XPost: rec.arts.tv, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, nf.general   
   From: me@privacy.net   
      
   On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 16:48:29 -0400, "Obveeus"  wrote:   
      
   >   
   >"Thanatos"  wrote in message   
   >news:atropos-850F9B.16264622042010@news.giganews.com...   
   >> In article ,   
   >> "Obveeus"  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> "Ubiquitous"  wrote in message   
   >>> news:3uSdnVGyE-i7y03WnZ2dnUVZ_uKdnZ2d@giganews.com...   
   >>> > atropos@mac.com wrote:   
   >>> >> "Obveeus"  wrote:   
   >>> >>> "Thanatos"  wrote:   
   >>> >>> > "Arizona Bushwhacker"  wrote:   
   >>> >   
   >>> >>> >> These Muslims are just like fucking tea-baggers.   
   >>> >>> >> Muslims never condemn terrorist Muslims and therefore   
   >>> >>> >> every Muslim is a terrorist.  Just like how tea-baggers   
   >>> >>> >> never condemn terrorist tea-baggers.  I guess that   
   >>> >>> >> gives me the right to call EVERY tea-bagger a terrorist!   
   >>> >>> >   
   >>> >>> > Which Tea Party person is a terrorist again?   
   >>> >>>   
   >>> >>> The original ones from Boston.   
   >>> >>   
   >>> >>Vandalism is now terrorism?   
   >>>   
   >>> Destructive acts designed to bring down a government only count as   
   >>> 'terrorism' if people die?   
   >>   
   >> Where exactly did I say that?   
   >   
   >You claimed above that the Boston Tea Party was an act of vandalism, not   
   >terrorism.  Since the desired effect was to scare/intimidate the legitimate   
   >government and to local merchants, how was it not an act of 'terrorism'?   
      
   Terrorism is meant to terrorize the population not the government.   As I   
   said in another post, if those involved had been cutting off heads of the   
   British seamen on the merchant ships, then you'd have a comparison.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)