- Joined
- Sep 25, 2008
- Messages
- 6,218
- Reaction score
- 1,859
- Location
- DFW, Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
So the bay of pigs, where the CIA trained and funded a clandestine group for the invasion of Cuba, was not a terrorist act?Again:
Attacking a military target and killing civilians in the process isn't terrorism.
That and the USAAF is neither a sunbational group nor a clandestine agent.
Seems ptretty clear to me -- not sure why YOU have trouble with it.
The Bay of Pigs was not terrorism, by any stretch of the imagination.So the bay of pigs, where the CIA trained and funded a clandestine group for the invasion of Cuba, was not a terrorist act?
Please, feel free to explain why.The Bay of Pigs was not terrorism, by any stretch of the imagination.
Please, feel free to explain why.
You seem to think that it is. Its up to you to show how it fits the definitionPlease, feel free to explain why.
Why is this a partisan issue? Do you only read the American version of history? Do you really not know how the British regarded the actions of some of the "founding fathers?"
Would you call the lynching and tarring and feathering of civilian "stamp agents" legitimate actions of war? (hint - I've given you a phrase to google and research)
Just because you either don't understand the argument or can only see it from one side does not mean those who disagree with you are "grade school intellectual level liberals."
If you're going to use phrases like "obnoxiously stupid intellectual dishonesty" against your debating opponents then first raise your own research out of primary school level and come back when you know both sides of your own history.
Pack it in and come home. I agree.sure there is. pack it in and come home......
if its such a horrible thing why do you want to keep troops there?
Pack it in and come home. I agree.
To bad we can't bring back Sadam and give the country back to him. Then we could get out.I wondered how long it would be before someone argued that 'Bush screwed up Iraq so bad that Obama can't bring the troops home like he promised'.
3 weeks. Wow.
Sure there is -- you order everyone home, just like The Obama promised.
Nice thing about this country -- everyone has the right to express their opinion, regardless of how insipid.To bad we can't bring back Sadam and give the country back to him. Then we could get out.
Tis the most pointless and stupid war that China has ever paid for and our troops have ever died for.
--snip-- Yeah, you're right. Americans revolting against the British military stationed on our soil and including an act of degradation against one of the officials
--snip-- responsible for robbing them blind and starving their families
--snip-- was no different from Hamas storing weapons in Kindergarten class rooms while launching missiles at Israel without provocation or Osama bin Laden sending terrorists here to slaughter American citizens, again without provocation.
How silly of me. These things are clearly just alike.
:notlook:
--snip-- Right. What indicates that liberals operate on a grade school intellectual level here is their inability to distinguish unprovoked aggression targeting innocent civilians in another country from engaging a military force occupying, bankrupting, and starving your children to death in your own country.
--snip-- Research isn't the problem here. Logic is. And it's not the logic of the person correctly identifying terrorism (me) that needs fixing here.
The difference is that I have wait and see what OBama does, because, It's Only Just Begun.So then, I await to see you bashing Obama like Bush until they are home.
You do not. There is no reason He could not have issued the orders home on January 21st.The difference is that I have wait and see what OBama does, because, It's Only Just Begun.
how is it terrorism if they are attacking agents of the crown ?Can you point out which legitimate source supports your premise that "America" was your soil at the time the "Sons of Liberty" were committing acts of terror on agents of the crown?
You do know America was a colony at that time and that the "Americans" were at the time subjects of the crown. Or was the "War of Independence" about something else?
The difference is that I have wait and see what OBama does, because, It's Only Just Begun.
With Bush, we went through years of pure hell and ended up with a practically ruined nation and economy. Bush was easy to Bash. Obama has not had a chance to Do anything.
Remember that when FDR came into office, our country was at 25% unemployment, but just four years later that had dropped to 15%,
In this case the war, borrowing from abroad and shifting manufacturing abroad has ruined us. We need to become a nation again instead of a pawn to some vague Deadly Corporate and Greed run network called OPEC.
I believe in capitalism, but I believe that Capitalism has to regulated for the good of America. I don't believe in government ownership of business, but I believe in strong regulation of corporations. Other wise we have another Bush government that allow corporations to run rampant, and **** up the goood Ole USA.
Can you point out which legitimate source supports your premise that "America" was your soil at the time the "Sons of Liberty" were committing acts of terror on agents of the crown?
You do know America was a colony at that time and that the "Americans" were at the time subjects of the crown. Or was the "War of Independence" about something else?
Please tell me you looked up the "Stamp Act" and why the British Sovereign wanted to tax the colonies. You might find something about that same tax paying for the troops stationed both as occupying force but also as protector.
I'm not legitimising the "Stamp Act" - merely explaining why it was levied. The history books will tell you why the American colonials reacted against it as a heinous tax which gave them no power over their own affairs. The "Stamp Act" cost British citizens on UK soil 26 shillings a year while colonials only paid 1 shilling a year. It wasn't the economic effect that upset Adams and others - it was the lack of power the Act implied.
Read your history
it must be embarrassing to have a Brit tell you your own history.
Is the title of the thread about terrorism or about how only Americans can define it? "Terrorism" existed before missiles at Israel - if you are only going to equate terrorism to what the muslims are doing in the Middle East I just shudder to think what other understanding of world events you have.
About the only thing you got right. I'll wait for the standard retort that I must be a "Liberal"...
Do American grade schools teach that "America" was your country before the War of Independence? I'd ask for your school fees back if I were you.
Fabulous. Do you practice at this? You're really good you know, almost convincing.
NO!!! Farc are terrorists, they do not fight for freedom, only for drugs.
No need. Common sense already covers that obvious fact.
Of course.
If the U.S. were abusing the crap out of Idaho and brutally starving that state's families half to death, and it seceded, requiring military engagements against our troops and the overthrow of our officials there, there would be no moral high ground for the U.S. to stand on, just as there wasn't with Britain, even though we were a part of their empire at the time.
And yes, the Stamp Act was about repaying the war debt. And? Is that supposed to have made it legitimate for the British to sodomize our country into gridlock?
Wrong. The scope and cost of the tax was the driving force. The right of the British to even tax us without our consent in the first place was just the argument the colonists put at the center of their protest. It is disingenuous to downplay the impact of the act when it required "all legal documents, permits, commercial contracts, newspapers, wills, pamphlets, and playing cards in the colonies to carry a tax stamp."
Morgan and Morgan pg. 96-97
Pot, meet kettle.
Yeah, your slanted revisionist history sure put me in my place.
And since no one here is limiting the definition of terrorism to the narrow scope of Israel and Hamas (as already explained), this further attempt to condescend, rather than debate, is completely irrelevant. Hint: for us to get anywhere here, you'll have to explain how the colonists degrading a British official carrying out the rape and robbery of your country is even in the same ballpark as actual terrorism (see 9/11). Try again.
I corrected this
stop lowering the IQ of this thread
The threats of violence by which the Sons of Liberty exercised authority in America were transformed by three thousand miles of ocean into an impertinence, and with Parliament, which had dealt with mobs before, replied to the challenge of cramming stamps down American throats. When the Sons of Liberty heard this, they knew that they might have to fight for their rights not against a few helpless stamp distributors, but against the British Army.
To bad we can't bring back Sadam and give the country back to him. Then we could get out.
Tis the most pointless and stupid war that China has ever paid for and our troops have ever died for.
now what a classy thing to say. :roll:
They also swoon when you mention the free health care and great education found in Cuba.How is it that all the liberals think leaving the Iraqis to be slaughtered and bulldozed into mass graves by Saddam was better than getting him out of Iraq? How can they say that "at least he was keeping the country together?" How is that liberal?
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?