XPost: rec.arts.tv, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, nf.general   
   From: me@privacy.net   
      
   On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 07:32:13 -0400, "Obveeus"  wrote:   
      
   >   
   >"EGK"  wrote:   
      
   >> 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.   
      
    I thnk you're really stretching trying t omake a comparison.   Bombing and   
   killing citizens is terrorizing the populous.   Okalahoma city qualifies.   
   Driving Combines and tractors to close down the Capitol of Washington DC   
   like farmers once did is more akin to the Boston tea party.  Not everyone   
   supported them and they certainly hurt businesses at the time.  It still   
   wasn't terrorisim   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)