Origin of the word patriot
-
How often have you heard Hitler referred to as a terrorist? "You get that which you tolerate"
-
fat_boy wrote:
If they had lost
Thats a stupid argument. If Britain had lost WWII they would all be NAZI's now. So what? "You get that which you tolerate"
Stan Shannon wrote:
If Britain had lost WWII they would all be NAZI's now
Thats not true. While Mosley and his followers were faschists, it is not true t say that the countrty en-masse would convert to faschism if conquered by the Nazis. Look at Belgium and Holland. While some joined the Waffen SS, they were a small part of the population. Nunc est bibendum
-
Given that the US did not exist as a country in the 1770's , how come the local combatants are now often referred to as patriots ? How can you be patriotic to a country that does not exist , and before the defining document that framed the constitution of the country was started ? Its a bit like me declaring independance for my garden and then claiming it to be a patriotic act ? Patriotism implies an existing country ?
Each of the 13 colonies was a recognisable political unit with a representative government and an appointed (by the crown) governor. The colonist's "patriotism" was for their specific colony (where many had been born). Initally there were 13 separate rebellions, not one. The Declaration of independance formalized the 13 separate rebellions into a single one, with the 13 colonies participating jointly. The British called them Rebels, which from their point of view, was an appropriate epithet.
-
And signing that bit of paper meant nothing. If they had lost, they would have been terrorists, insurgents, geurilla fighters, treasonists whatever. they would have been hung though, that is for sure. But, the signatories won, due to lack of political will in Britain. And because they won they get to write history and call themselves whatever they want. In this case patriots. Nunc est bibendum
fat_boy wrote:
If they had lost, they would have been terrorists, insurgents, geurilla fighters, treasonists
Since none of those terms were in vogue then, the would most likely have stuck with 'rebels'.
-
History is written by the winners. Otherwise they would be called geuriillas, and terrorists. (Which they were) Nunc est bibendum
fat_boy wrote:
Otherwise they would be called geuriillas, and terrorists. (Which they were)
I am sure that the british said the same thing in the 1700s, but the fact remains, we kicked your ass.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Otherwise they would be called geuriillas, and terrorists. (Which they were)
I am sure that the british said the same thing in the 1700s, but the fact remains, we kicked your ass.
-
Only becuse the French helped you, and Britain didnt have the stomach for a civil war. And there was ecconomic gain to be made by certain parties in Britain by letting the Americans have their independence. Nunc est bibendum
fat_boy wrote:
and Britain didnt have the stomach for a civil war.
So we kicked your ass, but it was only because you let us? Right.... :rolleyes:
-
fat_boy wrote:
and Britain didnt have the stomach for a civil war.
So we kicked your ass, but it was only because you let us? Right.... :rolleyes:
Think about it. A country 4 times as large, at the time the global super power, who would in a few years destroy the French, again. Who had at least 20% support inside the American colonies. With another 40% neutral in those colonies, leaving just 40% support for Independence. Really, do you think, if the full political will had been there you would have won? If we had been fighting the French rather than our cousins, we would have kept America in the Empire, just as we kept Canada. Add financial interest in expoiting the whole of North America, and that interest did, as is often the case today, straddle the Atlantic, and you have your reasons. Nunc est bibendum
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
If Britain had lost WWII they would all be NAZI's now
Thats not true. While Mosley and his followers were faschists, it is not true t say that the countrty en-masse would convert to faschism if conquered by the Nazis. Look at Belgium and Holland. While some joined the Waffen SS, they were a small part of the population. Nunc est bibendum
fat_boy wrote:
Thats not true.
Damn right. A good lot of them would be dead...
---- Scripts i’ve known... CPhog 1.0.0.0 - make CP better. Forum Bookmark 0.2.5 - bookmark forum posts on Pensieve Print forum 0.1.2 - printer-friendly forums Expand all 1.0 - Expand all messages In-place Delete 1.0 - AJAX-style post delete Syntax 0.1 - Syntax highlighting for code blocks in the forums
-
No need to have a recognized country (by who?) to fight for a fatherland.
I'm kept awake at night by the sounds of anthracite screaming.
K(arl) wrote:
fatherland
Isn't this sexist? ;P I mean, why "fatherland" and not "motherland"?
My programming blahblahblah blog. If you ever find anything useful here, please let me know to remove it.
-
Ding ding! Godwin's Law in 2 hours and 9 minutes. He certainly brought terror to a large part of Europe, and was probably called 'terrible' by a few people. Nunc est bibendum
fat_boy wrote:
Godwin's Law in 2 hours and 9 minutes.
Godwin's Law does not apply as I was not accusing anyone of being a Nazi. Just making the point that Hitler, who engaged in a declared war is never referred to in history books as a terrorist per se (even though he obviously commited heinous acts of terror). Neither is Napoleon, or Caeser or Alexander etc. If bin Ladin were engaged in a declared war than, no, he would not be considered a terrorists either. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
If Britain had lost WWII they would all be NAZI's now
Thats not true. While Mosley and his followers were faschists, it is not true t say that the countrty en-masse would convert to faschism if conquered by the Nazis. Look at Belgium and Holland. While some joined the Waffen SS, they were a small part of the population. Nunc est bibendum
But they would have lived in a world where being a Nazi was legal and accepted. So my analogy holds. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
K(arl) wrote:
fatherland
Isn't this sexist? ;P I mean, why "fatherland" and not "motherland"?
My programming blahblahblah blog. If you ever find anything useful here, please let me know to remove it.
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
why "fatherland" and not "motherland"?
Because Google proposes fatherland to translate "patrie"?
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
Isn't this sexist?
Then the english language is. We say "mère-patrie" in French :)
I'm kept awake at night by the sounds of anthracite screaming.
-
Think about it. A country 4 times as large, at the time the global super power, who would in a few years destroy the French, again. Who had at least 20% support inside the American colonies. With another 40% neutral in those colonies, leaving just 40% support for Independence. Really, do you think, if the full political will had been there you would have won? If we had been fighting the French rather than our cousins, we would have kept America in the Empire, just as we kept Canada. Add financial interest in expoiting the whole of North America, and that interest did, as is often the case today, straddle the Atlantic, and you have your reasons. Nunc est bibendum
I guess that's why you all came back in 1812? So did we win that one or did you let us win?
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blog -
fat_boy wrote:
Godwin's Law in 2 hours and 9 minutes.
Godwin's Law does not apply as I was not accusing anyone of being a Nazi. Just making the point that Hitler, who engaged in a declared war is never referred to in history books as a terrorist per se (even though he obviously commited heinous acts of terror). Neither is Napoleon, or Caeser or Alexander etc. If bin Ladin were engaged in a declared war than, no, he would not be considered a terrorists either. "You get that which you tolerate"
You have a point, from a sematic view at least. But, a terrorist, or terror tactics, also includes the targeting of civilians in the hope of terrorising them into calling for an end to war and hence victory. In this light, the bombing of civilian cities in the second world war (which the UK started first by the way) is an act of terrorism. Nunc est bibendum
-
I guess that's why you all came back in 1812? So did we win that one or did you let us win?
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blogYep, and kicked your but in 1812, on land and at sea. Your expansionist plans were totally thwarted, at the end of the war no teriroty had changed hands, and Britain still had supremacy at sea. All this despite being engaged with the French for most of the war. Nunc est bibendum
-
But they would have lived in a world where being a Nazi was legal and accepted. So my analogy holds. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
You have a point, from a sematic view at least. But, a terrorist, or terror tactics, also includes the targeting of civilians in the hope of terrorising them into calling for an end to war and hence victory. In this light, the bombing of civilian cities in the second world war (which the UK started first by the way) is an act of terrorism. Nunc est bibendum
Clearly war is terror. The purpose of war is to freighten your enemies into obeying your will. But, civilization has evolved a process of justifying and declaring ones intent to make war, thus giving the opponent some opportunity to defend himself in some conventional way. Terrorism circumvents that process. It is no more warfare than murdering someone in the street for whatever reason someone might have. If bin Ladin had, under his authority as a head of some state, declared war on the west, he would not be considered a terrorist but abiding by some measure of civil responsibility. In fact, even Saddam was not considered a terrorist, but merely a tyrant and a dictator capable of employing terrorists as his allies. The differences are more than mere semantics. The Patriots who fought in the American Revolution were not terrorists. They justified their struggle in every way appropriate to abide by established civil codes of conduct. There is no comparison "You get that which you tolerate"
-
Clearly war is terror. The purpose of war is to freighten your enemies into obeying your will. But, civilization has evolved a process of justifying and declaring ones intent to make war, thus giving the opponent some opportunity to defend himself in some conventional way. Terrorism circumvents that process. It is no more warfare than murdering someone in the street for whatever reason someone might have. If bin Ladin had, under his authority as a head of some state, declared war on the west, he would not be considered a terrorist but abiding by some measure of civil responsibility. In fact, even Saddam was not considered a terrorist, but merely a tyrant and a dictator capable of employing terrorists as his allies. The differences are more than mere semantics. The Patriots who fought in the American Revolution were not terrorists. They justified their struggle in every way appropriate to abide by established civil codes of conduct. There is no comparison "You get that which you tolerate"
Semantics. You are just playing with words Stan. Terror is war directed at the civilian population. Regardless of whether the perpetrator declared war or not. The US used terror tactics in Vietnam, we all did in WWII. OBL did on sep11. There is no jury to decide the cause was just or not, and so label the parties as terrorist or not. Nunc est bibendum -- modified at 9:21 Wednesday 5th July, 2006
-
Yep, and kicked your but in 1812, on land and at sea. Your expansionist plans were totally thwarted, at the end of the war no teriroty had changed hands, and Britain still had supremacy at sea. All this despite being engaged with the French for most of the war. Nunc est bibendum
Then why didn't you get the land back? I think Andrew Jackson would disagree with you.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blog