Nelson Mandela

[calfoxwc]

NO, no, no.

Terrorists are not oppressed. They are just fine, except they demand

that things be changed to be their way. It isn't a lack of freedom, or tyranny.

They want themselves, and their ideology to be supreme. And the way they try

to implement it, is via extreme, horrific violence, to force everyone to be oppressed

by their ideology.

A true freedom fighter, is the one who is oppressed by an ideolgoy - being denied his

freedom, his safety, his rights to life in peace and safety and freedom.

Terrorists don't want freedom, they actually want slavery, and they want themselves

and the rest of their ilk, to be the slave masters.

Freedom fighters never want to be oppressors - that's what they are fighting against.

One man's "cute" turnabout saying, is another mans really stupid crap he heard.

A freedom fighter is the opposite of a terrorist. Someone who fights/shoots in self-defense

against armed violence is the opposite of someone who initiates the armed aggression.

This all started with liberals in schools trying to convince students that they shouldn't believe

in anything but what they are told in class, because words can be redefined to twist reality

and common sense into confusion and garbage.

Critical thinking, that's my critical thinking lecture for December. It's my birthday present to myself. GGG

[Westside Steve]

Is today your birthday? Well break out the root beer! But I don't agree with you with your separation of the definitions. Terrorism in itself is merely a tactic which includes targeting innocent people to, well, terrorize the opposition. It doesn't necessarily mean that your cause wouldn't be seen as just by many people it is a means to an end. Most terrorists that we can think of today use the banner of justice freedom blah blah blah to justify their acts of violence. If Arafat kills innocent peoplein the guise of freedom for the Palestinians then some will consider him a freedom fighter.

WSS

[Westside Steve]

And Chris, I wouldn't expect you to care about George Washington today. It's tough to get worked up over 18th century politics. I kind of meant at the time. How do the English feel about the struggles in Ireland these days? It seems that has exited the front page for quite a while.

WSS

[calfoxwc]

Is today your birthday? Well break out the root beer! But I don't agree with you with your separation of the definitions. Terrorism in itself is merely a tactic which includes targeting innocent people to, well, terrorize the opposition. It doesn't necessarily mean that your cause wouldn't be seen as just by many people it is a means to an end. Most terrorists that we can think of today use the banner of justice freedom blah blah blah to justify their acts of violence. If Arafat kills innocent peoplein the guise of freedom for the Palestinians then some will consider him a freedom fighter.
WSS

********************************************

Not really, it's the 18th. I understand what you're saying, but freeedom fighters don't target innocent people

as a tactic. Never.

Sure, folks of the same, sick and twisted ideology, support terrorism. I'm sure they probably want some justification

for carrying out their hideous, unwarranted violence.

But I disagree that you are correct about disagreeing with me.... Some extremely hateful Arabic people think

of Israelis as not human. The nazis did the same thing. That they thought that doesn't change the definitions of

words, to infer that they were correct in any way. Freedom fighters fight against tyrants, ...terrorists fight

against the helpless and innocent.

[Westside Steve]

Well let's make the nazis our example, everybody hates them and they are universal e known as the worlds bad guys.

Do you believe we firebombed Dresden because we truly believed it was a military target? Do you believe that the British bombed residential neighborhoods in order to eliminate the workers at German defense plants? Do you think General Sherman contained his reign of terror to military targets only?

You I think that the revolutionary war rebels abstained from killing civilians for no other reason than being loyal to the crown?

Its one thing to claim all is fair in love and war but quite another to deny that both sides have bloody hands.

WSS

[Westside Steve]

So let me ask this. Do you believe Nelson Mandela's cause was justified?

And do you think he targeted innocent people?

WSS

[calfoxwc]

I know little of that history....was just going on Mandela's reputation in his later years.

Beats me.

But you are talking about collateral damage. Let's talk about Hiroshima. That wasn't

civilian deaths terrorism.

That was all out self defense to stop the hideous terrorism against Pearl Harbor and

our people and all those soldiers.

The war against the nazis was all in the world's self-defense against terror and oppression.

Unwarranted hideous violence reaps warranted violence, even if it has to be hideous.

A terrorist murders innocent people on purpose. A freedom fighter kills terrorists, sometimes

with collateral damage, deaths to civilians, regrettably.

To freedom fighters, there is no point to unwarranted killing. That's murder. They are the oppressed.

To terrorists, unwarranted murders are the whole idea for power and rise of their twisted ideology.

[gftChris]

@calfoxwc said:

I know little of that history....was just going on Mandela's reputation in his later years.

Beats me.

But you are talking about collateral damage. Let's talk about Hiroshima. That wasn't

civilian deaths terrorism.

That was all out self defense to stop the hideous terrorism against Pearl Harbor and

our people and all those soldiers.

The war against the nazis was all in the world's self-defense against terror and oppression.

Unwarranted hideous violence reaps warranted violence, even if it has to be hideous.

A terrorist murders innocent people on purpose. A freedom fighter kills terrorists, sometimes

with collateral damage, deaths to civilians, regrettably.

To freedom fighters, there is no point to unwarranted killing. That's murder. They are the oppressed.

To terrorists, unwarranted murders are the whole idea for power and rise of their twisted ideology.

To play devil's advocate a bit here - because I agree with you in general but not on this point - you can't drop an atomic bomb on a city and unintentionally kill innocent people. It's not a discriminate weapon, you can't just target military sites. And on top of that, you do something like that, you're basically saying "stop what you're doing or we'll kill all of you" - one could make an argument that that's terrorism, scaring people in to submission.

[Westside Steve]

Lest we forget exactly why Japan bombed Pearl Harbor... Japan was in the midst of a war with China and the United States actively came in to that conflict on the side of China. We helped the Chinese with the blockade. Japan, probably correctly, assumed we were looking for a reason to after the battle in full stride and would soon.

in the minds of the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor was a preemptive strike. Just saying.

WSS

[Schopenhauer]

@westside-steve said:

Do you think General Sherman contained his reign of terror to military targets only?

Yes, Sherman targeted "civilian resources" in the Savannah Campaign foreshadowing the "total war" approach that would become fashionable in the 20th century. Not the nicest way to be ahead of your time but there it is, American's have always been innovators.

Grant's orginal plan had called for a massive (read "biggest ever") cavalry incursion into the deep south to destroy the same resources. It was going to happen one way or another, the South could not stop it and may even be grateful that Sherman exercised some restraint. A massive calvary raid would have been too fast-moving and wide-ranging to exercise that same level of restraint, and might be why Grant decided against it ultimately.

Reign of terror is just a poor comparison though. You might be aware that the original "reign of terror" (where we get the name today, also simply known as "the terror") actually happened in France and was accompanied by about 35,000 executions through guillotine and firing squads alone. Nothing Sherman ever did comes close to that and you my friend are doing the good General a serious disservice with the comparision. I get your point, sure, however you have no evidence of any reign of terror on his part, no matter how many southern legends say otherwise.

Talk like the following is nonsense: The troops, she said, had been commanded by a man "more evil than Ivan the Terrible or Genghis Khan." Pure hyperbole. If that were true he would have tortured their southern accents out of them...if any survived. Genghis would burn your city and kill everyone just to make a point, it's on record.

That said, bonus points for using "reign" correctly. Many folks just type whatever works (rain, rein, reign). And yes, bloody hands were everywhere during the US Civil War....then we took what we learned and went after the Natives...

[Westside Steve]

I don't think you measure the brutality scale on numbers alone. Sherman certainly didn't butcher as many people as Khan but those he did probably weren't thinking they got off easy.

My point, however, is that terrorism is killing innocent people whether it be 10 in a cafe or 3000 in an office building or 500 in a civilian neighborhood or...

WSS

[Schopenhauer]

@westside-steve said:

I don't think you measure the brutality scale on numbers alone. Sherman certainly didn't butcher as many people as Khan but those he did probably weren't thinking they got off easy.

My point, however, is that terrorism is killing innocent people whether it be 10 in a cafe or 3000 in an office building or 500 in a civilian neighborhood or...

WSS

Here's some butchery for you.

It's curious that someone like Nathan Bedford Forrest never makes anyone's list, while Sherman is painted as a ghoul. Perhaps you've heard of Forrest's butchering prisoners and civilians at Fort Pillow, "one of the bleakest, saddest events of American military history" says Military Historian David Eicher. Historian Andrew Ward reached the conclusion that an atrocity in the modern sense occurred at Fort Pillow, including the murders of fleeing black civilians. THAT is butchering people under a military flag. Sherman was a General, Forrest, once a General, became a butcher at Fort Pillow.

More butchery in this next example. Ever heard of the Moro Massacre? Mark Twain did, here is what he thought about it.

Again, granted, Sherman butchered natives, lots of them, his real acts of terrorism, which are never discussed, because then we would have to feel bad for the natives, and we can't do that in the US because, after all, the natives have a legitimate claim to the land here. The southerners, on the other hand, lined up to fight and die for their country and took the first shots at Fort Sumpter. Sherman merely outgeneraled them and obliged them.

[Schopenhauer]

@calfoxwc said:

A freedom fighter is the opposite of a terrorist. Someone who fights/shoots in self-defense

against armed violence is the opposite of someone who initiates the armed aggression.

This all started with liberals in schools trying to convince students that they shouldn't believe

in anything but what they are told in class, because words can be redefined to twist reality

and common sense into confusion and garbage.

Critical thinking, that's my critical thinking lecture for December. It's my birthday present to myself. GGG

Quite an assertion, ironic that you refer to critical thinking and twisting reality and common sense into garbage.

Seems like history has worked against you. Consider the Vietnam Era. Conservative opinions held sway in most academic institutions and "liberal" students out and out rejected what they were hearing in the classroom. Conservatives did not start the anti-war movements, they believed what they were told in and out of class exactly as you say. This still has consequences to this day as the faculty felt betrayed by these students who would not toe the line; and students felt betrayed by faculty who would flunk them out into the army for their beliefs. Remember "don't trust anyone over 30?" Liberals were that challenge to the existing authority. To be clear, conservatives were not shot at at Kent State, remember?

So, while there are undoubtedly some "intellectually militant" liberal fools trying to do what you describe these days, there is obviously nowhere near the intensity that you seem to be hoping for. I've faced them down myself, plenty of times. They are full of bluster but there is nowhere near enough evidence to say that the pendulum has swung completely in the opposite direction and that people are going to get shot today due to defying liberalism.

You mentioned a lecture, how about the roots of conservatism versus the roots of liberalism? Let's go way back to Galileo. He knew the Earth wasn't flat and that it revolved around the sun. However, since the church was trying to CONSERVE its authority on every subject, Galileo knew the church would kill him and declined to defend his beliefs and published after his death. When Isaac Newton came along a 100 years later he used logic and reason to LIBERATE individuals from the absolute authority that the church had conserved for hundreds of years. His scientific theories proved that the church was wrong about certain things, and if they were wrong about some things, perhaps they were wrong about other things too, in fact, maybe they were wrong about EVERYTHING else too. It snowballed from there. Bottom line, we little people could finally have a say too, provided we were rational and logical.

There it is in a nutshell. Yes, there are some irrational and illogical people in schools today, yet you can't just hand all the power and the blame over to them like you seem to want to do. Yes, they suck, but they are not the absolute authority.

Also, I wasn't aware of this, were you? Why do you use it in your post?

"GGG stands for Good, Giving, and Game. More specifically: good in bed, giving equal time and equal pleasure, and game for anything—within reason. The term was coined by Dan Savage, gay author and sex advice columnist for the Stranger."

[MLD Woody]

lol new guy

[calfoxwc]

Conservative opinions held sway in most academic institutions and "liberal" students out and out rejected what they were hearing in the classroom.

To be clear, conservatives were not shot at at Kent State, remember? Shopen

************************************************************************************************************

Wrong. My experience was at Kent State University. And before I started attending, after I worked for a year

first, to pay off my beautiful '66 Chevy Belaire, 4 door, maroon metallic.... I was in a sociology class

at Kent. Some communist witch prof was talking about how our country was the worst, the American people

were stupid and imperilists, blah blah commie blah,... and I challenged her. I made her look like a pile

of commie pigeon poo. And I got a standing ovation from the rest of the class. See, I was only visiting that day,

going to soc class with my best friend. Know what? She blew her stack, yelled at realizing I wasn't even

a student in her class, and ordered me to leave, the class laughed at her, and some long haired kid threw open

the door and said the National Guard just murdered a bunch of students.

Yes, do tell me about May 4th. I'm all ears.

So, later, at Kent, I was in argumentation class. My assignment was "conservatism is a lowering political force

that threatens to ring in a new Dark Age". So, in my brief, which I also won a debate on, was a grade of D-.

hah. I went to the Dean, with a copy, deleted grade, with a complaint. He read it overnight, and the next day,

said it was very, very excellent, and even if he were a bastard and hated me personally, he couldn't give it

less than a B-. So, he asked what grade I got. I told him "D-", and he just shook his head and told me

who my instructor was. A noted anti war, very socialist. So, that and other lib crap led me to quit school,

enlist, and go back later with my GI bill. I wouldn't have to borrow money, or work, to pay, and I'd know better

of what I wanted to do, etc.

Two years later. Yeah, go ahead and tell me about Kent. All too often, liberals WERE the "authority".

Academic freedom. bah.

Did you know, that there were rocks being hauled in, in burlap bags before the riots? Yep. Did you know

that the freaks went out later, and picked them up? Yep.

Did you know I have a set of pics somewhere, of the national guard, and of two tall, long haired freaks

I'd never seen before, harrassing a lone National Guardsmen guarding several troop trucks and jeeps?

I once won a debate at that class. About "anti war riots and rallies are bringing about

the end of the Vietnam War.".

I had most of the class against my position before the debate. Afterwards, all but 4 of 48 students

were on my side. So, after that class, some big hippie who wasn't even in the class, but a friend of

one of the weirdly hateful hippies who was in the class, grabbed my shirt and put me up against the wall,

and wanted to know where I lived, because I was part of the bourgeouis (okay, I can't spell it) military

industrial something, and warned me they were going to get me.

I had friends, who also had friends, and that whole situation never, ever happened. And the one guy

was afraid to walk near me, for whatever reason, afterwards. He'd see me, and look down, reverse his direction,

and walk away.

I don't know how it got resolved, one lady friend wouldn;t

tell me, except smiling, she said I was perfectly safe.

Oh, and "GGG" is generally me saying "multiple grins", as compared to "LOL". I don't know what

the hell you are talking about, but I gather I won't use it anymore....

Here, "LOL", "ROF,L", and "MYOB".

Have a nice day.

[MLD Woody]

Man, when I'm old I hope I don't make up ridiculous college stories.

"So Denard couldn't play. I took the field and scored the game winning drive"

"My MIT graduate Prof was wrong, so I got up and debated him on his mistake and won. Then I beat him in chess. Everyone cheered and we all got free ice cream!"

Maybe Cal was that annoying kid in the lecture that always raises his hand to make a statement and try to "show how much he knows". Or corrects to teachers spelling mistake. Or whatever he has to do to make it seem like he's better than everyone.

[koalabazooka]

Schopenhauer is going in on this Forum!

[The Cysko Kid]

@gftchris said:

To play devil's advocate a bit here - because I agree with you in general but not on this point - you can't drop an atomic bomb on a city and unintentionally kill innocent people. It's not a discriminate weapon, you can't just target military sites. And on top of that, you do something like that, you're basically saying "stop what you're doing or we'll kill all of you" - one could make an argument that that's terrorism, scaring people in to submission.

Dropping the atom bomb was a mercy in a way because we would had to kill 85% of all Japanese if wed invaded the islands. The other 15% would likely have killed themselves. Their propoganda machine was strong.

[calfoxwc]

Self defense is not terrorism.

egad, the way words are used, misused, and abused.

It is nice, to be old enough to tell stories.

Especially when they are true, at worst, "95 percent true".

But to never have a story to tell, you know you are a kid

who grew up in your room, eek.

[MLD Woody]

I have no stories? Awe....

Using words incorrectly, like "self defense"?