PM

Sure it was. You're just an idiot. Go argue about some posts you didn't read.

http://telepromptedanthems.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/u-mad1.jpg

MannyIsGod

05-20-2010, 02:18 PM

... and I'm still sticking by it. It's never been common knowledge the FF were terrorists, were considered terrorists, whatever phrasing and semantics you want to continue arguing, it will be wrong because you cannot possibly back up such a ridiculous statement.

If you understood what I said from your first post on then why did you bring this up to begin with since its not what I was saying?

MannyIsGod

05-20-2010, 02:19 PM

:lmao after the ridiculous blanket statement you made, that I've arguing as such this whole, the irony just seeps out of this post.

When did I make a blanket statement?

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 02:19 PM

If you understood what I said from your first post on then why did you bring this up to begin with since its not what I was saying?

Because he has more than one point! On what I'm not sure since your post was clear as day.

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 02:26 PM

So z0sa, where do you work?

DarrinS

05-20-2010, 02:38 PM

Let's bring this full circle. If you went up to random people on the street, what percentage would answer yes to this question:

"Did you know the founding fathers were considered terrorists in their day?"

Random people on the street -- 0.1%

Students at a typical university studying:

Science/Engineering -- 0.01%

Sociology -- 50%

Ethnic studies - 99.9%

clambake

05-20-2010, 02:38 PM

Because he has more than one point! On what I'm not sure since your post was clear as day.

his point is that the US, and the US alone, owns the ability to label others as terrorist, regardless of actions.

ChumpDumper

05-20-2010, 02:41 PM

Random people on the street -- 0.1%

Students at a typical university studying:

Science/Engineering -- 0.01%Those guys would be that ignorant?

Or would they just not understand the question?

z0sa

05-20-2010, 02:44 PM

Let me get this straight: Even though manny nor Shasta have provided any source, modern or otherwise, that calls any individual FF or the group terrorist or any word implying such - in fact, the word terrorist didn't even exist back then - it's "common knowledge they were considered terrorists in their day."

:lol so the word doesn't exist, other countries are helping these so-called terrorists against their oppressors, but a couple-page document from the King talking about Americans as a whole somehow proves the FF specifically are commonly considered terrorists.

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 02:46 PM

Name the founding fathers for me.

clambake

05-20-2010, 02:46 PM

hopeless

ChumpDumper

05-20-2010, 02:47 PM

Let me get this straight: Even though manny nor Shasta have provided any source, modern or otherwise, that calls any individual FF or the group terrorist or any word implying such - in fact, the word terrorist didn't even exist back then - it's "common knowledge they were considered terrorists in their day."

:lolIt's all a matter of definitions. It's easy to tell that if one wants to use rather exclusive definitions, pretty much every part of that assertion can be denied.

z0sa

05-20-2010, 02:47 PM

hopeless

Your punctuation problem?

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 02:47 PM

For posterity

Clearly universities rot the mind. That is why the money you make in your lifetime goes up exponentially with the amount of schooling you have.

In any event, I can't watch that video, but its common knowledge that our founding fathers were considered terrorists in their day.

You said it's common knowledge that the founding fathers were terrorists. I'd like an explanation of that. Having taken my own share of college-level history classes, that doesn't jive with anything I know.

z0sa

05-20-2010, 02:48 PM

It's all a matter of definitions.

Which is why i asked shasta if he considered the BTP an act of terrorists or rebels.

But it's not about him :rollin

z0sa

05-20-2010, 02:50 PM

For posterity

Manny cites the USS Cole bombers.

Cite some terrorist acts the FF participated in.

DarrinS

05-20-2010, 02:53 PM

I still haven't seen any suppport of this statement:

" its common knowledge that our founding fathers were considered terrorists in their day."

Well, other than the video in the OP.

z0sa

05-20-2010, 02:54 PM

If you understood what I said from your first post on then why did you bring this up to begin with since its not what I was saying?

I honestly expected a reasonable enough debate to plant some seeds for the coming arguments. I expected you had no reasoning for saying it's commonly beheld (not in any class I've ever taken, document I've ever read, tv broadcast I've heard, or general sentiment I've ever regarded) the FF specifically were considered terrorists.

This includes a couple drops about Americans a whole, the fact none of their contemporaries labeled them as such (or nearly as such), and the fact I could find no modern sources (from a quick googling) calling them terrorists.

No easily found sources, no real position but an assertion = blanket statement.

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 02:55 PM

Which is why i asked shasta if he considered the BTP an act of terrorists or rebels.

But it's not about him :rollin

What we're arguing isn't about me. Though I had heard they were considered "terrorists" in their day.

z0sa

05-20-2010, 02:58 PM

What we're arguing isn't about me.

You don't know what you're arguing.

DarrinS

05-20-2010, 02:59 PM

There's another thread on this subject at http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/05/arent-jihad-terrorists-just-like-the-founding-fathers.html

I like these comments:

America's founders fought for freedom from tyranny.

Muslim jihadists fight for tyranny and an end to freedoms.

This woman is smart enought to be our First Lady.

I felt compelled to comment again here and say this: As a college teacher for over a quarter of a century now I know that there are several reasons for the dumbing down of higher education (e.g., an increasingly inane curriculum, horribly written textbooks and way too much reliance on technological gimmicks), but the single greatest reason is that left-wing ideology, which is rooted in emotion, not reason, and full of victim-oriented thinking and an inability to understand that one should not throw out the baby with the bath water, has almost completely taken over the liberal arts and education departments in colleges and universities across America. This rot can be traced back to the 1960s, which unleashed a lot of forces, most of them stupid and self-indulgent, and we are still paying the price for this tragic decade which continues to haunt America and all the West to this day. This young women in this video, born long after the Sixties ended, is a legacy of that sorry decade in American life.

RandomGuy

05-20-2010, 03:01 PM

Manny cites the USS Cole bombers.

Cite some terrorist acts the FF participated in.

In areas under rebel control, Loyalists were subject to confiscation of property, and outspoken supporters of the king were threatened with public humiliation such as tarring and feathering, or physical attack. It is not known how many Loyalist civilians were harassed by the Patriots, but the treatment was a warning to other Loyalists not to take up arms. In September 1775, William Drayton and Loyalist leader Colonel Thomas Fletchall signed a treaty of neutrality in the interior community of Ninety Six, South Carolina.[14] For actively aiding the British army when it occupied Philadelphia, two residents of the city would be executed by returning Patriot forces.

??? Not quite mass murder though.

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 03:01 PM

You don't know what you're arguing.

In any event, I can't watch that video, but its common knowledge that our founding fathers were considered terrorists in their day.

You said it's common knowledge that the founding fathers were terrorists.

MannyIsGod

05-20-2010, 03:01 PM

I gave you a source and while giving you that source I gave you a response to an argument you didn't even post for another page. If you don't choose to accept that then there's nothing for me to do about it. I can sit here and reply to everyone of your posts but whats the point of that when you fail to acknowledge the synonmous meaning of the word terrorism and the language used by the King of England himself to describe American actions.

Language changes over time but feelings and sentiments are very much the same. Anger was still Anger far before the English language came into existence but based upon your view point then no one was Angry before English came to be.

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 03:02 PM

Clearly only muslims can be terrorists.

NFGIII

05-20-2010, 03:04 PM

It's all a matter of definitions. It's easy to tell that if one wants to use rather exclusive definitions, pretty much every part of that assertion can be denied.

Though z0sa is correct that the word didn't exist at the time they could be classified as such by today's terminology. Having said that they were considered by the British as rebels and revolutionaries and very dangerous. Lorth North called them the mobility and scoffed at their ability to rule and have any say in politics. They just weren't of the right breeding and therefore hadn't the ability to grasp and apply any of the qualities and capabilities that the ruling class was endowed with. That is God given by their perspective.

Or you could say one person's terrorist is another person's revolutionary or freedom fighter.

The FF were upsetting the apple cart and had the audacity to imply that common men should be able to govern themselves independently of the crown. This idea was a revolutinary one at the time and had to be dealt with swiftly. Fortunately for us many a British soldier and particularly the generals thought this would be a walk in the park and therefore underestimated the rebels. Even so the Colonial army lost most of its battles but were fortunate to win the most improtant one - Yorktown. Of course with a little help from the French. If Cornwallis had been able to evacuate then I think the war would have gone on.

And we all know that the victors write the history.

jack sommerset

05-20-2010, 03:06 PM

Does anyone think Obama is a terrorist?

ChumpDumper

05-20-2010, 03:08 PM

Does anyone think Obama is a terrorist?I'm sure some do.

jack sommerset

05-20-2010, 03:10 PM

I'm sure some do.

That's a shame.

NFGIII

05-20-2010, 03:10 PM

I'm sure some do.

I would think that the Taliban, Al-Quaeda and similar organizations believe that the leader of the Great Satan is one.

z0sa

05-20-2010, 03:11 PM

??? Not quite mass murder though.

Which founding fathers took part in these acts? :)

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 03:12 PM

Will Obama send out a proclamation that Obama is a terrorist?

MannyIsGod

05-20-2010, 03:15 PM

Which founding fathers took part in these acts? :)

Does a leader have to actively participate in a terrorist act to be considered a terrorist?

clambake

05-20-2010, 03:16 PM

Will Obama send out a proclamation that Obama is a terrorist?

its common knowledge.

z0sa

05-20-2010, 03:18 PM

Does a leader have to actively participate in a terrorist act to be considered a terrorist?

These aren't small sects of a real terrorist organization being specifically guided by a certain line of command, we're talking tens of millions of American rebels basically doing what they wanted, because the FF didn't have the finances to tell them any different.

So no, you can't put the FF to blame for the millions upon millions of Americans acting independent of essentially any government past local since they were barely able to pay for the army and its supplies to fight the war effort, much less control individual locales against our own rebels.

sonic21

05-20-2010, 03:19 PM

It is common knowledge George Washington was considered a revolutionary and terrorist by the British government.

jack sommerset

05-20-2010, 03:22 PM

Who were the terrorist durning the civil war?

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 03:22 PM

These aren't small sects of a real terrorist organization being specifically guided by a certain line of command, we're talking tens of millions of American rebels basically doing what they wanted, because the FF didn't have the finances to tell them any different.

So no, you can't put the FF to blame for the millions upon millions of Americans acting independent of essentially any government past local since they were barely able to pay for the army and its supplies to fight the war effort, much less control individual locales against our own rebels.

There were ~2.5 million people TOTAL in America in 1776. Care to reassess this statement?

Shastafarian

05-20-2010, 03:24 PM

I wonder if z0sa works with DarrinS.

z0sa

05-20-2010, 03:24 PM

There were ~2.5 million people TOTAL in America in 1776. Care to reassess this statement?

My mistake. The logic still fits. a Few hundred men, with no money and barely an army, weren't going to stop the millions.

DarrinS

05-20-2010, 03:26 PM

I guess, like, if we're going to, like condemn this as like, terrorism, then isn't that, like, what the founding fathers did when they were fighting the British?

No. Wrong. You all fail.

clambake

05-20-2010, 03:27 PM

There were ~2.5 million people TOTAL in America in 1776. Care to reassess this statement?

how do you know. i want to see the census reports.

jack sommerset

05-20-2010, 03:27 PM

I wonder if z0sa works with DarrinS.

I wonder why the terrorist in the NYC almost bombing is being charged with weapons of mass destruction but everyone thinks no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq.

DarrinS

05-20-2010, 03:27 PM

Who were the terrorist durning the civil war?

The South, duh, because, like, at first, like they didn't have proper uniforms.

George Gervin's Afro

05-20-2010, 03:28 PM

I wonder why the terrorist in the NYC almost bombing is being charged with weapons of mass destruction but everyone thinks no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq.

god you're an idiot..

jack sommerset

05-20-2010, 03:30 PM

I am a idiot..

Fixed

jack sommerset

05-20-2010, 03:31 PM

LOL@ gas cans and fire works considered weapons of mass destructions.

ChumpDumper

05-20-2010, 03:33 PM

I wonder why the terrorist in the NYC almost bombing is being charged with weapons of mass destruction but everyone thinks no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq.
the main reason we went into Iraq: at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't

George Gervin's Afro

05-20-2010, 03:33 PM

I just make stuff up as I go along

we know jackie..

Drachen

05-20-2010, 03:38 PM

Manny cites the USS Cole bombers.

Cite some terrorist acts the FF participated in.

Attacking HRM military, colluding with enemies of Britian.

Drachen

05-20-2010, 03:47 PM

These aren't small sects of a real terrorist organization being specifically guided by a certain line of command, we're talking tens of millions of American rebels basically doing what they wanted, because the FF didn't have the finances to tell them any different.

So no, you can't put the FF to blame for the millions upon millions of Americans acting independent of essentially any government past local since they were barely able to pay for the army and its supplies to fight the war effort, much less control individual locales against our own rebels.

But their contemporaries in the UK could. You see how easily many Americans consider anyone who is a Muslim a Terrorist.

Drachen

05-20-2010, 03:50 PM

how do you know. i want to see the census reports.

It was probably a higher population, word is the right wingers didn't participate because they thought the census was a conspiracy to find out where they live so the Crown could come kill them.

I wonder why the terrorist in the NYC almost bombing is being charged with weapons of mass destruction but everyone thinks no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq.

Because they didn't have clean burning propane grills, and therefore, no gas tanks.

clambake

05-20-2010, 03:55 PM

It was probably a higher population, word is the right wingers didn't participate because they thought the census was a conspiracy to find out where they live so the Crown could come kill them.

Because they didn't have clean burning propane grills, and therefore, no gas tanks.

:lol

Blake

05-20-2010, 04:06 PM

The problem I see is that it now takes a few years of college to get the equivalent education of an 8th grader of the 50's.

That's absolutely not true. They are getting kids started earlier and faster with basic reading and writing than they ever were.

My 6 year old is doing things now in 1st grade that I wasn't doing until 3rd grade such as story writing and fractions in math.....hell, she was reading in kindergarten while my teacher was having us finger paint, take naps and leave at noon...

not to mention the advanced classes high schools offer in line with local colleges to get them started early and actually get them some college credit.

The problem is not what is being taught....the problem is that we have a country full of lazy ass teenagers that have all the necessities of life at their disposal, (thanks in part to apathetic parents) that are forced to be in school, and find it easier to just get by instead of taking full advantage of the resources that the public school system is giving them.

Blake

05-20-2010, 04:27 PM

It was stupid. Mainly because you don't backpedal with your arms.

:lmao

MannyIsGod

05-21-2010, 01:35 AM

These aren't small sects of a real terrorist organization being specifically guided by a certain line of command, we're talking tens of millions of American rebels basically doing what they wanted, because the FF didn't have the finances to tell them any different.

Hmm. You should probably read about how Al Qeada works. Its a very loose network yet we still consider Osama Bin Laden a terrorist. According to you we shouldn't.

Especially in the case of 9/11. Osama Bin Laden had pretty much zero tactical control over the actions of the hijackers, yet we consider him responsible. I wonder how someone with your line of thinking would reconcile that?

Note, I'm not saying the Founding Fathers were terrorists, or that they should have been considered so. I'm merely pointing out the extreme flaws your logic.

Blake

05-21-2010, 08:21 AM

Note, I'm not saying the Founding Fathers were terrorists, or that they should have been considered so.

You said it's common knowledge that the founding fathers were terrorists.

I'm not saying z0sa is linguistically impaired or that he should be considered so....

but it's common knowledge that many around here do consider him to be so

Oh, Gee!!

05-21-2010, 10:03 AM

Who were the terrorist durning the civil war?

the Northern Aggressors, according to South.

sabar

05-23-2010, 03:18 AM

Some revolutionaries are terrorists.
Not all revolutionaries are terrorists.
Being a terrorist doesn't require being a revolutionary.

The founding fathers were not viewed as terrorists, because the widespread media networks that fuel terrorism did not exist (nor did terrorism). You can't subjugate a population when it takes 3 weeks for the news of your crazy antics to get across colony lines.

Terrorism generally implies violence, fear, and targets consisting of civilians.

The British crown viewed revolutionaries as traitors and usurpers. Even in the modern world it isn't clear that they would be considered terrorists. Most revolutionary groups may be labeled as such by their overlords for propaganda, but that hardly forms consensus. The patriots were popularly supported and fought a military campaign against an organized army. History generally favors these types of conflicts and the revolutionaries are usually never labeled as terrorists when they win. Failed revolts, attacks on civilians, and going against the majority are FAR more likely to label a group as terrorists.

Just look at history the past few centuries... the victor writes history in the end.
If the American revolution failed and say opened with a massive civilian loss, then the group would be looked at MUCH differently than it is today. The words are all subjective, there is no definition of terrorism. It doesn't matter how you word it because it is influenced by the facts I outlined (who won? do the people support it? etc)