User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/12/2002 7:27:27 PM EDT
[#1]
I am a devout pacifist, and would never support anybody owning weapons or hurting another life for any reason. Guns are bad. Love is good.
Revolution cannot succeed without popular support. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2002 7:32:14 PM EDT
[#2]
McVeigh is a hero to me.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2002 7:35:03 PM EDT
[#3]
Quoted: Revolution cannot succeed without popular support. I agree, and popular support is often easily swayed. Sgtar15 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2002 7:37:50 PM EDT
[#4]
Government is good. Guns are bad. Sway that.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2002 7:38:28 PM EDT
[#5]
McVeigh was a patsy.
echo6 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2002 7:40:37 PM EDT
[#6]
Did you know only 1/3 of the original 13 colony's population supported the revolution . Change is usually brought on by a dedicated minority of people . Terrorism directed at a populace never works , it only works when selectively applied in such a way that gets the government to react in such a way that their actions sway popular support toward the 'rebels' .
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2002 7:50:06 PM EDT
[#7]
EXACTLY Mortech!!! Someone does understand!!
Sgtar15 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2002 7:51:59 PM EDT
[#8]
NOTICE: for any liberals visiting these guys are just messin around and being sarcastic.
anyhow. Ruby ridge is one thing but wacko waco is another thing entirely. I admit the atf screwed that one up and attacked unprovoked but that kadesh guy was one screwed up mfer and it was said that there were hostages being held and several laws (good laws) being broken including some cases of rape. I have remorse that the atf screwed it up and got alot of innocent people killed. But for Kadesh and those who were planning domestic terrorism such as bombing a federal building and those who held hostages and raped helpless women I have NO remorse and belive very strongly that they got off easy by being killed the way they did. ole timothy mcveigh or whatever that POS name was should have been slowly roasted alive along with his other skinhead pals. I admit that change needs to come to this country. But when you consider innocent people including children to be "collatteral damage" then you are not just part of the problem you are worse than the current problem at hand. It needs to be remembered that we cannot change this country with our long heritaged values and morals if we move away from and contradict those principles in the process. end of story. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2002 7:54:15 PM EDT
[#9]
Wolf, you mean Koresh?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2002 7:54:24 PM EDT
[#10]
Why? For the same reason I hate foriegn terrorist. You don't sway public opinion by killing or hurting inocent people. Yeah, I think McViegh was set up, but he played right into it and got the punishment he deserved for even being a part of it, no matter who was really behind it.
Waco and Ruby Ridge, there was no initiation of violence on their part, they got shot at first. ...no I don't like Randy Weaver and I think Koresh was Wacko in Waco, but neither were hurting anyone. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2002 7:58:05 PM EDT
[#11]
Theres a whole lot of worthwhile targets to hit for any one with a real agenda. But all this terrorist BS is like our own GOVT,or any other coward, they only pick on the easy stuff, that cant fight back. Come on, piss ant cherry bombs in mail boxes to hurt innocent rural folks to create a map of a smiley face across the country? What did that really do? NADA.
Skin him alive and leave him for the buzzards. What about making a real difference on legitimate targets? Like no more gas purchases from any company that imports middle east oil. No more business with middle east owned business. Im treating them like K mart. They will get none of my hard earned pesos to support their agendas. viva la revolicion Pancho Lebrew |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2002 7:58:21 PM EDT
[#12]
The USA was built on the blood and guts of the Chinease and the blacks on land taken from the Indians and the Mexicans. Now how moral was that WolfAR15?
I in no way support innocent civilian deaths, but if you thing this country will change on voting and protesting alone I feel you or sadly mistaken. Sgtar15 PS For any liberals currently reading this....[b]YOU ARE THE PROBLEM!!![/b] |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2002 8:26:06 PM EDT
[#13]
We hate them because Terrorists are assholes.
When you kill innocents you are THE PROBLEM as much as the tyranical government you think you are attacking. When McVeigh, or whoever, blew up the Fed building he killed mostly a bunch of people lucky enough to have good government jobs with benefits. Most of these people didn't like their boss, the government, any more than you like your boss. Also killed were people in the surrounding area, mostly children, and probably a very small handful of "evil governmnet people." Janet Reno, Bill Clinton, etc. were not harmed. The government was also NOT disabled in any way. The only thing that DID happen was a whole bunch of ordinary people who probably would have agreed with and been sympathetic to your cause now no longer give a shit. The only thing they care about is you killed their kid over your stupid cause. Terrorist are assholes, anyone who supports terrorism is an asshole. For example, I personally am very opposed to large amounts of US tax dollars being sent to Israel, but I sure as hell wouldn't support the killing of innocent people to bring that to an end. The solution is to defend ourselves FROM terrorist acts like Waco and Ruby Ridge. We must be sure the truth is know and the terrorists exposed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2002 8:52:13 PM EDT
[#14]
Steyr is right. Anyone who is a terrorist or advocates terrorism is an enemy in need of being dealt with. The fact that there are people on this site who would readily post something like this is cause for grave concern. I wonder how such logic would play amongst those brave men and women of the WWII generation? The problem with America is that we have lost our belief in ourselves and in our fellow citizens/community. We need to find a way to restore this. Anti-gun folks believe that disarming America is a means to that end, we believe that an armed society is a polite society and so-on it goes! The fact is that we need to teach ourselves and our kids about things like personal responsibility, civic duty, and the consequences of poor actions. Instead we have psychologists who blame everything and everyone but the offender's own stupid choices, and lawyers who win cases with more and more absurd defenses. The politicians only reflect the illogical opinions and misconceptions of their constituents in order to keep their jobs. Its a vicious circle that needs to be broken. If the culture can be regained, the politicians and courts will follow suit and the rights, liberties, and freedoms our nation was founded on will be preserved. There won't be any homegrown terrorists, just like there weren't any 100 years ago. I still believe in America!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2002 8:56:38 PM EDT
[#15]
Yes Steyr, playing the role of protecting our own has worked very well hasn't it? Ever here the phrase the best defense is a good offense?
I think you missed my point (again). I am not saying that anyone should target innocent civilians, what I am saying is that true change in this country will not come from the voters box but probably other violent means. I do not wish this but think it probably is the way that it will happen. Terrorism has always been and always will be an effective tool for this. Sgtar15 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2002 8:58:12 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted: When you kill innocents you are THE PROBLEM as much as the tyrannical government you think you are attacking. Beat me to it SteyrAUG. Attacking the government doesn't make anyone an asshole in my book. Attacking innocents does. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2002 8:58:51 PM EDT
[#17]
sgtar15, if change DOES come to this country through violence, it won't be good change. You can bank on it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2002 8:59:35 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted: Steyr is right. Anyone who is a terrorist or advocates terrorism is an enemy in need of being dealt with! And that is exactly what Great Britian was doing during the 1770's, remember?? The differance is we were the terrorist then. Fact is this: It is terrorism when they attack us, but a Freedom Fighter when we do the attacking........right?? Sgtar15 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2002 9:00:28 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: We hate them because Terrorists are assholes. Amen! Preach it, brother! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2002 9:07:57 PM EDT
[#20]
If the government finally goes truly apeshit and I start shooting at LEOs and soldiers, am I a terrorist? And thus an asshole? Tread lightly with the epithet "terrorist" because we live in an Alice in Wonderland world where words mean what the government wants them to mean.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2002 9:12:49 PM EDT
[#21]
An excellent example of this principle in action in the modern world is the book "The Terror out of Zion" which deals with the establishment of Israel in 1948. There were two main jewish factions; the HAGANAH, a mostly very liberal underground army, and IRGUN, a right-wing terror group (also called The Stern Gang). It is an interesting read because it shows how the populist HAGANAH was frequently innefective because it tried to be moderate in its conduct; the IRGUN, on the other hand, committed any violence neccessary to win, and despite its much smaller size chalked up some spectacular victories.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2002 9:14:33 PM EDT
[#22]
To continue my rant: The difference between McVeigh and the 9/11 terrorist , McVeigh made a targeting mistake , if he had target a Gov/military target devoid of innocent civilians he might have generated more popular support . While even though the 9/11 terrorist targeted civilians they have generated the oppressive responsive that McVeigh had hoped for . The difference ? McVeigh was a native , while 9/11 was perpetrated by foreigners . Where the terrorist come from dictates their tactics , if the government had for example wanted to instill a national ID after the Oklahoma bombing there wouldn't be as much hulabub about it as now , because the question now is why should we (as law-abiding citizen) be infringed upon , we're not the ones who did it , it was foreigners who did it !
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2002 9:18:36 PM EDT
[#23]
Will the people who condemn "terrorism" please define the term?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2002 9:20:35 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: Quoted: Steyr is right. Anyone who is a terrorist or advocates terrorism is an enemy in need of being dealt with! And that is exactly what Great Britian was doing during the 1770's, remember?? The differance is we were the terrorist then. Fact is this: It is terrorism when they attack us, but a Freedom Fighter when we do the attacking........right?? Sgtar15 No, 100% incorrect. The Colonial Army didn't go around murdering noncombatants to drum up support for the war. You're being (perhaps intentionally) disingenuous. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2002 9:21:31 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted: While even though the 9/11 terrorist targeted civilians they have generated the oppressive responsive that McVeigh had hoped for No, they have not, except in the minds of some alarmists. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2002 9:22:57 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: Will the people who condemn "terrorism" please define the term? It's simple. Terrorism is the deliberate targeting of civilian noncombatants by a non-governmental force for the purpose of spreading fear and discontent with the sitting government and provoking repressive measures in response. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2002 9:23:16 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: Yes Steyr, playing the role of protecting our own has worked very well hasn't it? Ever here the phrase the best defense is a good offense? I've heard it and I'm all for attacking "the enemy." But not at any cost. Quoted: I think you missed my point (again). I am not saying that anyone should target innocent civilians, what I am saying is that true change in this country will not come from the voters box but probably other violent means. I do not wish this but think it probably is the way that it will happen. Terrorism has always been and always will be an effective tool for this. Sgtar15 1. I got your point, but terrorism kills innocent people. It is almost impossible to prevent. 2. I also agree that voting is limited in what it can accomplish. The system has been altered. 3. But I disagree that violence will happen. The days of revolution are gone. 4. Terrorism is NOT effective. It is for assholes. 5. People who advocate or support terrorism are no better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2002 9:23:37 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: McVeigh is a hero to me. If you're joking, well...it's in bad taste. If you're serious, you're one sick a-hole. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2002 9:26:46 PM EDT
[#29]
Im sure if George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, etc were alive today they would be condoning if not practicing the destruction of federal buildings and the like. They were terrorists (according to this thread's definition thus far) in their day against an oppressive (English) govt.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2002 9:28:44 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: Will the people who condemn "terrorism" please define the term? ter·ror·ism Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm) n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. terrorism n : the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments terrorism \Ter"ror*ism\, n. [Cf. F. terrorisme.] The act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; a mode of government by terror or intimidation. --Jefferson. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2002 9:29:21 PM EDT
[#31]
Killing civilians works, you have all of history to see that sometimes killing the so called "innocent" is the only way to go. You have people like Sadam Hussein to remind you that if your not willing to kill the "innocent" he will put children, women, anyone on the roof of enemy targets. If your not willing to kill civilians then you might aswell go with the rest of the sheeple, take out the vaseline and bend over.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2002 9:29:23 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: Quoted: While even though the 9/11 terrorist targeted civilians they have generated the oppressive responsive that McVeigh had hoped for No, they have not, except in the minds of some alarmists. I don't consider myself as an Alarmist , lets just say my outlook has been colored by the time I was in the military (as a PFC ) in a position were I had a security clearance higher than most commissioned officers . If you think I'm being paranoid I suggest you read the entire text of the 'so called' Patriot Act . Or the Justice Dept's new view on attorney client privileged of those in its prisons and then read up on what some of the most repressive regimens did to the rights of its citizens . |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2002 9:30:27 PM EDT
[#33]
The difference between mcveigh or the mailbox bomber and Weaver or Koresh is that in the latter cases, the government brought the fight to them.
State sponsored terrorism is the deliberate targeting of civilian noncombatants by a governmental force for the purpose of spreading fear and discontent with the citizenry and invoking repressive measures in response. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2002 9:31:34 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted: Im sure if George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, etc were alive today they would be condoning if not practicing the destruction of federal buildings and the like. They were terrorists (according to this thread's definition thus far) in their day against an oppressive (English) govt. No, they were not terrorists by anyone's definition. They led an organized army in open warfare against soldiers. You obviously have no idea what the term "terrorism" means. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2002 9:32:40 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted: I don't consider myself as an Alarmist No, most alarmists don't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2002 9:33:36 PM EDT
[#36]
Terrorism is the over used term abused by politicians in the 21st century to include anyone that doesnt agree with the governments position or that owns a gun.
A freedom fighter is someone willing to sacrifice the few to save the many. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2002 9:36:31 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted: No, they were not terrorists by anyone's definition. They led an organized army in open warfare against soldiers. You obviously have no idea what the term "terrorism" means. The thirteen colonies were an English territory under rule of the King Of England. The The Thirteen colonies were under Englands rule and wanted to become their own country and live how they saw fit. They were trying to make changes and secede with violence. Now if a group of people is acting against the interest of the ruling party with violence, Id call that domestic terrorism. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2002 9:37:14 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted: terrorism n : the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments This definition includes most wars. ter·ror·ism Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm) n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. If a group used force/violence to defend the law (constitution), they would not be terrorists according to this definition, since they would be acting on the side of the law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2002 9:39:30 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted: terrorism n : the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments Works for me. Again, what were we during the 1770's?? BTW, all soldiers were civilians before they signed up or were drafted. "A friend of the enemy is also my enemy" Sgtar15 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2002 9:39:37 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted: Quoted: I don't consider myself as an Alarmist No, most alarmists don't. If thats your definition then I am quite proud to be called one . Oh by the way , the Continental army wasn't organized until the 3rd year of the rebellion when Gen . Von Steuben came on board to organize and train the army for Washington , until then most military action consisted of hit and run sniping attacks from behind walls and the selective assination of Troy supporters in the major cities , (Sounds alot like what the VC during the Vietnam war ) |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2002 9:43:10 PM EDT
[#41]
Quoted: Quoted: terrorism n : the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments This definition includes most wars. ter·ror·ism Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm) n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. If a group used force/violence to defend the law (constitution), they would not be terrorists according to this definition, since they would be acting on the side of the law. Please note the words "defend" and "on the side of the law." When protecting freedom from attack you are NOT a terrorist. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2002 9:44:32 PM EDT
[#42]
but innocents always get caught in the crossfire.
Why not just attack FBI field offices, then provoke a retaliatory response. Plant lots of misleading evidence and leads, have the FBI raid and shoot up innocent people's homes. Using their hands to terrorize innocents and thereby provoke public outrage toward the government. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2002 9:46:12 PM EDT
[#43]
Quoted: Quoted: terrorism n : the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments Works for me. Again, what were we during the 1770's?? BTW, all soldiers were civilians before they signed up or were drafted. "A friend of the enemy is also my enemy" Sgtar15 Don't make the mistake of assuming I supported Janet Reno in Waco. Or the attacks at Ruby Ridge. But I also don't support McVeigh and the Unabomber. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2002 9:48:49 PM EDT
[#44]
Quoted: but innocents always get caught in the crossfire. Why not just attack FBI field offices, then provoke a retaliatory response. Plant lots of misleading evidence and leads, have the FBI raid and shoot up innocent people's homes. Using their hands to terrorize innocents and thereby provoke public outrage toward the government. And on that note I will excuse myself from participation in this topic as some of you just don't get it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2002 9:52:30 PM EDT
[#45]
StyerAUG - I know what you mean , makes me wonder what they did with my tax money that went to the education dept .
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2002 9:53:12 PM EDT
[#46]
It's actually quite simple. The terms "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" are interchangable. History is written by the victor, and by those who control the press.
Sad, but true. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2002 9:53:31 PM EDT
[#47]
Nagasaki City was destroyed and 150,000 people killed or injured by a nuclear bomb, I guess there where bombs in those schools and soldiers in those mothers wombs.
Its so easy to call certain people terrorist when you are one yourself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2002 9:55:50 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted: It's actually quite simple. The terms "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" are interchangable. History is written by the victor, and by those who control the press. Sad, but true. By god someone else gets it !! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2002 9:56:47 PM EDT
[#49]
here's a question. If you give money to terrorists, are you also a terrorist? If you lend moral support to terrorists, are you also a terrorist?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2002 10:17:14 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted: Nagasaki City was destroyed and 150,000 people killed or injured by a nuclear bomb, I guess there where bombs in those schools and soldiers in those mothers wombs. Its so easy to call certain people terrorist when you are one yourself. Bullshit, Scarecrow. A government during war may commit [b]war crimes[/b] which is different than terrorism. These distinctions are obviously lost on many. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
