Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Drones: Do I have a line in the sand? [View all]coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)43. Before 1965, U.S. government officials routinely referred to members of the
National Liberation Front (NLF) in Vietnam as 'terrorists'. (Interesting side note: The U.S. military dropped more bombage by air on Southeast Asia from 1965-75 than it had on all combatants in World War II combined, speaking of 'terrorism').
Ronald Reagan referred to the African National Congress as 'terrorists.' Um, that would include Nelson Mandela.
The British referred to Jewish resistance fighters like Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir as 'terrorists' (pre-1947).
No doubt, one can find many other examples where political language is so debased and abused as to justify murder and torture.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
103 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I agree. They totally lose their Constitutional rights. Remember that if you travel abroad.
rhett o rick
Feb 2013
#7
Life is so much easier once you learn that we are the good and we can kill the bad.
rhett o rick
Feb 2013
#46
It is true technically speaking you are under the jurisdiction of the laws of the country you are in
davidpdx
Feb 2013
#82
I understand what you are saying. But I dont believe US citizens lose their Constitutional
rhett o rick
Feb 2013
#84
+1. This will end with enemies of a President being rounded up and summarily executed.
grahamhgreen
Feb 2013
#14
Yes. The rationalizations of the neo-hawks because it's "our guy" are overflowing.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Feb 2013
#6
We must keep struggling against the encroaching tyranny. But how far we are willing to go
rhett o rick
Feb 2013
#31
Two comments. I agree that things will have to get a lot worse before people start to
rhett o rick
Feb 2013
#35
YAY! Welcome to the side of goodness and light. Let others dwell on the dark side.
grahamhgreen
Feb 2013
#13
Not to defend this policy, but the police kill people every day w/o charges or judicial review.
Flatulo
Feb 2013
#15
I agree wholeheartedly and can see this getting worse and escalating out of control!
DearHeart
Feb 2013
#27
Before 1965, U.S. government officials routinely referred to members of the
coalition_unwilling
Feb 2013
#43
In my opinion, the definition of a terrorist in The Patriot Act is vague and overly broad.
JDPriestly
Feb 2013
#66
The word 'terrorist' has become so debased through over use and abuse that it is
coalition_unwilling
Feb 2013
#73
Thank you. At this point, the Establishment Democrats have lost their moral compass
Lydia Leftcoast
Feb 2013
#42
I'd like to know how the people who have condemned drone attacks with such black and white
politicaljunkie41910
Feb 2013
#58
Thanks for responding to my ranting in such a rational manner. I applaud you for that.
politicaljunkie41910
Feb 2013
#60
The good news is that more people on here seem to agree with you than not.
Efilroft Sul
Feb 2013
#61
Great summary of the problem, now, what are you and I going to do about it?
sinkingfeeling
Feb 2013
#90
If you reread your OP and some of the responses, you will see why your position gains no traction
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#92
You clearly do not understand the points of those who disagree. More than that...
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#97
You are missing MY point. I already understand your position. You are not listening to mine
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#99
Thanks! I am gonna let you have the final word. Just letting you know I read it. n/t
Demo_Chris
Feb 2013
#100