Whats the differennce between a patriot and a terrorist?

[TomUnderSea]

Whats the differennce between a patriot and a terrorist?

The patriot won. The terrorist lost.

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.

[1714127042]

1714127042

[1714127042]

1714127042

[1714127042]

1714127042

[1714127042]

1714127042

[FCTaiChi]

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

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..

[FCTaiChi]

Whats the differennce between a patriot and a terrorist?

The patriot won. The terrorist lost.

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.

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

[worldinacoin]

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.

[TomUnderSea]

Whats the differennce between a patriot and a terrorist?

The patriot won. The terrorist lost.

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.

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

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.

[rimbit]

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