Another reason the Paramount news is good for Valiant

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

Assemble your own damn army.

Read it (and quoted it) the first time.

He had his co-conspirators, militia members, (nearly) one and all. Does the size matter, when it comes to armies?

A SECRET militia is not a standing army.

It's not size, but status that matters.

Where was McVeigh's "army" headquartered....?

Timothy McVeigh didn't target the GOVERNMENT...he targeted a BUILDING. It doesn't matter that it was a government building, he didn't target THE GOVERNMENT.

The GOVERNMENT is NOT the buildings. The GOVERNMENT is the members of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches. They are legitimate targets of a foreign invasion or domestic rebellion.

So how is it that the soldiers that GW attacked "government" but the agents McVeigh & Co. targeted are not? Where springs the legitimacy (and lack thereof) in your definitions? (these are serious questions of mine; I'm not "just becausing" here).

Why are you not understanding the difference between actively AVOIDING civilian casualties (which Washington most assuredly did, since those civilians were his own countrymen) and not giving a damn if there were civilian casualties....or, rather, TARGETING civilian casualties?

That's the difference. Soldiers are members of the Executive Branch of the government. Washington, and every honorable military leader before or since, did not attack buildings where civilians may have been to get at a "handful" of agents, like McVeigh did, without regard for those civilians.

It doesn't matter how McVeigh tried to justify his attack....he didn't assemble an army and attack THE GOVERNMENT.....he went after civilians, knowing FULL WELL the building would be FULL of them.

Your opinion, not his. History is usually written by the winners. McVeigh *believed* he was fighting against a corrupt government. Just because he got caught (or "Defeated," if you prefer) and GW won makes all the difference? Intent? Results? Alignment of the determinor with the values of the movement's "general"?

Once more: it doesn't matter how McVeigh tried to justify his attack: HE WENT AFTER CIVILIANS, PERIOD. He knew FULL WELL that there would be civilians in that building, AND HE DID IT ANYWAYS. This is not "opinion." This is well established fact.

When you TARGET civilians, regardless of your "cause", YOU ARE A TERRORIST.

This discussion has ZERO to do with "winners" and "losers", so I'm not sure why you're bringing that up.

Did they go after THE GOVERNMENT? Were they part of a MILITARY FORCE which could, itself, be targeted...?

Sure. So, in his own mind, did McVeigh.

It does not matter what justification/rationalization McVeigh came up with. He targeted civilians. He killed them. And he did it on purpose. That makes him a terrorist.

It does not matter "in his own" deranged, warped mind what was going on. McVeigh was NOT part of a military force which could, itself, be targeted.

And the Contras deliberately targeted "civilian" targets (including schools and hospitals). As did McVeigh.

Personally, I call 'em all "terrorists." Reagan, in his own words, disagreed.

So? Reagan was wrong. If you target civilians, you're a terrorist.

Nope.

Suggesting that ANYONE would have called George Washington a terrorist....when the word didn't even EXIST until George Washington was PRESIDENT, and when the word doesn't apply to him in ANY WAY, by ANY stretch of the definition....is ridiculous, rude, and insulting.

"Unknowing"? "Uneducated" (in the strictest definition)? Yep. "Ridiculous, rude and insulting"? Maybe. "Disgusting"? For using a word that missed GW by roughly 20 years?

Yeah, pretty disgusting, considering the weight the word "terrorist" has.

*I* don't see it, but it's your opinion and I now truly believe you're disgusted by it.

Would it matter if you didn't....?

Pardon me for taking personally potshots on the greatest military leader the United States of America has ever known....and a damn fine President to boot.....

As I'm sure you know, Washington lost more battles than he won. He's a very intriguing human being (a slave owner opposed to slavery, a probable deist who attended church for a good many years) and a Patriot, to say the least, but he wouldn't be my (subjective) choice for "greatest military leader the United States of America has ever known," although his was war was certainly the most important one fought by our nation.

Every military leader loses battles. The greatest military mind in GERMAN history, Rommel, lost his biggest battle of all.

Washington was a brilliant strategist, and an excellent leader. It was not for nothing that he was a general in both the British and United States armies, and was placed in command of the US military during the Revolutionary War.

Under OBJECTIVE measures, only Eisenhower and perhaps Patton could come close to being the military leader that Washington was.

All I'm trying to do is get a better understanding of where "terrorism" ends and "freedom fighting" begins. Neither McVeigh nor the contras fought as "pure" a governmental foe as Washington. Again--I'd call the contras terrorists, and would do the same for McVeigh. IMO they have more similarities than differences. I'm just wondering the objective measurement that separates the two. Size? Success? "Intent"? Or "history"?

It's funny, because the original comment wasn't directed at you, but it is, after all, your favorite excercise, so I indulge....

I already gave the answer, but here it is again...It's very, very simple: when you deliberately target civilians in a non-war zone, you're a terrorist.

You are trying to accomplish political goals by frightening the populace with death if they don't apply immense pressure to the government to change things.

Why was terrorism virtually unknown in the world until democracy took hold in the 18th and 19th centuries...? Because who cared if you took out a village full of peasants?

[X-O HoboJoe]

Why was terrorism virtually unknown in the world until democracy took hold in the 18th and 19th centuries...? Because who cared if you took out a village full of peasants?

The peasants?

[TKWill]

Why was terrorism virtually unknown in the world until democracy took hold in the 18th and 19th centuries...? Because who cared if you took out a village full of peasants?

The peasants?

touche`

[X-O HoboJoe]

Why was terrorism virtually unknown in the world until democracy took hold in the 18th and 19th centuries...? Because who cared if you took out a village full of peasants?

The peasants?

touche`

*SQUEE*!

And he probably will once he reads this post.

(CALL me one, you nasty minded bastiches.)

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

Why was terrorism virtually unknown in the world until democracy took hold in the 18th and 19th centuries...? Because who cared if you took out a village full of peasants?

The peasants?

Yeah, and they mattered to the nobility because.......?

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

Why was terrorism virtually unknown in the world until democracy took hold in the 18th and 19th centuries...? Because who cared if you took out a village full of peasants?

The peasants?

I love people who answer rhetorical questions.

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

Why was terrorism virtually unknown in the world until democracy took hold in the 18th and 19th centuries...? Because who cared if you took out a village full of peasants?

The peasants?

touche`

*SQUEE*!

And he probably will once he reads this post.

(CALL me one, you nasty minded bastiches.)

*SQUEE*!

I don't need to, but thanks....

[X-O HoboJoe]

Why was terrorism virtually unknown in the world until democracy took hold in the 18th and 19th centuries...? Because who cared if you took out a village full of peasants?

The peasants?

Yeah, and they mattered to the nobility because.......?

Sex toys and cannon fodder?

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

Why was terrorism virtually unknown in the world until democracy took hold in the 18th and 19th centuries...? Because who cared if you took out a village full of peasants?

The peasants?

Yeah, and they mattered to the nobility because.......?

Sex toys and cannon fodder?

NOW you're getting it!

I wonder......

[X-O HoboJoe]

Why was terrorism virtually unknown in the world until democracy took hold in the 18th and 19th centuries...? Because who cared if you took out a village full of peasants?

The peasants?

Yeah, and they mattered to the nobility because.......?

Sex toys and cannon fodder?

NOW you're getting it!

I wonder......

Uh oh . . .

[Dr. Solar]

You guys are terrorizing this thread! All the innocent posts targeted by your guerrilla posting tactics...

[X-O HoboJoe]

You guys are terrorizing this thread! All the innocent posts targeted by your guerrilla posting tactics...

So it's pretty much business as usual.

[Dr. Solar]

You guys are terrorizing this thread! All the innocent posts targeted by your guerrilla posting tactics...

So it's pretty much business as usual.

Well, uh...

[BloodOfHeroes]

That's the difference. Soldiers are members of the Executive Branch of the government. Washington, and every honorable military leader before or since, did not attack buildings where civilians may have been to get at a "handful" of agents, like McVeigh did, without regard for those civilians.

Ooh. That leads to a road that, as the son a of veteran, I choose not to go down.

This discussion has ZERO to do with "winners" and "losers", so I'm not sure why you're bringing that up.

I just wonder how Washington would be referred to, had he lost. Besides bearing the labels of "traitor," and "insurgent", I mean.

So? Reagan was wrong. If you target civilians, you're a terrorist.

Agreed. And already stated.

Yeah, pretty disgusting, considering the weight the word "terrorist" has.

Got it.

Would it matter if you didn't....?

Your beliefs don't matter to me beyond the atypical post that lures me in. And mine don't typically matter to you, I would guess.

It's funny, because the original comment wasn't directed at you, but it is, after all, your favorite excercise, so I indulge....

Oh, that's rich. But thanks for your indulgence. That's all I ask, occasionally.

I already gave the answer, but here it is again...It's very, very simple: when you deliberately target civilians in a non-war zone, you're a terrorist.

But now "non-war zone" gets added to the definition.

You are trying to accomplish political goals by frightening the populace with death if they don't apply immense pressure to the government to change things.

And ZWH with the win. Got it. And, sincerely: thanks.

Why was terrorism virtually unknown in the world until democracy took hold in the 18th and 19th centuries...? Because who cared if you took out a village full of peasants?

Ah, to be the oppressor instead of the oppressed. Good times. Good times, indeed.

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

That's the difference. Soldiers are members of the Executive Branch of the government. Washington, and every honorable military leader before or since, did not attack buildings where civilians may have been to get at a "handful" of agents, like McVeigh did, without regard for those civilians.

Ooh. That leads to a road that, as the son a of veteran, I choose not to go down.

Fair enough. Note the qualifier (because EVERYTHING has to be qualified these days) "honorable."

This discussion has ZERO to do with "winners" and "losers", so I'm not sure why you're bringing that up.

I just wonder how Washington would be referred to, had he lost. Besides bearing the labels of "traitor," and "insurgent", I mean.

Traitor would be the big one. But not "terrorist." And "insurgent" wasn't in common use at that time. But again, he would have been part of the much larger rebellion. Had the rebellion been unsuccessful, the leaders, all of them, would have been hung for treason. Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, Paine, all of them.

But he certainly wouldn't have been referred to as "terrorist." That word bears quite a bit of repugnance, so I hope you can understand why it would not be applied to Washington...or Napoleon....or even Hitler or Stalin. They were not terrorists.

You'll note, nearly 100 years later, Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee were ALSO not called "terrorists." And they lost.

So? Reagan was wrong. If you target civilians, you're a terrorist.

Agreed. And already stated.

Except that you asked the question about Reagan. So, necessary to state again.

Would it matter if you didn't....?

Your beliefs don't matter to me beyond the atypical post that lures me in. And mine don't typically matter to you, I would guess.

This is why it is a dicey prospect to cut out statements from their original context. I had to go back and read what *I* wrote to remember what this specific statement referred to. And it referred to YOUR belief (that I was disgusted), not MINE. And the answer is clear: it would not have mattered what you believed I thought.

It's funny, because the original comment wasn't directed at you, but it is, after all, your favorite excercise, so I indulge....

Oh, that's rich. But thanks for your indulgence. That's all I ask, occasionally.

I thought you might appreciate (in more than one sense of that word) the ironic nature of that statement. I thank YOU for not feeling the need to resort to the typical teenager-type response of "oh, so you're saying you don't do the same exact thing???"

I just encountered that response earlier this week. Frustrating, to say the very least. It's like talking to a 12 year old. You have to say "NO, I didn't say that at all. Acknowledging what YOU are doing doesn't somehow magically mean I'm saying I didn't do the same thing."

You, at least, understand and respect the rules of debate. And thank you as well for understanding subtext. It actually does mean a great deal to me to be able to have a discussion with subtlety and "things not said"...where the points don't have to be explained to the extent that they are obvious to any 4 year old.

Around here, far too often, subtlety is a lost art. BUT...as boards go, it's leaps and bounds ahead of most other boards...you being but one example of that....which is why I'm here.

I already gave the answer, but here it is again...It's very, very simple: when you deliberately target civilians in a non-war zone, you're a terrorist.

But now "non-war zone" gets added to the definition.

Come on, now, you're not being fair. I have to qualify everything to death around here, or someone manages to find the exception to the rule that makes the rule. It should go without stating in a "non-war zone" because war zones have....as I know you're well aware....quite their own rules of combat.

If a civilian...for example...is aiding an enemy combatant in such a way that the enemy combatant can harm yourself or your fellow combatants, then that civilian has placed himself as a viable target.

That is an exception to the rule. Even in war zones, civilians should not be and MUST not be targeted...except under those specific conditions.

Why was terrorism virtually unknown in the world until democracy took hold in the 18th and 19th centuries...? Because who cared if you took out a village full of peasants?

Ah, to be the oppressor instead of the oppressed. Good times. Good times, indeed.

As sad as it is, it was true. The King of England in, let's say 1455 (that would be Henry VI) would not care if someone blew up (if they could get their hands on explosives at that point) a village square in York, unless that act was done with the intent to wage further war. Terrorism for its own political ends was pointless when humanity was separated into classes, and the lower class was considered little more than cannon fodder.

Even still, terrorism is fairly unknown in cultures that have clear class separations. China? India? Not very common. The West, though, where humanity is defined much less by class, and all people are considered relatively "equal" (let's not get into an exception argument, please)....the bombing of a shopping market or subway or train station is far more effective on the entire populace? Absolutely.

[BloodOfHeroes]

Come on, now, you're not being fair. I have to qualify everything to death around here, or someone manages to find the exception to the rule that makes the rule. It should go without stating in a "non-war zone" because war zones have....as I know you're well aware....quite their own rules of combat.

No, no, no. It's nothing personal against you. "Terrorist" is one of the slipperiest words to define. There's no acceptable international definition, not even a U.N. definition. What *is* the difference between "freedom fighter," "rebel," and "terrorist"? YOU seem to have an objective measurement; many more do not.

Yes, war zones have their own rules of combat. It goes back to your earlier (snipped ) use of the word "honorable." And it makes me mull over the fine line between "guerilla warfare" and something else entirely.

Thanks, as always, for the dialogue. And again for the indulgence.

[yardstick]

So, Barbary pirates: Terrorists or an early form of LCS owner?

my vote goes to the early (evolutionary?) form of LCS owner