- Joined
- Jan 11, 2008
- Messages
- 11,655
- Reaction score
- 3,612
- Location
- WA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
The current government would 100% classify the founding fathers as terrorists. And the teacher should be kicked in the nuts repeatedly for the rest of his life.
Perhaps you can display a couple of instances were "terror tactics" that were used against Tori's and civilians, or British Troops for that matter?
Boston Tea Party?
Tar and Feathering?
Perhaps you can display a couple of instances were "terror tactics" that were used against Tori's and civilians, or British Troops for that matter?
I don't think the founders were terrorists, but I said that our current government would 100% label them as terrorists. First off, we did kinda fight dirty often. In so much that we didn't always follow the "rules" of war. We'd shoot from trees and cover and such. Things that are common sense now, but weren't "gentlemanly" back then. If a group of people rose up against our government today, what would our government call them? If the founders were alive today, most of them would probably be appalled by what we've done to the Republic. They may want to start again, what would our government say of these people?
Terrorist. We use it for a lot now, the government loves the word. The government loves the control the word gives them, the fear it inspires amongst the People. Who's the real terrorist? Don't kid yourself, by what we use the word "terrorist" for these days; our founding fathers most certainly apply.
Looks like a very effective class discussion to me. An integral part of learning and education is to be open minded and look at things objectively, critically when needs be. Or would it be better that we are all closed minded lemmings that cannot be critical of the past, present or future?
YouTube - FEMA Says Founding Fathers Are Terrorists
So. Do you think that they could be considered terrorists? How much broader should the definition of terrorist be? Should we taxpayers be paying for classes that teach this?
Looks like a very effective class discussion to me. An integral part of learning and education is to be open minded and look at things objectively, critically when needs be. Or would it be better that we are all closed minded lemmings that cannot be critical of the past, present or future?
Would our government today condemn them for less than we do now? Heck no.
Call up the White House and get an official position statement.
Would the British have considered them Ungentlemanly? Without Honor? Rebel Scum? Sure, I would agree to some of that.
Terrorists? Nope. There is only one or two instances that I found that the FF, the government, or the civilians followed any prescribed course of "terror" and it was not against the British, it was against the Indians.
Also, except for some militia actions here and there, the government led troops and militia that fought the British did so with honor and by the rules of a gentlemens war, following all rules of conduct and honor.
Listen to the way he brainwashes his students into not making any choices. He draws so many lines and then says they people who are against you don't see their own problem and you are right. The lecturer could take a lesson from your words actually.
And of course when the government takes your rights people are going to cry "What would the founding fathers thing?!" and this mans lecture will be the only thing that guides their action. The course he took their mind on.
The current government would 100% classify the founding fathers as terrorists.
Listen to the way he brainwashes his students into not making any choices. He draws so many lines and then says they people who are against you don't see their own problem and you are right. The lecturer could take a lesson from your words actually.
...call up the White House...yeah right. They'll be honest with me :roll:
The facts remain, we call anything that is a "threat" to the government a terrorist.
I guarantee you that if you started a revolution to overthrow the government, you 100% would be called a terrorist.
The term is well misused these days because of the fear and emotion it calls up.
The government know this and uses this.
1. The founding fathers would be called terrorists by our government today.
2. They'd [founding fathers] would probably be calling for its overthrow too.
...call up the White House...yeah right. They'll be honest with me :roll:
The facts remain, we call anything that is a "threat" to the government a terrorist. I guarantee you that if you started a revolution to overthrow the government, you 100% would be called a terrorist. The term is well misused these days because of the fear and emotion it calls up. The government know this and uses this. The founding fathers would be called terrorists by our government today. They'd [founding fathers] would probably be calling for its overthrow too.
I disagree completely on both accounts.
1. The government doesn't call anybody in America terrorists, as far as I can tell. Waco and Ruby Ridge? Not terrorists. Crazy militant back woodsmen? Not terrorists. Just whackos...
Oh they do. Go outside and yell at someone. You may get arrested for making terroristic threats and get booked on a felony charge and be considered a terrorist. Or maybe it's only the lucky ones they actually arrest and charge.
Oh they do. Go outside and yell at someone. You may get arrested for making terroristic threats and get booked on a felony charge and be considered a terrorist. Or maybe it's only the lucky ones they actually arrest and charge.
I think if those things were done now, you'd find that probably at least Waco would be deemed acts of terrorism particularly through the use of trumped up weapons charges. Ruby Ridge, well there was no violence against the government; there was violence on behalf of the government but not towards. They'd find it hard to call defiance of the IRS an act of terrorism, but who knows; maybe a standoff would warrant an act of terrorism. Hell these days kids can commit acts of terrorism by filling a 2-L bottle with aluminum foil and Drain-O.
The United States has defined terrorism under the Federal Criminal Code. Chapter 113B of Part I of Title 18 of the United States Code defines terrorism and lists the crimes associated with terrorism.[25] In Section 2331 of Chapter 113b, terrorism is defined as:
…activities that involve violent… or life-threatening acts… that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and… appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and… (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States… [or]… (C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States…"
Edward Peck, former U.S. Chief of Mission in Iraq (under Jimmy Carter) and ambassador to Mauritania:
In 1985, when I was the Deputy Director of the Reagan White House Task Force on Terrorism, they asked us — this is a Cabinet Task Force on Terrorism; I was the Deputy Director of the working group — they asked us to come up with a definition of terrorism that could be used throughout the government. We produced about six, and each and every case, they were rejected, because careful reading would indicate that our own country had been involved in some of those activities
I just did and it looks like I am facing a Drunk and Disorderly...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?