By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 17 October 2008
Edit Thread
akuma587 said:
Kasz216 said:
akuma587 said:
fkusumot said:
akuma587 said:

Do I really need a link to claim that some people living in the Middle East during the Gulf War were not happy we intervened at that some Americans took offense to that?

But I still maintain my claim that it is a little bit hypocritical of us to take such an unsympathetic view towards terrorists when many of the Founders of our country were actually terrorists.

 

Freedom fighters. Maybe this is a semantic argument but I don't think so. I wouldn't call Robert E. Lee a terrorist either. I'm not trying to make an argument for some "just cause" or moral certitude. I'm just saying there's a difference between war, a popular uprising and Timothy McVeigh. Not that I'm disagreeing with you, akuma587, if your designation of (some of?) the Founding Fathers as terrorists was meant to frame them in a notional context that seems to turn the neocon view back on itself.

In other news, Gallup has Obama back at 50%, McCain at 43%. The road to 270 Electoral Votes seems increasingly more likely to go Obama's way then McCain's way.

No, I totally agree with you, but I am just saying whether or not someone is a terrorist or a freedom fighter depends on what side of the coin you look at many of the times.  Not in every, or maybe even most situations, but enough that the distinction can be arbitrary sometimes.

 

I tottally don't get what your point is though.  You think it's hypocritical that we feel worse against people trying to attack us... and as bad vs people not attacking us?

I'd argue that the "attacking us" angle would negate hypocrisy on that.

 

 

If they attack us on our home soil, then yes, there really is no question about it that they are acting as a terrorist.

But to claim that anyone is a radical and extreme terrorist who attacks foreign soldiers on their soil who have destroyed much of their country and many of the people close to them in an "attempt" to liberate that country is taking a simplistic view of the situation.  I am not saying the people in that foreign country should attack the foreign soldiers, but I can understand why they do it.

I'll just give an example.  Say China helped us dethrone a dictator who had taken control of our government.  But in the process China had destroyed a great deal of our land, and killed millions of innocent Americans while trying to depose the dictator.  And then after that was all over they left troops here for a decade.  Sometimes the troops would accidentally kill a bunch of innocent Americans while trying to root out any of the remaining followers of the dictator.  Do you think Americans would hold it against other Americans who shot some Chinese troops who had killed their families or blew up some of the Chinese troops vehicles in an attempt to get them to leave?  Are they terrorists?


I would... and yes i'd consider those Americans terrorists. 

Since they would assumingly be keeping the troops here via the support of our now democratically elected government. (Since this is an Iraq paralel.)

If they kept troops here after the government told them to get out.  Then we'd have a problem.

Until then they are no different then our own soldiers accidently killing our own people in the defense of our lands.  Accidents happen sometimes.