Origin of the word patriot
-
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 -
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
fat_boy wrote:
You are just playing with words Stan.
Maybe. But I've got 5000 years of human civilization backing me up. We have always distinquished between War, which is terror sanctioned by a civil process, and terrorism which is simple murder with no civil principles or standards at all. To equate bin Ladin's actions on 9/11 with the allies bombing Germany, establishes nothing but the moral and historic ignorance of the one makeing the comparision. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
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 -
fat_boy wrote:
You are just playing with words Stan.
Maybe. But I've got 5000 years of human civilization backing me up. We have always distinquished between War, which is terror sanctioned by a civil process, and terrorism which is simple murder with no civil principles or standards at all. To equate bin Ladin's actions on 9/11 with the allies bombing Germany, establishes nothing but the moral and historic ignorance of the one makeing the comparision. "You get that which you tolerate"
Stan Shannon wrote:
with no civil principles or standards
Like I said. There is no judge to state who was just or not. It is the victors who always claim moral reason. AFAIK, Germany did not declare war on Britain, so do you call its bombing of Coventry etc a terrorist act where our bombing of Dresden wasnt? Nunc est bibendum
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
with no civil principles or standards
Like I said. There is no judge to state who was just or not. It is the victors who always claim moral reason. AFAIK, Germany did not declare war on Britain, so do you call its bombing of Coventry etc a terrorist act where our bombing of Dresden wasnt? Nunc est bibendum
fat_boy wrote:
Germany did not declare war on Britain, so do you call its bombing of Coventry etc a terrorist act where our bombing of Dresden wasnt?
Of course, if Germany acted outside the bounds of formal procedures than that would have certainly been an act of terrorism, while Dresden was not. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
It was a war started by the US in an attempt to take what land the British had left. It was also an attempt to take Canada off the British. And it totally failed. ie, you lost. Nunc est bibendum
-
fat_boy wrote:
Germany did not declare war on Britain, so do you call its bombing of Coventry etc a terrorist act where our bombing of Dresden wasnt?
Of course, if Germany acted outside the bounds of formal procedures than that would have certainly been an act of terrorism, while Dresden was not. "You get that which you tolerate"
-