Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-19-2015, 08:59 PM
 
Location: SoCal & Mid-TN
2,325 posts, read 2,638,728 times
Reputation: 2869

Advertisements

Depends on which side you were on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-19-2015, 09:36 PM
 
Location: Asia
2,768 posts, read 1,570,110 times
Reputation: 3049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir View Post
What does leading an organized army have to do with whether or not someone is considered a terrorist.
Actions, obviously.

GW did not engage in acts of terror. GW engaged in battles against an opposing organized army, not a civilian population.

US law (18 U.S.C. § 2331) defines domestic terrorism as follows:


"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
  • Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
  • Appear 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
  • Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
The Canadian Criminal Code adopts a general approach in providing that ‘terrorist activity’ means:


(b) an act or omission, in or outside Canada,
  • (i) that is committed
    • (A) in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause; and,(B) in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the public or the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada
In New Zealand, a ‘Terrorist act’ is defined by s 5 of the Terrorism Suppression Act:

...an act is a ‘terrorist act’ if it ... is carried out for the purpose of advancing an ideological, political, or religious cause, and ... to induce terror in a civilian population...

In South Africa, a ‘terrorist act’ means an unlawful act... which is ... likely to intimidate the public or a segment of the public.

It seems obvious, to me, at least, that even given the difficulty nations have traditionally had at agreeing on a single definition of terrorism, acts of terror must be directed at civilian/public populations rather than organized armies in order for an act to be defined as terrorism.

As such, it is difficult to imagine that GW was a terrorist in the context of his actins in the American war for Independence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir View Post
Take Che Guevara terrorist or freedom fighter?
These terms are not mutually exclusive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir View Post
Depends on who you ask doesn't it.
No. Depends on the definition of terrorism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir View Post
To some he's a freedom fighter who fought for his ideals regardless of the methods he needed to employ, to others he's a terrorist who used inhuman methods to achieve his ends. It's all just a matter of perspective.
No, it isn't just a matter of perspective. Che was a freedom fighter who used terrorism in an attempt to achieve his goals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2015, 07:18 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,866 posts, read 46,369,581 times
Reputation: 18520
Quote:
Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow View Post
You fail. There is a difference between this:




And killing innocent people for funsies. Those people enjoying their drink/meal on the sidewalk cafe were not part of an army. Those people at the rock concert were not part of an army. Those people at the soccer game were not part of an army. The people on the train going to work were not part of an army. The people in the World Trade centers were workers, civilians, not part of an army. The people on the planes were not part of an army.

There is no hypocrisy. There is false allegations, and spinning of details to fit your sick agenda, but no, the majority here would NOT SIGN UP to strap on a suicide vest and go kill a bunch of innocents who had nothing to do with any of it. Stop excusing terrorism, it's disgusting and vile. Make me want to puke.

Now, you understand what a Holy War is..... It is not about Armies... It is about your religion.

Onward Christian Soldier.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2015, 07:50 AM
 
756 posts, read 422,019 times
Reputation: 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
Was George Washington considered a terrorist against great Britain?

There were militias, fighting those that disagreed with them and their freedom.
Killing many, was the mission to rule themselves.
It really is rather disgusting and intellectually lazy considering the wealth of information available
that people can draw some kind of moral equivalence to how we have behaved during warfare to how
they currently behave in the middle east.

We don't cut people's heads off while they are pleading for their lives and post videos of it.

We don't forcibly conscript children to become suicide bombers
Child suicide bombers find safe haven - CNN.com

We don't hide weapons in mosques, schools and hospitals
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...s-and-schools/

There REALLY IS no morally equivalency for how they conduct themselves compared to our behavior.
We certainly are not without guilt but to pretend that the same term applies to us as applies to a group who forcibly conscript children to become suicide bombers or take automatic weapons and slaughter unarmed civilians or behead people while they are pleading for their lives and then post the videos on the internet, is really beyond the pale.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2015, 10:59 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,866 posts, read 46,369,581 times
Reputation: 18520
Quote:
Originally Posted by getitgotitgood View Post
It really is rather disgusting and intellectually lazy considering the wealth of information available
that people can draw some kind of moral equivalence to how we have behaved during warfare to how
they currently behave in the middle east.

We don't cut people's heads off while they are pleading for their lives and post videos of it.

We don't forcibly conscript children to become suicide bombers
Child suicide bombers find safe haven - CNN.com

We don't hide weapons in mosques, schools and hospitals
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...s-and-schools/

There REALLY IS no morally equivalency for how they conduct themselves compared to our behavior.
We certainly are not without guilt but to pretend that the same term applies to us as applies to a group who forcibly conscript children to become suicide bombers or take automatic weapons and slaughter unarmed civilians or behead people while they are pleading for their lives and then post the videos on the internet, is really beyond the pale.

There are no rules in a revolution.....

War is bloody hell, and what ever it takes to defeat your enemy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2015, 11:11 AM
 
756 posts, read 422,019 times
Reputation: 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
There are no rules in a revolution.....

War is bloody hell, and what ever it takes to defeat your enemy.
Your trying to draw some moral equivalence with George Washington and the people we call terrorists today, in ISIS and others from the middle east.

There IS no comparison as even a casual glance at history will show you.
We don't forcibly conscript children and use them as human bombs, we don't slice people's heads off while we film it for the internet. We don't shoot people up in cafes or theaters.

I will also remind you that these terrorists also come from a culture and a religion with "honor killings" where it's acceptable for a father to kill his own daughter for looking at a boy
the wrong way or not wearing the proper head gear. A culture where women are treated like property and stoned to death for the "crime" of being raped. A culture where they call for your death for drawing a cartoon! Is it any wonder why they behave like they do in war?

The only place you have close to something supporting an argument here is when our governement supports or turns a blind eye to regimes that commit these attrocities as we did with Saddam and with many others.

But are our soldiers or George Washington "terrorists" in the same vein as these monsters?
Hell no!

Last edited by getitgotitgood; 11-20-2015 at 11:20 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2015, 11:16 AM
 
5,756 posts, read 3,979,244 times
Reputation: 2308
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty View Post
Was George Washington considered a terrorist against Britain? Or was Britain the terrorist against the Colonies?

Neither.

Word wasn't invented until 1795.
Would that be in France when they tried to assassinate Napoleon ?
If I remember they paid a young girl to hold a horse & wagon filled with explosives on Napoleon carriage route ...Boom!

Traitors would be the word the King would use to describe our Founding Fathers...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2015, 11:32 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,866 posts, read 46,369,581 times
Reputation: 18520
Quote:
Originally Posted by getitgotitgood View Post
Your trying to draw some moral equivalence with George Washington and the people we call terrorists today, in ISIS and others from the middle east.

I'm not trying. I'm telling you you're clueless to understand, you(yes you) have been thrown into a WAR you do not understand. War is War and Terrorist, Terrorism and anything Terroristic, is WAR. There is no such thing as Terrorists. There are only soldiers in battle, using all means possible to eliminate the enemy.

In this case it is over religion and the 7th century Caliphate, being reignited.
A Caliphate, only the Crusades could fight back.

Time to pick sides, because Evil will exploit your good, tolerance and forgiveness..... every time!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2015, 12:53 PM
 
756 posts, read 422,019 times
Reputation: 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
I'm not trying. I'm telling you you're clueless to understand, you(yes you) have been thrown into a WAR you do not understand. War is War and Terrorist, Terrorism and anything Terroristic, is WAR. There is no such thing as Terrorists. There are only soldiers in battle, using all means possible to eliminate the enemy.

In this case it is over religion and the 7th century Caliphate, being reignited.
A Caliphate, only the Crusades could fight back.

Time to pick sides, because Evil will exploit your good, tolerance and forgiveness..... every time!!!
No. It is you who is wrong. That's why we have a concept called war crimes and they are considered among the gravest crimes in international law. If there are no lines or boundaries drawn, it would lead to excusing something like the holocaust. After all, it happened during a war, right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2015, 02:33 PM
 
Location: Madison, WI
5,295 posts, read 2,333,342 times
Reputation: 1227
Quote:
Originally Posted by getitgotitgood View Post
No. It is you who is wrong. That's why we have a concept called war crimes and they are considered among the gravest crimes in international law. If there are no lines or boundaries drawn, it would lead to excusing something like the holocaust. After all, it happened during a war, right?
My take is that you look at things for what they are. You can use whatever language and terms you want, but what is actually being done, and is that wrong or immoral?

I think the Islamic terrorists are wrong if they are the aggressors. I don't think Washington and the colonists did anything wrong because King George was the aggressor. (And actually, I think each individual should be judged by their actions rather than grouping them all together. If it's self-defense or defending others, fine. If it's initiating violence against innocent people, that's wrong.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top