Philosophy Now Forum

Well karma all ways favours the more neutral. It organises things that way. And automatically the more enlightened systems wins out .

jackles wrote:Well karma all ways favours the more neutral. It organises things that way. And automatically the more enlightened systems wins out .

Dunno about that. Though the concept of "if life didnt exist, we wouldnt be here to witness it" does have value, nature is rather brutal. Just a smidgen off orbit and we'd all die.

Speaking of brutal, America is so fussy about this "terrorism" thing. It's like how kids were fussy about the new "Game Boy Advance." I don't get why Miss America's panties are in such a twist, they should be proud. They invented terrorism in the first place. The others are just learning from their great teacher.
America bombed millions of innocent kids in the name of their cause. That's terrorism. America broke its only laws abducting, raping, and performing mind control on its citizens. That's terrorism. But the first act of Terrorism goes back 300 years ago. George washington himself was the first true terrorist, breaking the rules of warfare and creating a fighting style known as "guerrilla warfare". America should be proud of what they created. After all, Hitler only learned from Andrew Jackson and Christopher Columbus. In fact, Henry Ford was one of his greatest heroes and gave fuel to his murderous fire. And now, with faking 911 and causing their own terrorism, America should be proud it destabilized the Middle East 50 years ago. America should be proud it has the biggest stick. America's morality is absolute. America is Lord God. America can break its own rules, because well, America.

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:... But the first act of Terrorism goes back 300 years ago. George washington himself was the first true terrorist, breaking the rules of warfare and creating a fighting style known as "guerrilla warfare". ...

Er!? No, this form of warfare has pretty much been around since warfare begun.

]

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:... But the first act of Terrorism goes back 300 years ago. George washington himself was the first true terrorist, breaking the rules of warfare and creating a fighting style known as "guerrilla warfare". ...

This is wrong on several levels.

George Washington was not even the first American terrorist.
The American declaration of Independence was 1776, quite a bit less than 300 years ago
GW was born 1731. So he was not even born 300 years ago.
(FYI: This was not known as "guerrilla warfare" - the word not attested in English until 1809)

Then we get on to the idea of terrorism. Acts of violence within a state, against the state are well attested for 1000s of years.
One thinks of ancient Palestine, Boudicca, helots revolt in Spartan, Spartacus etc.....

But even on etymological ground 300 years is off beam.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=terrorism
"General sense of "systematic use of terror as a policy" is first recorded in English 1798 (in reference to the Irish Rebellion of that year). At one time, a word for a certain kind of mass-destruction terrorism was dynamitism (1883); and during World War I frightfulness (translating German Schrecklichkeit) was used in Britain for "deliberate policy of terrorizing enemy non-combatants."

If you want to look back at what was happening 300 years ago, that would be the Jacobite, but they were called rebels and not terrorists.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:]

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:... But the first act of Terrorism goes back 300 years ago. George washington himself was the first true terrorist, breaking the rules of warfare and creating a fighting style known as "guerrilla warfare". ...

This is wrong on several levels.

George Washington was not even the first American terrorist.
The American declaration of Independence was 1776, quite a bit less than 300 years ago
GW was born 1731. So he was not even born 300 years ago.
(FYI: This was not known as "guerrilla warfare" - the word not attested in English until 1809)

Then we get on to the idea of terrorism. Acts of violence within a state, against the state are well attested for 1000s of years.
One thinks of ancient Palestine, Boudicca, helots revolt in Spartan, Spartacus etc.....

But even on etymological ground 300 years is off beam.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=terrorism
"General sense of "systematic use of terror as a policy" is first recorded in English 1798 (in reference to the Irish Rebellion of that year). At one time, a word for a certain kind of mass-destruction terrorism was dynamitism (1883); and during World War I frightfulness (translating German Schrecklichkeit) was used in Britain for "deliberate policy of terrorizing enemy non-combatants."

If you want to look back at what was happening 300 years ago, that would be the Jacobite, but they were called rebels and not terrorists.

Hmm I knew it wasn't exactly threehundred years but it a nice round number and leaves room for Sparta jokes. You have to admit the big A is responsible for terrorism on the large scale. I mean Hiroshima, mass genocide, you name it. Specially the CIA, known for disregarding it's own rules and targeting civilians, non-combatants, and for what reason? Top secret of course, we don't get to know about it. Probably something stupid and pointless though.

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:]

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:... But the first act of Terrorism goes back 300 years ago. George washington himself was the first true terrorist, breaking the rules of warfare and creating a fighting style known as "guerrilla warfare". ...

This is wrong on several levels.

George Washington was not even the first American terrorist.
The American declaration of Independence was 1776, quite a bit less than 300 years ago
GW was born 1731. So he was not even born 300 years ago.
(FYI: This was not known as "guerrilla warfare" - the word not attested in English until 1809)

Then we get on to the idea of terrorism. Acts of violence within a state, against the state are well attested for 1000s of years.
One thinks of ancient Palestine, Boudicca, helots revolt in Spartan, Spartacus etc.....

But even on etymological ground 300 years is off beam.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=terrorism
"General sense of "systematic use of terror as a policy" is first recorded in English 1798 (in reference to the Irish Rebellion of that year). At one time, a word for a certain kind of mass-destruction terrorism was dynamitism (1883); and during World War I frightfulness (translating German Schrecklichkeit) was used in Britain for "deliberate policy of terrorizing enemy non-combatants."

If you want to look back at what was happening 300 years ago, that would be the Jacobite, but they were called rebels and not terrorists.

Hmm I knew it wasn't exactly threehundred years but it a nice round number and leaves room for Sparta jokes. You have to admit the big A is responsible for terrorism on the large scale. I mean Hiroshima, mass genocide, you name it. Specially the CIA, known for disregarding it's own rules and targeting civilians, non-combatants, and for what reason? Top secret of course, we don't get to know about it. Probably something stupid and pointless though.

If you have such a wide concept of terrorist then 300 years is somewhat small. You'd have to go back to the dawn of civilisation. You are talking about organised violence.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: If you have such a wide concept of terrorist then 300 years is somewhat small. You'd have to go back to the dawn of civilisation. You are talking about organised violence.

I'm talkin about the us of 'a definition, which is hiding in the shadows and bombing non-combatants, or bombing combatants using dirty, cheap trick tactics, usually because the combatants outnumber you. Therefore america is and was its own definition of terrorism.

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: If you have such a wide concept of terrorist then 300 years is somewhat small. You'd have to go back to the dawn of civilisation. You are talking about organised violence.

I'm talkin about the us of 'a definition, which is hiding in the shadows and bombing non-combatants, or bombing combatants using dirty, cheap trick tactics, usually because the combatants outnumber you. Therefore america is and was its own definition of terrorism.

You might want to re-think that.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: If you have such a wide concept of terrorist then 300 years is somewhat small. You'd have to go back to the dawn of civilisation. You are talking about organised violence.

I'm talkin about the us of 'a definition, which is hiding in the shadows and bombing non-combatants, or bombing combatants using dirty, cheap trick tactics, usually because the combatants outnumber you. Therefore america is and was its own definition of terrorism.

You might want to re-think that.

I don't see how what I said isn't true. You mean the "outnumber" bit? Nope still true, redcoats outnumbered the 'mericans.

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote: I'm talkin about the us of 'a definition, which is hiding in the shadows and bombing non-combatants, or bombing combatants using dirty, cheap trick tactics, usually because the combatants outnumber you. Therefore america is and was its own definition of terrorism.

You might want to re-think that.

I don't see how what I said isn't true. You mean the "outnumber" bit? Nope still true, redcoats outnumbered the 'mericans.

No, the Red Coats were fewer in number, because they were too busy in other places in the world.
But the re-thinking, needs to apply to Hiroshima.