posted
And you're a true idiot if you think the Taliban wasn't an army but the Continental Army was, using the definition Bush has.
And since you seem to ignore the treatment of Tories in the U.S. during and after the war, hey, we know how much faith we can place in you, Mr. If They Try And Tell Two Sides Of A Story In A History Book They're A Damned Liberal!
posted
Somehow I can't picture the Continentals trying to blow up Parliament. Only the Brits themselves ever tried that.
There is only one side to a story. Especially History.
Or, if you ask the Vorlon, three sides. Yours, Theirs, and the Truth.
It just so happens that my side's closer to the Truth.
Final Truth: Despite what you've been told, not every viewpoint is equally valid.
[ January 25, 2002, 08:32: Message edited by: First of Two ]
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- all the times when supporters of the American Revolution attacked those who weren't --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
again, when?
Boy FOT you really should read history other than the onesided stuff that your government hands you. Here is just one account, which should be good enough as you seem to think there were none. Your people being so pure and all.
Such an incident occurred in 1775:
At Quibbleton, New Jersey, Thomas Randolph, cooper, who (as the Patriots said) had publicly proved himself an enemy to his country, by reviling and using his utmost endeavours to oppose the proceedings of the continental and provincial conventions... was ordered to be stripped naked, well coated with tar and feathers, and carried on a wagon publicly around the town - which punishment was accordingly inflicted. As soon as he became duly sensible of his offence, for which he earnestly begged pardon, and promised to atone, as far as he was able, by contrary behaviour for the future, he was released and suffered to return to his house, in less than half and hour.
[ January 25, 2002, 08:57: Message edited by: Grokca ]
-------------------- "and none of your usual boobery." M. Burns
Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Ok here's another because FOT will think up some other diversionary tactic to discredit the first example The Tea Party Parliament's passage of the Tea Act in 1773 was the occasion for an escalation of violent reactions against British colonial policy. The Boston Tea Party, during which patriots dumped forty-five tons of tea into Boston harbor, triggered sympathetic responses in other colonial ports, and began a new wave of assaults against the agents who collected Britain's commercial revenues. Contemporary portrayals of the tarring and feathering of tax collectors were long on revolutionary symbolism.mple.
[ January 25, 2002, 09:05: Message edited by: Grokca ]
-------------------- "and none of your usual boobery." M. Burns
Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Because, as I'm sure Rob says, "if it's not told with an American bias, it's LIBERAL TRASH!"
Grow up, Rob.
Then again, since he seems to think the Americans can't be terrorists since he considers the Brits to be an occupying force, I wonder what he classifies those who blow up Marine barracks overseas. I mean, clearly THEY must be freedom fighters, right? There is a foreign military on their soil!
quote:and using his utmost endeavours to oppose the proceedings of the continental and provincial conventions...
But what does that MEAN? Guy Fawkes used his utmost efforts to oppose parliament meetings...
And the TEa Party was simple hooligabism and destruction of property. No one was killed. and it was STILL 200+ years ago, and not relevant to the present.
Snay, you're like the blind mice who discovered the elephant...
Because they were so small, they could only feel at tiny bits of the elephant, so they formed totally wrong opinions of what an elephant was like.
You looked at ONE thing I said in my whole large argument which contained a number of elements distinguishing terrorists, and froze on that one thing, and developed a totally wrong opinion.
[ January 25, 2002, 12:28: Message edited by: First of Two ]
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Snay, you're like the blind mice who discovered the elephant...
Because they were so small, they could only look at tiny bits of the elephant, so they formed totally wrong opinions of what an elephant was like.
Although I bow down before your all-encompassing drollness and intelligence, Rob, might I point out that somehow your titanic intellect managed to miss the fact that blind mice wouldn't see anything elephant-related. Perhaps something like an elephant in a pitch-black room.
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I'd hardly call it a desperate non-sequiter, since unlike Jeff, I long ago gave up any ambitions on changing peoples minds through logical arguments. Instead I while away my time thinking up ways to be sarcastic and annoy everyone.
But, in bout of hypocricy, I will add one thing to the "we never tried to attack Parliment argument". How the hell were you suppossed to? Was some of your army going to get on boats, sail over, shoot some members of Parliment, and shoot back?
If that was was happening in a time where access to planes and bombs is a darn sight easier, then yes, I do belive you'd have tried to attack parliment.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I say hell yes Our Boys would've gone for the brit goverment. I would have been in full support of it, two hundred years ago.
"Blimey, you say the yanks have...aeroplanes?"
"The nine devils they do, Richard! Some useless contraption or whatnot. I'm sure they won't be able to strike so far as this."
"what's that bloody noise?"
"it's the yanks sir. They're...Here. In their aeroplanes, sir."
"well then, Call them in for tea then Reginald."
"Can't sir. They look rather angry."
"What's this? they would dare so bold an action? Against the crown?"
"Almost as bad as the bloody Zulus, sir"
"The Who?"
"the Zulus, sir. bloody anachronism and all that."
"Very well. Let's have some tea."
In any case, I think First of Two was talking about me, with the Non sequithing. Because you made sense, and I did not. I think.
Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Somehow I can't picture the Continentals trying to blow up Parliament.
The only thing I can think is that for some folks, it must somehow be quite self-satisfying to view history so simply.
Or to see that tactics and strategy insurgencey groups use have changed over time. To be sure, the 1/3 of the Americans who organized to fight the British were an insurgence group. Had such a revolution started yesterday, I think we can be sure that 17th century tactics would not be used again. It is therefore silly to require the same of Al-Qaeda or the Taliban or the FARC in Columbia for that matter.
The rules of war have gone out the window a long time ago. Victory in one's particular cause is now the only thing that matters.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:for some folks, it must somehow be quite self-satisfying to view history so simply.
I agree. That's why I wasn't the one to start making bogus historical comparisons.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
At least you admit that they're bogus comparisons. That's a good start. Only 11 more steps to go.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
step four means writing down all the fouled up shit you've done, in excruciating detail, so that you can read it anytime you start feeling good about yourself and thus remember what a evil bastard you are.
Been there, done that.
Wouldn't it be great if world leaders had to do that sometimes?
Twelve step program to Leadership Addiction...
damn i miss having the history channel.
Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
