Terrorists are just like our founding fathers

[MannyIsGod]

... 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]

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]

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]

So z0sa, where do you work?

[DarrinS]

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]

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]

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]

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."

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

[Shastafarian]

Name the founding fathers for me.

[clambake]

hopeless

[ChumpDumper]

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."

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.

[z0sa]

hopeless

Your punctuation problem?

[Shastafarian]

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]

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

[z0sa]

For posterity

Manny cites the USS Cole bombers.

Cite some terrorist acts the FF participated in.

[DarrinS]

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]

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, do ent 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]

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

But it's not about him

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

[z0sa]

What we're arguing isn't about me.

You don't know what you're arguing.

[DarrinS]

There's another thread on this subject at http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/05/ar...g-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]

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]

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]

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]

Clearly only muslims can be terrorists.

[NFGIII]

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.