Bitcoin Forum

One is brown.

I was going to say "who's talking," but that works, too.

Actually that was a honest question that turned into a stupid joke. What is the difference?

Like I said, whose side he's on. If it's your side, he's a patriot. if he's on the other side, he's a terrorist.

Subject to judicial review. False flag! No, false false flag! No, no, false false false flag! No, no, no, false, false, false, false flag! USW.

well, for starters patriots dont fly airplanes into buildings..

Ha, ha, ha,

leave.

That's what you call a "desperation move." (Also a dick move, but blame democracy for putting the citizens in the crosshairs.)

Wrong. Patriots believe in self-defense.

But you are probably a Govt zombie who thinks invading other ppl's lands to steal their resources and rob their dignity is 'patriotic'.

From many angles, they're quite similar, but patriots are more known for their defensive acts, while terrorists perform aggressive actions.

Anybody wanna place bets?

I'd place 0.5 BTC on myrkul.

self defense isnt flying airplanes into buildings, you derpfool. and no, i'm far from a mindless zombie, but thanks for attacking a true american. most of us know better than the bullshit our goverment feeds us, but what can one man do?

That just means that patriots have nukes and drones and other weapons.

Other side just uses resources more cost effectively.


There is no real difference...

British rioters burn buildings and attack government authorities - "violent rioters, send in the army to crush them"

Syrian rioters burn buildings, suicide bomb government ministers, murder soldiers - "peaceful civilian protesters being brutally crushed by despotic regime"

Someone murders an off duty British soldier - "evil terrorist scum"

Someone murders an off duty Syrian soldier - "Brave civilian fighting off the shackles of oppression"

Any freedom fighter in history will also be a "terrorist" in the eyes of the people they fought against. My few examples of how state-run media in the UK and US spin pieces of news to suit their own agenda show this to be the case.

The founding fathers of America, who truly DID fight against tyranny would have been called "terrorists" for advocating violence against the government. And people who truly DO commit atrocities (such as murdering a soldier and eating their heart while recording the act) get labelled "patriots/heroes"" depending on who is doing the reporting. 

One is a coward and cant fight fair and the other you could call a mate :)

Ah terrorists are your mates? ;D

Touche !

This whole forum is full of them. ;D

Yeah, those anarchist going against goverments... Trying to take down them and replace them with their own systems...

It does come to definition...

a "terrorist" is one who shares files on TPB/Wikileaks, a "patriot" is one who detains the "terrorist" for over 1100 days and still feebly attempting to charge him with "aiding the enemy" . . .


PS : The terms "patriot" & "terrorist" are inter-changable
 :P

The patriot won. The terrorist lost.

==== TINFOIL HAT ON
Just remember everything you wrote here is permanently stored in NSA database, cross referenced to you Facebook account, all your google searches and all your phone movements. A blue diode just came ON in the middle of a Uta data center, as certain keyword combinations have been matched.
Drone is taking off right now from a secret airbase, and your GPS location is being transferred to its warhead.
==== TINFOIL HAT STILL ON

Your probably not so far from the truth there mate!

Does the tinfoil hat thing still work?

tin foil hats are proven ineffective or even directly harmful to the privacy of your mind.

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://berkeley.intel-research.net/arahimi/helmet/

(OMFG, NSA took it of the net. fuck fuck fuck!)


On topic:
Depends on your position, but my patriots have yet to fly planes into buildings.

Wikipedia:
Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, often violent, especially as a means of coercion.

A patriot is someone who feels a strong support for his or her country.




If a person thinks that committing an act of terrorism will help their country then they may be considered patriotic.  I don't go for the either or argument.  Patriotism generally leads to negative outcomes, this being one of them.

Patriotism is a primal instinct that is essential for tribe's organization and survival in a harsh environment and in competition against rival tribes. Tribes are no more, but evolution didn't keep up. Now individuals project those feelings onto their nation/state/race/religion. However, that system can not be logically complete, because patriots of two different nations can never agree whose nation is superior.

Unfortunately patriots and terrorists cant do it the simple way. They prefer to send bombs over or do other stupid things.

If only we could get the two main ones that are arguing and put them in a ring top slug it out... Bare Knuckle!

dammit!

*takes tinfoil hat off*

puts sunglasses on  8)

Fly a plane into a building?  ;)

For the record, I'm neither a terrorist nor a patriot, as I see that the country I would be "strongly supporting" are terrorizing others. I stand for truth and honesty, and although it's probably true that killing others is inevitable in the pursuit of truth and honesty, flying planes into buildings only helps if the people in the buildings are the terrorists.

The tribes are as active today as they were 5000 years ago... probably more-so.

No, they're just got their hands on guns, that's all.

A terrorist is usually smarter than a patriot.

Both may ruled by an ideology, but not necessarily. The smart terrorists are the planners and thinkers. The ones who manage, regulate, and administrate. The ones who convince an 18 year old  Muslim boy from childhood to have nothing but hate and anger towards one of their targets, with 70 virgins waiting for him keeping Allah and Mohommed fluffed up, to blow himself up to take out some infidels. Patriots have planners and thinkers too. Come to think about it, few of our Founding Fathers - Patriots One and All - served on a battlefield. Pretty smart. I a pretty sure every one of their kids were taught to hate Ole King George. Others were taught by patriots to kill Crown administrators, magistrates, sheriffs, and destroy or confiscate weapons caches and Crown resources in America.

Both can be pretty dumb too.

The patriot is the one that tortures (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solitary_confinement#Torture) the terrorist.

That's a good idea, violate all the conventions so next time our troops get caught they're tortured too.  Torture is a foolish attempt at retribution.  Any information specialist will say that it's practically worthless when it comes to getting information from a person.



One other thing, some people are acting like all terrorists are of one faith or ideology.  This is not borne out by the constant shootings in the US.  Only difference is that they aren't branded a terrorist, because like it's been mentioned they are of the wrong skin color.

You know this for a fact ??? ... Its not an attacking question, I am genuinely interested...

Yeah, I hear them say that all the time.  I never hear anyone but politicians and generals saying that they got good info from torture.
Think about it, you're going to say whatever you think they want you to say if you're broken.  If they can't break you
Situation:
A. You have info and they can't break you
B. You have info and they do break you
C. You have no info and they can't break you
D. You have no info and they do break you
Conclusion:
A. Lies
B. Lies mixed with truth
C. Lies
D. Lies

Even in the best possible situation you don't get much at all.  The little pieces of info that have been gathered are corrupted. 

The best way to get information from a person is to befriend them.  I know it seems strange, but this is the main tactic used in successful interrogation.  The relationship is still manipulative and unnatural, but being that the interrogator is usually their only link to humanity the connection is formed fairly quickly.

Which should also be troubling, given that solitary confinement is torture that leaves permanent damage on its victims.

I agree it is troubling.  I'm not under the impression that they keep them in solitary for long periods of time, though.  The interrogator is usually quite friendly and spending a large amount of time with them.  I don't think this is perfect, maybe one day we'll just be able to scan a person and know everything they have stuck in their memory.  I can imagine a time, though where I would agree that it would be worth using this type of interrogation, if done properly..  but if you're point is that solitary confinement is worse torture than what people go through that we actually call torture, I totally agree. 
Probably easier on a person to just kill them then to put them in a hole for years.  Not sure which I'd choose.

I don't call people opposite my side terrorists. I do not like that word at all.

This.


The winner writes the history book and assigns the labels.


Defining by tactics is not useful.  As repulsive as I find it for someone to hijack a civilian plane and fly it into a building full of civilians, it is just as ugly a tactic as dropping a 70/30 mix of incendiary bombs / anti-personnel bombs on a city built of bamboo and paper.  Once war has been become the answer, it is foolish to fight with anything less than everything you have.  "Rules of Engagement" are only justified if they serve to further speed victory.

The third, and final, victory by the Romans over Carthage should be the model by which we fight wars.  If we are unwilling to take war to that level we should not be going to war.

I think there is a time for it.  Yes it is definitely misused often.  Terrorism is not an accidental thing though.  If a person did not intend for the image of what they did to live on in the memories of their victims and cause suffering, then they are not a terrorist.  Asymmetrical warfare will always play out this way.  Soon there won't be such a thing on any sort of large scale.  As technology comes at us faster it will become easier for weaker states to come by WMDs.  Then we're stuck back in the cold era, mutual assured destruction.  Whose button finger slips first is a fun game!  Ooops!  Found out that it takes a lot more security to hold in those bio weapons.
Wow how did I get there.. I must really hate my birthday lol..

Well the tactic defines itself.  I think the problem here is that we've been told that if terrorism exists we must fight it.  Many people will proudly call their self a terrorist.  It's just a term for a method of war.  What is sad is that the US doesn't get branded in the same way.  Know what a double tap is?  Dropping a bomb on a target then waiting for help to come and bombing them.  It's a war crime, and my country does it constantly.  Same with signature strikes.. just as disgusting.  So I'm not saying there is nothing to your argument, yes history is written by the winner.  I think we need to call more people terrorists, not less :)

If your views are same or similar to the govt, you are a patriot and your coffin will be draped in your country's flag, if your views are contradictory, you are terrorist, do not need a coffin, you will be blasted to bits by the Predator.

A "double tap" is nothing compared to the 70/30 incendiary/anti-personnel mix of bombs used to burn Tokyo during WWII.  The anti-personnel bombs were targeted at the fire fighters.

Also dont forget that terrorism is not just about war.
Banks, Government and "others" are just as guilty of terrorism and more so when they inflict it on their own countrymen