Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
You are wrong. According to the times back then, they would NOT have been. If they fought a war that way today, then perhaps so, but really what does this have to do with ANYTHING that is taking place today?
Good point, revolutionists did not purposely go after innocent citizens, torture, maim and murder them.
Why do liberals always bring up ancient history to justify things being done in the present? What happened in the past happened in the past. What happens now is what we deal with.Good point, revolutionists did not purposely go after innocent citizens, torture, maim and murder them.
Unless of course they were black or Native American. George Washington has a history of massacring innocent Native Americans.
Revolutionist attack the military, terrorist attack the civilians. Only a liberal can't see the difference.
Why do liberals always bring up ancient history to justify things being done in the present? What happened in the past happened in the past. What happens now is what we deal with.Good point, revolutionists did not purposely go after innocent citizens, torture, maim and murder them.
Unless of course they were black or Native American. George Washington has a history of massacring innocent Native Americans.
Why do liberals always bring up ancient history to justify things being done in the present? What happened in the past happened in the past. What happens now is what we deal with.Good point, revolutionists did not purposely go after innocent citizens, torture, maim and murder them.
Unless of course they were black or Native American. George Washington has a history of massacring innocent Native Americans.
Did you read what I wrote? Maybe you should go back and see what I wrote.
Also, things that happened in the past happened, you want to ignore the past because.....? I don't know why. Did Washington not do bad things?
The point being here, that you need to look at things from a new perspective but your head is so far up ********* that you won't even listen.
Good point, revolutionists did not purposely go after innocent citizens, torture, maim and murder them.
Unless of course they were black or Native American. George Washington has a history of massacring innocent Native Americans.
Revolutionist attack the military, terrorist attack the civilians. Only a liberal can't see the difference.
No, that's not the definition of a terrorist at all.
You can't change the past. You can only work on changing the present. It's the problems of the present that count because it is the problems of the present we can do something about.Why do liberals always bring up ancient history to justify things being done in the present? What happened in the past happened in the past. What happens now is what we deal with.Good point, revolutionists did not purposely go after innocent citizens, torture, maim and murder them.
Unless of course they were black or Native American. George Washington has a history of massacring innocent Native Americans.
Did you read what I wrote? Maybe you should go back and see what I wrote.
Also, things that happened in the past happened, you want to ignore the past because.....? I don't know why. Did Washington not do bad things?
The point being here, that you need to look at things from a new perspective but your head is so far up ********* that you won't even listen.
Similarly, ‘humanitarian volunteer’ Alan Hemming was travelling in an ‘Aid convoy’ into the darkest place on this Earth, war-torn Syria, because he ‘wanted to help’; ‘wanted to make a difference’, and all the other bullshit phrases used to attempt to excuse the actions of a man who just ‘knew’ that he would be safe, ‘knew’ that he would compete his mission; ‘knew’ that everyone else was wrong, and he alone was ‘right’: going into a muslim maelstrom where no-one is or can be trusted, because, in the end, they all hate us, they call us ‘infidel’, they call us ‘kuffar’.
Things that were acceptable in the past are no longer acceptable in today's world. That is all that needs to be said on that matter. The things that happened hundreds of years are NOT what we are dealing with today.
You can't change the past. You can only work on changing the present. It's the problems of the present that count because it is the problems of the present we can do something about.
Revolutionist attack the military, terrorist attack the civilians. Only a liberal can't see the difference.
No, that's not the definition of a terrorist at all.
Yes it is. Terrorists "terrorize". Hence the word "terrorist."
Follow the money. First thing they do is seize control of the banking systems. Then they begin the plundering of natural resources. And if their puppets don't behave, they remove them by any means necessary. Average Citizens don't benefit from Permanent War. Only the Elites do. Hopefully, Americans will figure that out at some point.
And when they find out they'll be happy because they're getting rich off this.
And who's problem will this be, if and when it happens, as threatened.I CLAIM it's the Brits problem.
Revolutionist attack the military, terrorist attack the civilians. Only a liberal can't see the difference.
No, that's not the definition of a terrorist at all.
Yes it is. Terrorists "terrorize". Hence the word "terrorist."
Oh God, please help me with people who really don't have a clue and make stuff up to suit their needs.
So, they can't terrorize the military then? Hence the word, terrorist?
terrorist definition of terrorist in Oxford dictionary American English US
A person who usesterrorism in the pursuit of politicalaims.
Origin
late 18th century: from French terroriste, from Latin terror (see terror). The word was originally applied to supporters of the Jacobins in the French Revolution, who advocated repression and violence in pursuit of the principles of democracy and equality.
Definition of ldquo terrorist rdquo Collins English Dictionary
a person who employs terror or terrorism, esp as a political weapon
Synonyms
= freedom fighter, bomber, revolutionary, gunman, guerilla, suicide bomber, urban guerilla, cyberterrorist
terrorist definition meaning - what is terrorist in the British English Dictionary Thesaurus - Cambridge Dictionaries Online
someone who uses violentaction, or threats of violentaction, forpoliticalpurposes:
terrorism - definition in the American English Dictionary - Cambridge Dictionaries Online
terrorism
violentaction for political purposes
So, do you see the term civilians here?
Things that were acceptable in the past are no longer acceptable in today's world. That is all that needs to be said on that matter. The things that happened hundreds of years are NOT what we are dealing with today.
Hence the reason why I said "would have been", it's grammar, it's not difficult, yet people who don't seem to understand the difference between verb tenses will hammer me for it anyway.
I didn't say the foundering fathers WERE, I said "would have been", ie, if they were in the modern era they WOULD HAVE BEEN considered terrorists.
Jeez, it's impossible on a board where people can't even do ENGLISH.
You can't change the past. You can only work on changing the present. It's the problems of the present that count because it is the problems of the present we can do something about.
A) I didn't write this to change the past. However you can LEARN from the past.
B) I said this to show what it means to people to be a terrorist. It's the same as being a freedom fighter, only, it's the negative word for it, for the perspective of those who don't support them.
The British though the founding fathers wrong. Hence, why they WOULD HAVE BEEN (If you don't know the grammar it isn't MY fault) considered terrorists by the British at least, and probably the Russians and anyone who wasn't the French.
Now comes the most crucial determination, what are the differences between terrorists and freedom fighters. If they both have similar methods and goals, how do we discern one from the other? The most glaring difference is that of target selection. Where both will target the occupation forces, freedom fighters attempt to avoid collateral deaths among the people they purport to be helping while the terrorists often target those they are supposedly assisting. Freedom fighters will often own up and apologize when their actions go awry and the indigenous population suffers from their actions while terrorists blame the occupation forces for forcing them to attack and kill the indigenous population. Basically this is the major and defining difference but it is a most serious and easily observable difference. The next time somebody argues that the terrorists are simply freedom fighters whose motives we happen to disagree upon, just tell them that the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists is denoted by their targeting strategy. If they have a narrow scope aimed at inflicting damage solely on the occupation forces, then they are freedom fighters, but if they target indiscriminately or intentionally target the indigenous peoples, then they are terrorists. It is that simple.
O may take some action on this next target by ISIS. Boy ISIS is sure begging him to, as this next American had converted to Islam:I'm glad O has our back.
