XPost: rec.arts.tv, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, nf.general   
   From: Obveeus@aol.com   
      
   "EGK"  wrote:   
   > On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 07:32:13 -0400, "Obveeus"  wrote:   
   >>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   
      
   How is it not an act of 'terrorism' to burn down the businesses and homes of   
   people that support the legitimate government of the land in an effort to   
   keep them from continuing that support?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)