I will speak for my previous life as a tea loving Bostonian when I say it was very traumatic to see all that fine tea going into the bay. If that's how they treat something as sacred as tea imagine what they'd do to people!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist

can't see why it's a disputed article though....?

The difference between a terrorist and a hero is who's defining it.


To Sadaam Hussein, terrorists are heros.

To *Americans* our troops are heros.




Of course, in our world there are absolutes, and the fact that terrorists are terrorists is one of them. Michael Moore would have you believe that terrorists are courageous minutemen, but it's not so.


Thanks God that our heros are wasting theirs.

Terrorism-The use force and or theats to frighten people, governments, ect. into cooperating.

Is that not what the sons of liberty was trying to do. Frighten the british monarch into cooperating so they could form their own country

Originally Posted by rkmac48

The difference between a terrorist and a hero is who's defining it.[/i].

Thats what Ive been saying that whole time. Im not sure if I made it claer enough though. If i didn't then its my fault. You have to look at it in the eyes of other people.

And Whispering Death I was never compareing Washington to Bin Laden I was simply using the as examples. The tar and feathering wasn't used as a form of punishment for the example i said. It was a use of force to show the british that they wouldn't listen.

It all depends on who wins the battle at the end. Should Iraq have defended against the American invasion, it would be the Americans who terrorized Iraqis with their "shock and awe" methods. But since America was victorous, any action taken by Iraqi forces are considered acts of terror.

Originally Posted by rkmac48

The difference between a terrorist and a hero is who's defining it.

That is what I'm saying. During America's Revolutionary War the British early American attacks were terrorism, but most patriots thought it acts of herosim.

Originally Posted by Desert_Eagle

That is what I'm saying. During America's Revolutionary War the British early American attacks were terrorism, but most patriots thought it acts of herosim.

Again, look at the methods they use and who they target and it becomes clear (what is this Groudhog Day?).

Originally Posted by Gunner13

Again, look at the methods they use and who they target and it becomes clear (what is this Groudhog Day?).

I think you are arguing terrorism as a definition verses the popular use of the word.
I am not doubting your definition's correctness but the "real" use of the word has come to symbolise pretty much anyone who fights back against a larger and recognised authority.

Originally Posted by MontyB

I think you are arguing terrorism as a definition verses the popular use of the word.

Not arguing anything, we are having a discussion about what terrorism is and is not.

Originally Posted by MontyB

I am not doubting your definition's correctness but the "real" use of the word has come to symbolise pretty much anyone who fights back against a larger and recognised authority

Very likely, which is just intellectually sloppy and can lead to a waste of time and energy (just look at the postings trying to compare appels and oranges in this thread )

Not arguing anything, we are having a discussion about what terrorism is and is not.

My mistake what I should have said was I think you are using the true definition of the term terrorism where others are using the popular definition of the word.