Bill O'Reilly sez you're unpatriotic if...

[MrFun]

It's the institution (now with another name I can't recall) in the state of Georgia where the American military trains Latin American officers torture techniques, and maybe even terrorist tactics.

[Kidlicious]

Kucinich,

The US govt seems to be automatically excluded from terroism by whatever definition you are using.

[Imran Siddiqui]

are u saying that in absence of govt, you dont have the freedom of speech?

Yes I am. Without government, what is to prevent the 'big dude' from killing you if you say something bad about him? Where is your freedom of speech then?

1) Genocide of Native Americans.
2) Sinking of the Maine.
3) Violence against labor movement.
4) Violence against blacks. (KKK and such)
5) Violence against communists and anarcists.
6) Bombing of Cambodia, and other actions of Vietnam.
7) Atomic bomb use.
8) Violence against civil rights protesters.

Can you tell me which one of those are terrorism because none of them are, with the exemption of the A-Bomb use to end WW2. In no others did we deliberately target civilians so they would enact political change.

Besides we said the US isn't a terrorist state anymore, and I really don't recall us doing genocide against the Native Americans anytime in the last 100+ years (not that it was terrorism anyway).

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by MrFun
It's the institution (now with another name I can't recall) in the state of Georgia where the American military trains Latin American officers torture techniques, and maybe even terrorist tactics.

Thats always been an interesting quandry. Are those graduates of SOA actually representatives of the US government?

While yes the tactics trained are questionable at best are they under direct control of the US?

I don't know.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The US govt seems to be automatically excluded from terroism by whatever definition you are using.

Most government (not just US) action is excluded from terrorism, because a majority of the time the government doesn't care about alterting the political determinations of another group by using force.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Yup, because anyone can use force to prevent your speech.

ok, and so can the govt.
if you are the only person on the planet, can anyone take away your freedom of speech? or inversely, who grants it to you?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Kucinich,

The US govt seems to be automatically excluded from terroism by whatever definition you are using.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
ok, and so can the govt.

Yes, because we don't have an inalienable right to free speech.

if you are the only person on the planet, can anyone take away your freedom of speech? or inversely, who grants it to you?

Then you are the government. Or at least, government and freedom has no meaning in that situation.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The US govt seems to be automatically excluded from terroism by whatever definition you are using.

Most government (not just US) action is excluded from terrorism, because a majority of the time the government doesn't care about alterting the political determinations of another group by using force.

You have got to be kidding.

[Imran Siddiqui]

ok, and so can the govt.

Yep, but it can also grant you a freedom of speech.

if you are the only person on the planet, can anyone take away your freedom of speech? or inversely, who grants it to you?

'Rights' are social constructs so if you were the only person on the planet you wouldn't have any rights. Rights are things you can claim against others (ie, you violated my right to X). You could go and do what you wanted if you were alone in the world, but you wouldn't have rights. You wouldn't need them. Who would you claim them against?

[Imran Siddiqui]

You have got to be kidding.

Nope, not at all. How many times do you see a country these days kill off people of another group so that that group decides to change its policies? Not very often. Usually it will be done by small groups themselves, most of the time trying to get independance.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Can you tell me which one of those are terrorism because none of them are, with the exemption of the A-Bomb use to end WW2. In no others did we deliberately target civilians so they would enact political change.

More central to the meaning of the word 'terrorism' is 'intimidate,' rather than just 'target.' The US govt has intimidated it's own citizens and other peoples to force them to behave in a manner beneficial to itself and the most powerfull men behand the govt.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

You have got to be kidding.

Nope, not at all. How many times do you see a country these days kill off people of another group so that that group decides to change its policies? Not very often. Usually it will be done by small groups themselves, most of the time trying to get independance.

Again. The definitions that you are using exempts govts, because they don't have the need to use the type of terrorism that freedom fighters use.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Yep, but it can also grant you a freedom of speech.

how can it grant you anything if it already exists without govt?

'Rights' are social constructs so if you were the only person on the planet you wouldn't have any rights. Rights are things you can claim against others (ie, you violated my right to X). You could go and do what you wanted if you were alone in the world, but you wouldn't have rights. You wouldn't need them. Who would you claim them against?

that doesnt answer the question. if i am the only person left on the planet, what prevents me from having freedom of speech?

[Imran Siddiqui]

The US govt has intimidated it's own citizens and other peoples to force them to behave in a manner beneficial to itself and the most powerfull men behand the govt.

No, they would have to target civilians in order to intimidate them to enact political change. Target is essential in the word. You can add intimidate if you want but that is the same thing as saying 'so they would enact political change'.

All the violence you have stated was not meant to intimidate people to enact some form of political change, but to accompish other goals.

You still haven't provided me with anything. The easiest thing to do was to talk about the US funding of groups which would kill civilians to get them to vote or agitate for a different position, but that ain't recent.