XPost: rec.arts.tv, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, nf.general   
   From: Obveeus@aol.com   
      
   "EGK"  wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   So, you have to cut off their heads rather than burn down their businesses   
   in order for it to be terrorism?  You seem to be under the impression that   
   *all* people living in the Americas wanted freedom from English rule.  That   
   wasn't the case at all and the people that did want freedom most definitely   
   committed many terrorist acts against those that continued to support the   
   legitimate government.  Threatening the destruction of any business entity   
   that continued to support the government IS terrorizing the populous.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)