A pretty bold statement, claiming to be speaking the truth.

A slodier is a part of the official military forces in a certain country and his duty is to protect that country under the curent laws they have. The laws are usually set by the government - so the army is under the command of the leader of the country (this can be a president, a monarch, a high ranking military representative,... depends what country).
When another army envades and faces resistence the oposing forces are enemies - but some conventions exist on how they should be treated if capture.

Unlike the regular military forces there are also other armed groups that often fight an army invading a country. These are rebels, who usually because of the lack in equipment and manpower chose the guerilla warefare tactics.
These forces are paramilitary.
These forces can be militia - which is usually under the wing of the military, or they can be independent fractures and organizations (think of organizations as IRA, ESA,...).
Such organizations are terrorist organizations. They deliberately attack targets in order to inflick destruction. Their targets are not strategicaly chosen (like destroying a bridge in order to prevent enemy forces to move forward), but are psychologically chosen (they strike to show the poeple they are prepared and capable of killing just about everyone). Because they spread terror through their actions they are named terrorists.

Okay, I give up! Mybe Stroggy was right, an I actually cannot make myself clear... :cry: You missed the wole point, I was talking about my opinion and the ideology behind the religion.... I know some holy books contain that the God actually killed millions or ravaged war against somebody or made the people to do that... whatever. My point was that this is not the aim of those lectures. The peace is.... OKay, I'll never make another personal comment from now on, nor examples, nor anything... You just take something out of the context and use that...
I'm doomed :cry:

Well that's not quite true!

Just look at christianity:
Thou shall not kill!
Turn the other cheek!
He who lives by the sword, dies by teh sword!

So it clearly states one shouldn't kill - and I'm prety sure other religions do the same!
But those people who interprit religions had to prepare people to go war one way or another - so they simply changed this around.
They either claimed that people of other religions have no sole - and therefor it's not wrong to kill them, or that those people have done wrong and now they need to be punished (but isn't GOD that one who will punish them in the end? - No, he sent us to do it. This is a test of our faith).
So basically Playbahdosh is right - you just confused the main theme of religion - whit it's practical aplication.
It's to difficoult for people to live according to all religious rules - so they start changing some of them - going to war is a good example of that!

A pretty bold statement, claiming to be speaking the truth. [/b][/quote]
Hmm US militia and rebels (war for independency) - were they terrorists or soldiers??
They did some bad things as well... i guess that's what wars bring with them.

I would say that (in todays terms) terrorist use terror, intimidation to reach their goal. To achive terror they often use attacks against civilian targets connected with the authorities they want to overthrow/change etc. Usually the represent only minority of population as it is not a fullscale revolt.

Is their cause justified is another matter.

Except for trying to change the issue, how did that reply relate to mine?
And how exactly are the modernday americans the same as the american militia from back then.
According to this offbeat way of thinking I could state every german is a nazi and every belgian is a mass-murdering colonialist.

Even some Turkish Sultans earned respect from Chrisitans (e.g in middle age Bosnia).
Especially arabians were known to be fair in this matter.

As i recall even Mulsim religion doesne't approve taking life of another man.

And the most interesting incident in history (in crusades) to me is when volonteer christians from Germany came to the gates of Konstantinopolis. The emperor quickly saw what kind of peopel they are and provided them with a ride across the straight as fast as he could. When they reached the other shore they attacked first town in sight. killing everyone, butchering them, putting babies on sticks and grilling them like pigs over fire. but guess what. they were not the Arabs or any other invaders. They were Christians. obviously they made a mistake. conclusion - war is bad. well except if it's on computer. then it's good. :Titan:


But i guess we all went a bit offtopic here. The view of Americans is done by their foreign politics. and the government is selected democratically (hmm this is arguable since they don't really get elelcted in one man - one voice principle), which means that everyone decides (even those that didn't vote) who will be head of state. and if head of state is agressive, intollerant, (legally) corrupted and has a need for war then we can assume that majority of americans approves this (eventhough they might not be the same). Foreign policy of a state reflects the people. E.g. Hitler took over power with a basically handfull of nazies but since everyone (ok, majority) agreed to him and his policies...Remember that during WW2 the term German and Nazi ment the same to most people eventhough not all Germans were nazies.

another name another place :yawn:

Well they werent soldiers - otherwise they would not be the militia. But to say they were terrorist... well they did use some methods used by terrorists, same as resistance fighters during the World War II. The big difference was, that both US militia and the freedom fighters of WWII (either deGaul's fighters, Armada Krajowa, Partiztans,...) they were to some point at least coordinating their attacks with the governments or allied powers. They were also suplied by the allied powers and even traind by them in the sense of real military - so they also had the entire infrastructure - from field hospitals to propaganda spreading machines.

Terrorists may have some of that, but they are not workig in coordinatiuon with the government. Otherwise the government of Ireland would have direct command over IRA (just as an example - terrorist aren't only in the countries people these days asociate with turbans).

That's right, some of them wear kaffiyehs.
And there is also the ETA.