Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 5/12/2002 7:18:46 PM EDT
[b]Disclaimer![/b] [i]In no way do I condone or support what the following people have done.[/i] I have been thinking about this for awhile. There is Timothy McVeigh, The Unibomber, and recently the Mailbox bomber. Every time a person like this arises the general AR15.com community rails about how evil they are and how they should die or be imprisoned. At the same time we feel remorse for the Waco and Ruby Ridge incident, rightly so I may add. However, it is the former group that we really should be paying more attention to. Since we preach and believe that this country and our freedoms is on a relentless downward slide that probably can no longer be won at the ballot box, there our reasons to study this group. If you truly belief that soon the time will come where a serious rebellion of sorts is long over due, than surely you can see that firearms alone will not be enough to wreak havoc or true change on the current social situation. Terrorist act will not become only nessecary but also relevant and highly practical. It is the Timothy McVeigh's of the world that have shown that this can still be done here in the USA, not those at Ruby Ridge or Waco. Thru out history it has been shown that the underdog often turns to terrorism as an effective tool for change, including the Palestinians and our own Revolutionary Soldiers. [i]Again I state that I in no way condone what these American terrorist have done. They have killed the innocent and were misguided, they should be punished severely!![/i] But let us also remember that some day we may see other American do similar acts which we all may benefit from. Sgtar15
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 7:27:27 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 7:32:14 PM EDT
McVeigh is a hero to me.
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 7:35:03 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DoubleFeed: Revolution cannot succeed without popular support.
View Quote
I agree, and popular support is often easily swayed. Sgtar15
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 7:37:50 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 7:38:28 PM EDT
McVeigh was a patsy. echo6
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 7:40:37 PM EDT
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' .
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 7:50:06 PM EDT
EXACTLY Mortech!!! Someone does understand!! Sgtar15
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 7:51:59 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 7:54:15 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 7:54:24 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 7:58:05 PM EDT
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
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 7:58:21 PM EDT
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]
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 8:26:06 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 8:52:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/12/2002 8:53:20 PM EDT by JackBurton]
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!
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 8:56:38 PM EDT
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
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 8:58:12 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG: When you kill innocents you are THE PROBLEM as much as the tyrannical government you think you are attacking.
View Quote
Beat me to it SteyrAUG. Attacking the government doesn't make anyone an asshole in my book. Attacking innocents does.
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 8:58:51 PM EDT
sgtar15, if change DOES come to this country through violence, it won't be good change. You can bank on it.
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 8:59:35 PM EDT
Originally Posted By JackBurton: Steyr is right. Anyone who is a terrorist or advocates terrorism is an enemy in need of being dealt with!
View Quote
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
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 9:00:28 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG: We hate them because Terrorists are assholes.
View Quote
Amen! Preach it, brother!
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 9:07:57 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 9:12:49 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 9:14:33 PM EDT
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 !
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 9:18:36 PM EDT
Will the people who condemn "terrorism" please define the term?
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 9:20:35 PM EDT
Originally Posted By sgtar15:
Originally Posted By JackBurton: Steyr is right. Anyone who is a terrorist or advocates terrorism is an enemy in need of being dealt with!
View Quote
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
View Quote
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.
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 9:21:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Mortech: While even though the 9/11 terrorist targeted civilians they have generated the oppressive responsive that McVeigh had hoped for
View Quote
No, they have not, except in the minds of some alarmists.
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 9:22:57 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 6shooter: Will the people who condemn "terrorism" please define the term?
View Quote
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.
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 9:23:16 PM EDT
Originally Posted By sgtar15: 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?
View Quote
I've heard it and I'm all for attacking "the enemy." But not at any cost.
Originally Posted By sgtar15: 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
View Quote
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.
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 9:23:37 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Philadelphia_GunMan: McVeigh is a hero to me.
View Quote
If you're joking, well...it's in bad taste. If you're serious, you're one sick a-hole.
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 9:26:46 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 9:28:44 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 6shooter: Will the people who condemn "terrorism" please define the term?
View Quote
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.
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 9:29:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/12/2002 9:30:49 PM EDT by Scarecrow]
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.
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 9:29:23 PM EDT
Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Originally Posted By Mortech: While even though the 9/11 terrorist targeted civilians they have generated the oppressive responsive that McVeigh had hoped for
View Quote
No, they have not, except in the minds of some alarmists.
View Quote
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 .
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 9:30:27 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 9:31:34 PM EDT
Originally Posted By TopCrest: 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.
View Quote
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.
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 9:32:40 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Mortech: I don't consider myself as an Alarmist
View Quote
No, most alarmists don't.
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 9:33:36 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 9:36:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By RikWriter: 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.
View Quote
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.
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 9:37:14 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG: terrorism n : the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments
View Quote
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.
View Quote
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.
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 9:39:30 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG: terrorism n : the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments
View Quote
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
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 9:39:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/12/2002 9:43:24 PM EDT by Mortech]
Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Originally Posted By Mortech: I don't consider myself as an Alarmist
View Quote
No, most alarmists don't.
View Quote
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 )
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 9:43:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 6shooter:
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG: terrorism n : the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments
View Quote
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.
View Quote
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.
View Quote
Please note the words "defend" and "on the side of the law." When protecting freedom from attack you are NOT a terrorist.
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 9:44:32 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 9:46:12 PM EDT
Originally Posted By sgtar15:
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG: terrorism n : the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments
View Quote
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
View Quote
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.
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 9:48:49 PM EDT
Originally Posted By jz02: 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.
View Quote
And on that note I will excuse myself from participation in this topic as some of you just don't get it.
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 9:52:30 PM EDT
StyerAUG - I know what you mean , makes me wonder what they did with my tax money that went to the education dept .
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 9:53:12 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 9:53:31 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 9:55:50 PM EDT
Originally Posted By BillofRights: 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.
View Quote
By god someone else gets it !!
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 9:56:47 PM EDT
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?
Link Posted: 5/12/2002 10:17:14 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Scarecrow: 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.
View Quote
Bullshit, Scarecrow. A government during war may commit [b]war crimes[/b] which is different than terrorism. These distinctions are obviously lost on many.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top