Libertarians Are Terrorists, According To The Federal Govt

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1817727' date='Mar 27 2009, 08:03 AM']Terrorism is not synonymous with revolution. Not every group that uses violence to acheive its goals is a terrorist entity.

Our language is degrading because the stupid have access to mass communication and the simpering weenies in academia won't oppose the destruction of our language.[/quote]
Would violent revolution against legitimate authority be considered terrorism?

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1817727' date='Mar 27 2009, 09:03 AM']Terrorism is not synonymous with revolution. Not every group that uses violence to acheive its goals is a terrorist entity.

Our language is degrading because the stupid have access to mass communication and the simpering weenies in academia won't oppose the destruction of our language.[/quote]

Holy cra'p that was so well put. Especially the use of the words "simpering weenies." I applaud thee, good sir.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1817748' date='Mar 27 2009, 09:55 AM']Would violent revolution against legitimate authority be considered terrorism?[/quote]

According to my copy of the Websters College Dictionary, terrorism is the use of violence and threats to intimidate and coerce; esp for political ends.

Ironic. By that definition, it is the Federal State that is acting the part of the terrorist.

[Didacus]

[quote name='T-Bone _' post='1814209' date='Mar 22 2009, 06:30 PM']Government Good. Freedom Baaaaaaaaa-d.

[img]http://ocw.usu.edu/University_Extension/sheep-and-lambing-management/sheep.jpg[/img][/quote]

4 legs good, 2 legs better.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1817748' date='Mar 27 2009, 09:55 AM']Would violent revolution against legitimate authority be considered terrorism?[/quote]
Only if it targeted non-military targets in order to accomplish its ends by intimidating the populace, as opposed to defeating the group in power through legitimate military action. In the case of opposing legitimate (I assume you mean just) authority, it would be evil, but not terroristic. I suppose all war involves some terror, but terrorism against people is completely devoid of honor.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1817760' date='Mar 27 2009, 10:25 AM']Holy cra'p that was so well put. Especially the use of the words "simpering weenies." I applaud thee, good sir.[/quote]
Thanks, Prime.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1817929' date='Mar 27 2009, 03:58 PM']Only if it targeted non-military targets in order to accomplish its ends by intimidating the populace, as opposed to defeating the group in power through legitimate military action. In the case of opposing legitimate (I assume you mean just) authority, it would be evil, but not terroristic. I suppose all war involves some terror, but terrorism against people is completely devoid of honor.[/quote]
Ah, ok. Good definition.

[T-Bone _]

Remember, guys, that our esteemed VP sponsored (and got passed) a bill that makes it illegal to have an opinion contrary to that the government wants you to have, if you give out information they don't want you to give.