the way you're using "terrorize," this really doesn't mean anything.kingblaze84;8751703 said:LOL those settlers wanted to terrorize the Natives so they could frighten them into leaving so they could take their land, come on now.
again, if you say "ALL SIDES most of the time use terror tactics," you're saying all sides do. and you're making this so universal as to make it lose all meaning.kingblaze84;8751703 said:I said in war, all sides MOST of the time use terror tactics.
said it before and will say it again: are you telling me there's NO other terminology you can use to discuss this conflict aside from "terrorism?"
also, i don't get why you keep saying "GUYS HAVE WRITTEN BOOKS" as if this is a groundbreaking concept.
side note: i think this "disease-infested blankets" claim makes me suspicious of the source because i believe it's a story that, while commonly told, isn't really supported.kingblaze84;8751766 said:Not only did Natives die from contracting diseases to which they had no built up immunity, settlers provided disease infested blankets to hasten their deaths.
another good example: you say the Indian Removal Act was terrorism, but THEN say if you didn't comply with it, you were terrorized. so... was the Act terrorism or was terrorism used to support the act?kingblaze84;8751703 said:The Indian Removal Act was a form of terrorism, forcing innocent people off their land to make way for white settlers. Those who did not comply were killed or harmed in ways that frightened Native Americans into going along with the removal act.
OR YOU COULD JUST CALL IT GENOCIDE.kingblaze84;8751703 said:Genocide is the worst kind of terrorism
"genocide" isn't a strong enough term that you have to go "AND ALSO, TERRORISM" right after it?
this is why debating "terrorism" in 2016 sucks. everything, in every context, is "terrorism." come on, now.