BF2S Forums Were Confederate soldiers terrorists?

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Based on the hundreds of e-mails, Facebook comments and Tweets I've read in response to my denunciation of Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell's decision to honor Confederates for their involvement in the Civil War -- which was based on the desire to continue slavery --

Stopped reading right there.  Shouldn't even be worthy of a comment.

-------------

and yes, sherman destroyed way more shit.


I intend to make Georgia howl

If the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war, and not popularity seeking.

War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.

Last edited by SealXo (2010-04-12 16:21:17)

To the Union soldiers held captive, yes. To the land owners who were forced to billet confederate troops, yes. To the slaves facing a lifetime of servitude, yes. 

To themselves and the average Union soldier I would say no.





Audy Murphy was no doubt consider a terrorist by the famlies of the 200-300 Germans he killed.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

oh my god

terrorism n. - the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

Post in search of a point?

All military losers use terroristic tactics, according to the victors.

lowing wrote:

Racist now includes all people that disagree with the black president or speaks out against him. Terrorist now includes all people that ever picked up a gun.

Sorry I will keep both words in their proper perspectives and contexts.

We'll keep you to that.

ATG wrote:

All military losers use terroristic tactics, according to the victors.

And anyone who doesn't have a multi-trillion dollar military behind them.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-04-13 06:14:40)

funny dude.  one second, Im spouting shit off of a dictionary, the next second you say Im using combat as the only legitimate way of defining the term.

I dont recall even giving a definition lowing, im just playing your style of "debate"
youre getting worked up over something Ive never said.

eleven bravo wrote:

funny dude.  one second, Im spouting shit off of a dictionary, the next second you say Im using combat as the only legitimate way of defining the term.

I dont recall even giving a definition lowing, im just playing your style of "debate"
youre getting worked up over something Ive never said.

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 5#p3101505  <---- then maybe you can explain how your combat experience became relevant to the discussion.

You do not have the capabilty to get me worked up, ya never really have.

Last edited by lowing (2010-04-13 13:58:30)

lowing wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

ATG wrote:

Post in search of a point?

All military losers use terroristic tactics, according to the victors.

No, they don't, "terrorist" has a definition.

Scorched earth tactics are not terrorism. Blowing up a civilian bus to make a political statement is terrorism. Sherman's march was not terrorism. Sending Anthrax in letters to politicians is terrorism. Blowing up a Hummer of a foreign occupying force with an IED is not terrorism. Running civilian planes into civilian buildings is terrorism.

The only people who lump them all together are the idiots of the conservative party. "Terrorism" does not equate to "evil".

So which example did you post as terrorism do you not consider evil?

Also blowing the hummer of an occupying force with an IED is terrorism, when the ones doing the blowing up is also a forign force ( not iraqi) and there intent is to keep Iraq unstable. The coalition is being hindered in its efforts to improve the country by forces ( not iraqi) who have no interest in a stable country they can not control.

I don't understand how this is hard.



The insurgents have as much of a claim to Iraq as we do.

We also have little interest in a stable country that we cannot control. I mean, Iraq was stable before it was just a fucking travesty to human rights and international security. It's not like it was having an identity crisis though.

some southern said this on anderson cooper's blog regarding this issue

"Let me answer the ridiculous question this way. It was not the Confederate Army that invaded the North, it was the Union Army that invaded the South. It was not the Confederate generals who intiated acts of "total war". It was the Union Army with Lincoln's approval. These acts included burning homes and farm buildings, confiscating some or all of the livestock and stores of food from the southern civilians, and many documented reports of raping slave women and hanging male slaves who were NOT willing to join the Union Army when asked. A great many southern towns were shelled and/ or burned. Thousands of women, children, and noncombatant males were killed by Union artillery and rifle fire. Homes were routinely looted. I NOW ASK YOU: Who were the real terrorists?"

source
Agree or disagree?

paint kthx

lowing wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

funny dude.  one second, Im spouting shit off of a dictionary, the next second you say Im using combat as the only legitimate way of defining the term.

I dont recall even giving a definition lowing, im just playing your style of "debate"
youre getting worked up over something Ive never said.

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 5#p3101505  <---- then maybe you can explain how your combat experience became relevant to the discussion.

You do not have the capabilty to get me worked up, ya never really have.

eleven bravo wrote:

I believe my real world and academic experience trumps you on this subject lowing.  I believe Ill trust my definition of what constitutes a terrorist act and actor over yours.

then you decided to address only half of what I had to offer by saying something about dictionary definitions and ignoring the fact that I mentioned real world experience as well.  When i addressed my real world experience you come up with this "my experiences only pertain to my definition" nonsense.  very very typical coming from you lowing.  you pick what you want to address in a post and decide to focus the entire argument on that sole point.  I made note of my academic AND combat experience.  You managed to criticise both as being invalid to the argument but not simultaneously which is funny, seeing as how again you are focusing on one thing I said and ignoring another. 

yes I have lowing.  you resorted to name calling and insults when you lose youre argument plenty of times.  remember your own personal definition of apartheid? lol

eleven bravo wrote:

lowing wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

funny dude.  one second, Im spouting shit off of a dictionary, the next second you say Im using combat as the only legitimate way of defining the term.

I dont recall even giving a definition lowing, im just playing your style of "debate"
youre getting worked up over something Ive never said.

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 5#p3101505  <---- then maybe you can explain how your combat experience became relevant to the discussion.

You do not have the capabilty to get me worked up, ya never really have.

eleven bravo wrote:

I believe my real world and academic experience trumps you on this subject lowing.  I believe Ill trust my definition of what constitutes a terrorist act and actor over yours.

then you decided to address only half of what I had to offer by saying something about dictionary definitions and ignoring the fact that I mentioned real world experience as well.  When i addressed my real world experience you come up with this "my experiences only pertain to my definition" nonsense.  very very typical coming from you lowing.  you pick what you want to address in a post and decide to focus the entire argument on that sole point.  I made note of my academic AND combat experience.  You managed to criticise both as being invalid to the argument but not simultaneously which is funny, seeing as how again you are focusing on one thing I said and ignoring another. 

yes I have lowing.  you resorted to name calling and insults when you lose youre argument plenty of times.  remember your own personal definition of apartheid? lol

Something you really need to get a grasp of............Your real world experience does not have dick to do with what racism means, what terrorism means or any thing else. I did not quote a partial post. I posted your entire post in response to your denial that your combat and real world experience defines terms such as these.

They are invalid to the context of this OP and to how terminology is defined, they are not invalid to your personal experiences.



Also what you said is recorded in full context in the post I linked. Really is no way of denying what you said, in the context of you saying it.

and think what ya want, you are not one of those in this forum that piss me off.

Last edited by lowing (2010-04-14 04:22:19)

lowing wrote:

Something you really need to get a grasp of............Your real world experience does not have dick to do with what racism means, what terrorism means or any thing else. I did not quote a partial post. I posted your entire post in response to your denial that your combat and real world experience defines terms such as these.

They are invalid to the context of this OP and to how terminology is defined, they are not invalid to your personal experiences.

damn lowing you and your bullshit hair-splitting dictionary definition mo'fo'. Or is that only something other people can't do?

FEOS wrote:

@ the OP: NO.

The were wearing uniforms, part of regular formations, following the rules of war as known and understood at the time.

None of which have anything to do with whether or not terror is used as a weapon to further political or military goals, do they?

Shermans Total War strategy was to break the civilians will to support the war. It could be defined as terrorism...