“Republican Party is a domestic terror group”

panamaican said:
Do I agree with hyperbole? Never. I recognize it as hyperbole and try to address the point the speaker is trying to make.

I do agree with asking oneself what the GOP has done to help America over the last decade or so.
Click to expand...
Neither party has done much the last 40 years
 
Kafir-kun said:
I don't use the more narrow definition to excuse actions by states, I just think its more useful to use a different term for them. In the case of unjustified US aggression I would call it something like imperialism or something along those lines.

As for the idea that the US was founded by terrorists, yeah its kek worthy and true by my standard and I still stand by my definition. I don't see terrorists as inherently bad or anything and obviously in the case of the American independence movement I'd say it was terrorism for a just cause. If you're facing a truly tyrannical regime that has closed of all channels for peaceful political action and non-violent resistance is not viable for one reason or another I'd argue terrorism might arguably be the moral course of action.
Click to expand...

I have a different definition of terrorism where in order for it to be terrorism, the target of the terror is civilians. This means that if the people are attacking security/army personnel then its an insurgency. Its terrorism when they blow up a movie theater where the victims are civilians.

So in my view and definition, terrorism is inherently immoral and bad. No matter the cause.
 
SBJJ said:
Lol. This is funny. In a separate thread Trotsky said there were no Kidnapping statutes in IL. I politely corrected him. And he's a lawyer. That's how conversations are conducted.

You on the other hand contribute next to nothing but insults. And are a complete hypocrite who will support wars depending on who's in office.

Get the fuck out of here
Click to expand...
I probably won't get the fuck out of here, and I'm sure I'll insult you quite a bit more in the future. You can handle it though, just get a rad belt buckle or something. Maybe it will help you admit when you're proven wrong. If I can do it, so can you.

Not sure where you're getting your idea about me & war from. Which conflict do you mean? I didn't support Afghanistan or Iraq under either Obama or Bush, but I really liked Obama and really disliked Bush. There is the question of Trump's competency to wage a war of any kind, for sure. It certainly depends on the conflict. If it's managing these drawn-out terror "wars" then executive leadership matters a lot. I would trust either Obama or Bush to manage those kinds of wars over Trump. But I somehow don't think that was even close to your point, so have a free one on me. Also bite me.
 
tramendous said:
I have a different definition of terrorism where in order for it to be terrorism, the target of the terror is civilians. This means that if the people are attacking security/army personnel then its an insurgency. Its terrorism when they blow up a movie theater where the victims are civilians.

So in my view and definition, terrorism is inherently immoral and bad. No matter the cause.
Click to expand...
I suppose that distinction makes sense and its even more specific and centers on actions virtually all of us would consider reprehensible. I'd say its more useful than the more general term which refers to all violence for political purposes, even by states. Under that definition I'd agree. The justification some would use for that is that the insurgents already have a disadvantage and have to go after soft targets to compensate but I don't believe the ends justify the means so I'm in agreement with you in the case of insurgents who target noncombatants.

I guess you could say a moral insurgency would be one that attacks infrastructure in such a way so as to minimize the causalities, especially casualties of noncombatants. IIRC the armed wing of the ANC in South Africa initially tried to do that. That's a big handicap but I think the moral high ground is worth it.
 
Fawlty said:
I probably won't get the fuck out of here, and I'm sure I'll insult you quite a bit more in the future. You can handle it though, just get a rad belt buckle or something. Maybe it will help you admit when you're proven wrong. If I can do it, so can you.

Not sure where you're getting your idea about me & war from. Which conflict do you mean? I didn't support Afghanistan or Iraq under either Obama or Bush, but I really liked Obama and really disliked Bush. There is the question of Trump's competency to wage a war of any kind, for sure. It certainly depends on the conflict. If it's managing these drawn-out terror "wars" then executive leadership matters a lot. I would trust either Obama or Bush to manage those kinds of wars over Trump. But I somehow don't think that was even close to your point, so have a free one on me. Also bite me.
Click to expand...

GTFO is an expression. But ok. And I'm wrong plenty. And like I was with Trotsky, I'm gracious with others when they are mistaken also. And it's really not hard to find posts of me calling out both sides. I highly doubt you can find any of you doing the same.

That's pretty cool you didn't support even Afghanistan. Gotta assume you didn't support war with Japan either then. A true Isolationist. Nice


Trump has essentially let the generals run the wars. So we will have to see I guess.

But I'll go check out all your posts in the Libya and Syria threads going after Obama and Clinton. I gotta assume you think us working with Russia on Syria is a good thing also. We should work with them to n regards to Iran also.

Shit. Since you are such a non interventionist. You are probably cool with us working with Russia on all these issues. Cool
 
ultramanhyata said:
Good luck convincing anyone else. We live in a country where people still refuse to call the fucking atomic bombings of civilian populations in Hiroshima and Nagasaki acts of terror.
Click to expand...
What? What is your opinion on the pearl harbor job?
 
The Russian said:
What? What is your opinion on the pearl harbor job?
Click to expand...
I'm a huge hippy when it comes to war. But I'm amazed how people don't understand how many lives on both sides were saved by dropping them bombs
 
ultramanhyata said:
Terrorism is, by modern definition, the intentional targeting of innocents and civilians.
Click to expand...
It happened in the 40s. So modern definition is subjective. the japanese deserved the nukes for their hypocrite attack. They got bitch made deservingly.
 
Some people need to read some damn definitions before popping off at the mouth on TV.
 
The Russian said:
It happened in the 40s. So modern definition is subjective. the japanese deserved the nukes for their hypocrite attack. They got bitch made deservingly.
Click to expand...

You're a lunk head with obviously zero knowledge of military history. But points for the alpha, brah.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

HOLA
Elections Vivek Ramaswamy: Republican party is "party of losers."
3 4 5
Replies
97
Views
4K
jefferz
jefferz

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,053
Messages
55,463,858
Members
174,785
Latest member
JoyceOuthw

Share this page

Back
Top