Is terrorism an effective way to advance one cause?
Options
Comments
-
kingblaze84 wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »Examples Word Origin
noun
1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
#2 is really the result of terrorism
# 2 speaks for itself.
And once again, ask the Native Americans if they were terrorized. They have told historians they were. Case closed. You can't re-write history, we all know what happened, they were terrorized beyond belief.
you are as simple as homer simpson
Blah blah blah. The Native Americans would laugh at how stupid you sound right now.
what do you expect the natives Americans to say??? they got obliterated and conquered or course they are going to say they got terrorized but that's just how they felt that does not mean the usa used terrorism as a battle strategy.
and that's the main point i am trying to make
The Native Americans should know what terrorism is, THEY WENT THROUGH IT. America ABSOLUTELY used terrorism as a battle strategy, there was no reason to murder innocent men, women and children during the campaigns except to terrorize the Natives into submission. Burning down whole villages that had nothing to do with the military campaigns was immoral and 100% terrorism to the fullest degree. The purpose was to terrorize the Natives into submission, and it eventually worked.
Thread question answered.
The question is not did the native americans feel terror WHILE fighting the "indian wars" the question is did the united states government use terrorism to defeat the native americans. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »Examples Word Origin
noun
1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
#2 is really the result of terrorism
# 2 speaks for itself.
And once again, ask the Native Americans if they were terrorized. They have told historians they were. Case closed. You can't re-write history, we all know what happened, they were terrorized beyond belief.
you are as simple as homer simpson
Blah blah blah. The Native Americans would laugh at how stupid you sound right now.
what do you expect the natives Americans to say??? they got obliterated and conquered or course they are going to say they got terrorized but that's just how they felt that does not mean the usa used terrorism as a battle strategy.
and that's the main point i am trying to make
The Native Americans should know what terrorism is, THEY WENT THROUGH IT. America ABSOLUTELY used terrorism as a battle strategy, there was no reason to murder innocent men, women and children during the campaigns except to terrorize the Natives into submission. Burning down whole villages that had nothing to do with the military campaigns was immoral and 100% terrorism to the fullest degree. The purpose was to terrorize the Natives into submission, and it eventually worked.
Thread question answered.
The question is not did the native americans feel terror WHILE fighting the "indian wars" the question is did the united states government use terrorism to defeat the native americans.
The Native Americans have answered this question already. Their opinion matters too. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »Examples Word Origin
noun
1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
#2 is really the result of terrorism
# 2 speaks for itself.
And once again, ask the Native Americans if they were terrorized. They have told historians they were. Case closed. You can't re-write history, we all know what happened, they were terrorized beyond belief.
you are as simple as homer simpson
Blah blah blah. The Native Americans would laugh at how stupid you sound right now.
what do you expect the natives Americans to say??? they got obliterated and conquered or course they are going to say they got terrorized but that's just how they felt that does not mean the usa used terrorism as a battle strategy.
and that's the main point i am trying to make
The Native Americans should know what terrorism is, THEY WENT THROUGH IT. America ABSOLUTELY used terrorism as a battle strategy, there was no reason to murder innocent men, women and children during the campaigns except to terrorize the Natives into submission. Burning down whole villages that had nothing to do with the military campaigns was immoral and 100% terrorism to the fullest degree. The purpose was to terrorize the Natives into submission, and it eventually worked.
Thread question answered.
The question is not did the native americans feel terror WHILE fighting the "indian wars" the question is did the united states government use terrorism to defeat the native americans.
The Native Americans have answered this question already. Their opinion matters too.
No on opinions matter all that matters is the facts -
kingblaze84 wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »Examples Word Origin
noun
1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
#2 is really the result of terrorism
# 2 speaks for itself.
And once again, ask the Native Americans if they were terrorized. They have told historians they were. Case closed. You can't re-write history, we all know what happened, they were terrorized beyond belief.
you are as simple as homer simpson
Blah blah blah. The Native Americans would laugh at how stupid you sound right now.
what do you expect the natives Americans to say??? they got obliterated and conquered or course they are going to say they got terrorized but that's just how they felt that does not mean the usa used terrorism as a battle strategy.
and that's the main point i am trying to make
The Native Americans should know what terrorism is, THEY WENT THROUGH IT. America ABSOLUTELY used terrorism as a battle strategy, there was no reason to murder innocent men, women and children during the campaigns except to terrorize the Natives into submission. Burning down whole villages that had nothing to do with the military campaigns was immoral and 100% terrorism to the fullest degree. The purpose was to terrorize the Natives into submission, and it eventually worked.
Thread question answered.
The question is not did the native americans feel terror WHILE fighting the "indian wars" the question is did the united states government use terrorism to defeat the native americans.
The Native Americans have answered this question already. Their opinion matters too.
No on opinions matter all that matters is the facts
And the FACT is Americans used terror tactics such as murdering innocent civilians in cold blood and burning entire villages to scare them and get them to submit.
America has been excellent at using terrorism to frighten people and getting them to submit historically. Native Americans and even White people have written books on how America has used terrorism historically, especially against the Natives. You can't re-write history, the facts are clear as day. -
killing innocent people and taking resources can be called a lot of other negative stuff, which you should use instead, because what's going to happen here is to insist on using the broadest possible use of the term "terrorism," stuffing everything into it, and making it meaningless.kingblaze84 wrote: »Um yes it was, Americans used terror tactics to help steal and take land from them. There are documented cases of American settlers and soldiers killing innocent men, women and children over and over again, and later on taking their land and resources.
there has to be a distinction between what you're complaining about the US doing and what you're complaining about, say, the Israelis doing.
and you're proving it with this:
guess what: if someone drops a bomb on you in the most upstanding, morally justified war, you're going to say you were terrorized. but now you guys have had a page of argument about this instead of an actual discussion of any topic.kingblaze84 wrote: »Ask the Native Americans if they were terrorized
and the best part? because you're insisting on this ultra-broad term, we have to point out that Native Americans used terror tactics, because there are documented cases of them killing innocent men, women and children, and taking their resources. ask those people if they were TERRORIZED. hooray, terrorism versus terrorism, and the word is meaningless!
...or we could stop pretending every damn thing should be called "terrorism" all the damn time -
On top of what janklow says I think that there specifically has to be the want to cause terror. By definition blaze is right but I doubt that Americans wanted to cause terror. They just wanted to take land and steal resources. I think overall it's just hard to judge past events especially if we look at it through our eyes. I'm sure there are cases where Americans did strictly want to cause terror.
-
killing innocent people and taking resources can be called a lot of other negative stuff, which you should use instead, because what's going to happen here is to insist on using the broadest possible use of the term "terrorism," stuffing everything into it, and making it meaningless.kingblaze84 wrote: »Um yes it was, Americans used terror tactics to help steal and take land from them. There are documented cases of American settlers and soldiers killing innocent men, women and children over and over again, and later on taking their land and resources.
there has to be a distinction between what you're complaining about the US doing and what you're complaining about, say, the Israelis doing.
and you're proving it with this:
guess what: if someone drops a bomb on you in the most upstanding, morally justified war, you're going to say you were terrorized. but now you guys have had a page of argument about this instead of an actual discussion of any topic.kingblaze84 wrote: »Ask the Native Americans if they were terrorized
and the best part? because you're insisting on this ultra-broad term, we have to point out that Native Americans used terror tactics, because there are documented cases of them killing innocent men, women and children, and taking their resources. ask those people if they were TERRORIZED. hooray, terrorism versus terrorism, and the word is meaningless!
...or we could stop pretending every damn thing should be called "terrorism" all the damn time
All sides in war (most of the time) use terror tactics, and that's the point. Terrorism often is an effective way to achieve goals, as American settlers proved against the Native Americans. The Natives used terror tactics as well but not in the efficient and savage way American settlers used terrorism.
Now of course, other people throughout history have used terror tactics as well, but its continued use up until this day shows how effective it still is, sad to say. -
well, i doubt it would be accurate to say no Native Americans used savage tactics, as much as it pains me to use that adjective in this context.kingblaze84 wrote: »The Natives used terror tactics as well but not in the efficient and savage way American settlers used terrorism.
but reminder: since the topic is "is terrorism an effective way to advance one's cause," you're now basically arguing "it depends." and if we're saying ALL sides use terror tactics? then maybe we need to not call everything "terrorism!" -
i think there's a clear difference between, say, settlers on the Great Plains and the KKK.The_Jackal wrote: »On top of what janklow says I think that there specifically has to be the want to cause terror. By definition blaze is right but I doubt that Americans wanted to cause terror. They just wanted to take land and steal resources. I think overall it's just hard to judge past events especially if we look at it through our eyes. I'm sure there are cases where Americans did strictly want to cause terror. -
i think there's a clear difference between, say, settlers on the Great Plains and the KKK.The_Jackal wrote: »On top of what janklow says I think that there specifically has to be the want to cause terror. By definition blaze is right but I doubt that Americans wanted to cause terror. They just wanted to take land and steal resources. I think overall it's just hard to judge past events especially if we look at it through our eyes. I'm sure there are cases where Americans did strictly want to cause terror.
LOL those settlers wanted to terrorize the Natives so they could frighten them into leaving so they could take their land, come on now. -
well, i doubt it would be accurate to say no Native Americans used savage tactics, as much as it pains me to use that adjective in this context.kingblaze84 wrote: »The Natives used terror tactics as well but not in the efficient and savage way American settlers used terrorism.
but reminder: since the topic is "is terrorism an effective way to advance one's cause," you're now basically arguing "it depends." and if we're saying ALL sides use terror tactics? then maybe we need to not call everything "terrorism!"
I said in war, all sides MOST of the time use terror tactics. If a group or nation engages in the PURPOSEFUL harm and murder of innocent civilians, I absolutely will call that terrorism. Killing soldiers or armed forces is different, but the purposeful murder and brutal harm of innocent civilians is terrorism in my eyes and the eyes of many, many others. Native Americans have written books on the terrorism White American settlers and soldiers inflicted upon them, books I have read and my ? the stories are horrifying. Terrifying to them as well. -
A part of a fantastic essay written by a Native American woman on the terrorism America faced on 9/11, compared to the terrorism Native Americans faced from colonial American settlers and soldiers themselves.....
http://www.examiner.com/article/a-native-take-on-terrorism-the-towers-and-tolerance
Brenda Golden
Native American Community Organizer
It is said all across this great continent that the United States is a ? fearing Christian nation. However, to the Native populations the “settling” and colonization process was terrorism at its finest beginning with The Papal Bull Inter Caetera (Alexander VI), of May 4, 1493. Terrorism is defined by the World English Dictionary as the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal; the act of terrorizing or the state of being terrorized.
Branded as savages and heathens, the War Department was tasked with clearing the way for European settlers, keeping the natives at bay, and killing any that got in their way. Not only did Natives die from contracting diseases to which they had no built up immunity, settlers provided disease infested blankets to hasten their deaths. Often rewards were posted for the skins of killed natives, thus the term “red skin.” Noses, ? , fingers, and other body parts were taken from natives as souvenirs and shown with pride as trophies and pouches. President Andrew Jackson’s army took strips of skin from killed natives to use as reins for their horses’ bridles.
Massacres of whole camps of natives including women, children, elderly and infants went unpunished. Pushed further and further from their ancestral homelands, natives also died from hunger and the elements. Forced marches to isolated areas resulted in thousands of more deaths of natives and relocation killed many. Promised solitude and payments for land was slow if ever given to the natives, more times than not the payments never came. And let one not forget the systematic use of the Indian Health Service to sterilize young native women without their knowledge up through the 1970’s.
It is arguable to many but truth to all Native Americans that terrorism was used in the colonization of this continent. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »
i think there's a clear difference between, say, settlers on the Great Plains and the KKK.The_Jackal wrote: »On top of what janklow says I think that there specifically has to be the want to cause terror. By definition blaze is right but I doubt that Americans wanted to cause terror. They just wanted to take land and steal resources. I think overall it's just hard to judge past events especially if we look at it through our eyes. I'm sure there are cases where Americans did strictly want to cause terror.
LOL those settlers wanted to terrorize the Natives so they could frighten them into leaving so they could take their land, come on now.
Settlers didn't want to terrorize them at all though. They wanted to ? them and take there land. It's the small difference that matter. There was no longstanding terror campaign used. It generally went settlers see land that they want that natives lived on, through lies and deception(treaties that weren't upheld) to outright pushing them off there land. I wouldn't consider them terriost in the sense of how we use it today . -
The_Jackal wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »
i think there's a clear difference between, say, settlers on the Great Plains and the KKK.The_Jackal wrote: »On top of what janklow says I think that there specifically has to be the want to cause terror. By definition blaze is right but I doubt that Americans wanted to cause terror. They just wanted to take land and steal resources. I think overall it's just hard to judge past events especially if we look at it through our eyes. I'm sure there are cases where Americans did strictly want to cause terror.
LOL those settlers wanted to terrorize the Natives so they could frighten them into leaving so they could take their land, come on now.
Settlers didn't want to terrorize them at all though. They wanted to ? them and take there land. It's the small difference that matter. There was no longstanding terror campaign used. It generally went settlers see land that they want that natives lived on, through lies and deception(treaties that weren't upheld) to outright pushing them off there land. I wouldn't consider them terriost in the sense of how we use it today .
I 100% disagree, the settlers and American soldiers did want to terrorize the Natives, along with ? them, to intimidate other Natives into giving up their land. The American settlers and American soldiers without question used a very longstanding campaign of terrorism, don't sound silly and ridiculous now. American settlers were without question terrorists and the proof is all over the Native American stories and documents that show how much terror tactics were used.
You are dead wrong here. -
LMAO at someone saying the settlers didn't want to terrorize the Native Americans, SMFH. That's the dumbest thing I've ever seen on the Social Lounge, in all honesty.
-
kingblaze84 wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »
i think there's a clear difference between, say, settlers on the Great Plains and the KKK.The_Jackal wrote: »On top of what janklow says I think that there specifically has to be the want to cause terror. By definition blaze is right but I doubt that Americans wanted to cause terror. They just wanted to take land and steal resources. I think overall it's just hard to judge past events especially if we look at it through our eyes. I'm sure there are cases where Americans did strictly want to cause terror.
LOL those settlers wanted to terrorize the Natives so they could frighten them into leaving so they could take their land, come on now.
Settlers didn't want to terrorize them at all though. They wanted to ? them and take there land. It's the small difference that matter. There was no longstanding terror campaign used. It generally went settlers see land that they want that natives lived on, through lies and deception(treaties that weren't upheld) to outright pushing them off there land. I wouldn't consider them terriost in the sense of how we use it today .
I 100% disagree, the settlers and American soldiers did want to terrorize the Natives, along with ? them, to intimidate other Natives into giving up their land. The American settlers and American soldiers without question used a very longstanding campaign of terrorism, don't sound silly and ridiculous now. American settlers were without question terrorists and the proof is all over the Native American stories and documents that show how much terror tactics were used.
You are dead wrong here.
Provide any legitimate source to prove that they intentional terrorized then specifically to cause other natives to submit? Most anerican settlers actual preferred to be peaceful with the natives since the west didn't have any centers law authority until the railroad boon. But I digress go ahead and prove your point. -
The_Jackal wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »
i think there's a clear difference between, say, settlers on the Great Plains and the KKK.The_Jackal wrote: »On top of what janklow says I think that there specifically has to be the want to cause terror. By definition blaze is right but I doubt that Americans wanted to cause terror. They just wanted to take land and steal resources. I think overall it's just hard to judge past events especially if we look at it through our eyes. I'm sure there are cases where Americans did strictly want to cause terror.
LOL those settlers wanted to terrorize the Natives so they could frighten them into leaving so they could take their land, come on now.
Settlers didn't want to terrorize them at all though. They wanted to ? them and take there land. It's the small difference that matter. There was no longstanding terror campaign used. It generally went settlers see land that they want that natives lived on, through lies and deception(treaties that weren't upheld) to outright pushing them off there land. I wouldn't consider them terriost in the sense of how we use it today .
I 100% disagree, the settlers and American soldiers did want to terrorize the Natives, along with ? them, to intimidate other Natives into giving up their land. The American settlers and American soldiers without question used a very longstanding campaign of terrorism, don't sound silly and ridiculous now. American settlers were without question terrorists and the proof is all over the Native American stories and documents that show how much terror tactics were used.
You are dead wrong here.
Provide any legitimate source to prove that they intentional terrorized then specifically to cause other natives to submit? Most anerican settlers actual preferred to be peaceful with the natives since the west didn't have any centers law authority until the railroad boon. But I digress go ahead and prove your point.
The Indian Removal Act was a form of terrorism, forcing innocent people off their land to make way for white settlers. Those who did not comply were killed or harmed in ways that frightened Native Americans into going along with the removal act. Genocide is the worst kind of terrorism, and American govt with settler help absolutely murdered and slaughtered innocent Natives to terrorize them into submitting their land.
Will you accept Native American sources? Because they have agreed all these things were a form of terrorism. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »
i think there's a clear difference between, say, settlers on the Great Plains and the KKK.The_Jackal wrote: »On top of what janklow says I think that there specifically has to be the want to cause terror. By definition blaze is right but I doubt that Americans wanted to cause terror. They just wanted to take land and steal resources. I think overall it's just hard to judge past events especially if we look at it through our eyes. I'm sure there are cases where Americans did strictly want to cause terror.
LOL those settlers wanted to terrorize the Natives so they could frighten them into leaving so they could take their land, come on now.
Settlers didn't want to terrorize them at all though. They wanted to ? them and take there land. It's the small difference that matter. There was no longstanding terror campaign used. It generally went settlers see land that they want that natives lived on, through lies and deception(treaties that weren't upheld) to outright pushing them off there land. I wouldn't consider them terriost in the sense of how we use it today .
I 100% disagree, the settlers and American soldiers did want to terrorize the Natives, along with ? them, to intimidate other Natives into giving up their land. The American settlers and American soldiers without question used a very longstanding campaign of terrorism, don't sound silly and ridiculous now. American settlers were without question terrorists and the proof is all over the Native American stories and documents that show how much terror tactics were used.
You are dead wrong here.
Provide any legitimate source to prove that they intentional terrorized then specifically to cause other natives to submit? Most anerican settlers actual preferred to be peaceful with the natives since the west didn't have any centers law authority until the railroad boon. But I digress go ahead and prove your point.
The Indian Removal Act was a form of terrorism, forcing innocent people off their land to make way for white settlers. Those who did not comply were killed or harmed in ways that frightened Native Americans into going along with the removal act. Genocide is the worst kind of terrorism, and American govt with settler help absolutely murdered and slaughtered innocent Natives to terrorize them into submitting their land.
Will you accept Native American sources? Because they have agreed all these things were a form of terrorism.
Indian removal act wasn't an act of terrorism as much as an act of coercion. Yes they applied pressure on the Indians but we don't see widespread violence until most natives and their supporters gave up on fighting it in the court with jackson reelection. Which is where the coercion comes in with most tribes signing treaties that were completly horrible for him.
Of course they are going to agree that it's terrorism they are going to understandably be biased. -
The_Jackal wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »
i think there's a clear difference between, say, settlers on the Great Plains and the KKK.The_Jackal wrote: »On top of what janklow says I think that there specifically has to be the want to cause terror. By definition blaze is right but I doubt that Americans wanted to cause terror. They just wanted to take land and steal resources. I think overall it's just hard to judge past events especially if we look at it through our eyes. I'm sure there are cases where Americans did strictly want to cause terror.
LOL those settlers wanted to terrorize the Natives so they could frighten them into leaving so they could take their land, come on now.
Settlers didn't want to terrorize them at all though. They wanted to ? them and take there land. It's the small difference that matter. There was no longstanding terror campaign used. It generally went settlers see land that they want that natives lived on, through lies and deception(treaties that weren't upheld) to outright pushing them off there land. I wouldn't consider them terriost in the sense of how we use it today .
I 100% disagree, the settlers and American soldiers did want to terrorize the Natives, along with ? them, to intimidate other Natives into giving up their land. The American settlers and American soldiers without question used a very longstanding campaign of terrorism, don't sound silly and ridiculous now. American settlers were without question terrorists and the proof is all over the Native American stories and documents that show how much terror tactics were used.
You are dead wrong here.
Provide any legitimate source to prove that they intentional terrorized then specifically to cause other natives to submit? Most anerican settlers actual preferred to be peaceful with the natives since the west didn't have any centers law authority until the railroad boon. But I digress go ahead and prove your point.
The Indian Removal Act was a form of terrorism, forcing innocent people off their land to make way for white settlers. Those who did not comply were killed or harmed in ways that frightened Native Americans into going along with the removal act. Genocide is the worst kind of terrorism, and American govt with settler help absolutely murdered and slaughtered innocent Natives to terrorize them into submitting their land.
Will you accept Native American sources? Because they have agreed all these things were a form of terrorism.
Indian removal act wasn't an act of terrorism as much as an act of coercion. Yes they applied pressure on the Indians but we don't see widespread violence until most natives and their supporters gave up on fighting it in the court with jackson reelection. Which is where the coercion comes in with most tribes signing treaties that were completly horrible for him.
Of course they are going to agree that it's terrorism they are going to understandably be biased.
I'm siding with the Native Americans 100% on this issue. The bloodthirsty, greedy American settlers and soldiers with government support used terrorism without any question in my mind or in the mind of the average Native American whose ancestors had to deal with the horrors and extreme evil of American settlers and American government soldiers. I'm co-signing the Native Americans on this one.
http://www.manataka.org/page2272.html
Living With Terror, by Tim Giago
Indians have Lived with Terrorism for 500 Years
After 9/11 the question was asked; why do they hate us? Perhaps that question should be rephrased to ask, "What have we done to them to make them hate us?"
America is now experiencing the fear American Indians have felt for more than 500 years. Our ancestors never knew what act of violence or terror would befall them from the American invaders. But death did come. It came in the form of biological warfare when small pox tainted blankets were distributed to the unsuspecting victims.
It came to them from the muzzles of guns that did not distinguish between warriors, women, elders or children. It came to them in the ruthless name of Manifest Destiny, the American edict that proclaimed ? as the purveyor of expansion Westward.
Indian people were often slaughtered like animals often under a flag of truce and often while waving the American flag in pitiful efforts to convince their killers that they were not bad people.
At Wounded Knee in 1890, a slaughter took place that the white man often called the last great battle between Indians and the United States Army. It was not a battle. It was the last heinous action against innocent men, women and children. Their bodies were strewn across the valley known as Wounded Knee under the barrage set down by the Seventh Cavalry.
They died not knowing why. They died in fear. They died in the frozen snow of that bitterly cold December day while fleeing to find safe harbor amongst the Oglala Lakota. These Lakota experienced terrorism heaped upon them by a government that did not consider them to be human beings.
--Sounds like concrete terrorism to me. I'll leave this thread alone now, as the Native Americans have answered the thread question for me.
-
That's ridiculous because every single act if war, every single battke, every fighy, ? every single act of violence is terrorism. And honestly you are very anti-american so your opinion is exterme biased. Honestly look at it from an objective viewpoint is trail of terror an act that was motivated to inspire terror. Look up Andrew Jackson declaration on it and yes it is horribly racist but tell me did he want to inspire terror, or was he in his honest beliefs doing what he thought was best.
We know that strictly speaking Osama wished to cause terror. That is the difference between those two events -
You are entitled to your false opinion. The Native Americans lived through the terrorism of American actions, I'll take their word over yours.
-
kingblaze84 wrote: »You are entitled to your false opinion. The Native Americans lived through the terrorism of American actions, I'll take their word over yours.
Lol yes because an OPINION can be false that just makes 100% complete sense and there were Native Americans alive in early 1800s that are still alive. Well ? and here I was thinking there was no such thing as immortality. Glad you proved me wrong. Good job ignoring the rest of the post because you know how stupid it is to claim every violent act is terrorism -
The_Jackal wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »You are entitled to your false opinion. The Native Americans lived through the terrorism of American actions, I'll take their word over yours.
Lol yes because an OPINION can be false that just makes 100% complete sense and there were Native Americans alive in early 1800s that are still alive. Well ? and here I was thinking there was no such thing as immortality. Glad you proved me wrong. Good job ignoring the rest of the post because you know how stupid it is to claim every violent act is terrorism
I never once said every violent act is terrorism though.
But what the White, Christian terrorists did was extreme terrorism at its finest, as it often involved the cold blooded murder and harm of innocent Natives. The Natives did use terror tactics of their own, but generally speaking, it was in reaction to what the savage and evil American colonialists were doing. It is what it is, America was founded on terrorism. And same with many other nations. -
One of the most famous memes in America. Speaks for itself, and I'm done here. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »You are entitled to your false opinion. The Native Americans lived through the terrorism of American actions, I'll take their word over yours.
Lol yes because an OPINION can be false that just makes 100% complete sense and there were Native Americans alive in early 1800s that are still alive. Well ? and here I was thinking there was no such thing as immortality. Glad you proved me wrong. Good job ignoring the rest of the post because you know how stupid it is to claim every violent act is terrorism
I never once said every violent act is terrorism though.
But what the White, Christian terrorists did was extreme terrorism at its finest, as it often involved the cold blooded murder and harm of innocent Natives. The Natives did use terror tactics of their own, but generally speaking, it was in reaction to what the savage and evil American colonialists were doing. It is what it is, America was founded on terrorism. And same with many other nations.
It's crazy how you don't see that's exactly what you are implying. That literally what you are saying. That any violent act in and of itself is terrorism regardless of what the cause of it is.
