I knew the origins of the Marine Corps
And I also knew about this, benefits of your father being a life long US History teacher. However, this is probably one of the few recent articles on the topic so I wouldn't be too shocked that people are in the dark. Though, in regards to the article I fail to make a comparison to how swearing a oath of office on the Quran and not the Bible have anything to do with the founding of the United States. There is one obvious element that seems to have escaped our Muslim friend, the US Dollar says "In God We Trust", not Allah.

__________________

An unwavering defender of those I see worth protecting.

"promote the general welfare, not provide the general welfare"

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Personally I don't see a problem with this guy being sworn in using a Quran instead of a Bible. The truth is that if one does not believe in the Bible, then swearing them in using that book does not mean a damn thing. Am I wrong?

But anyway, that's not why I posted the article. I found it on google news last night and it had a bunch of history in there that I found very interesting.

__________________


my experience on X5world when I spend too much
time posting in political threads in the lounge...

Actually, the Marine Corps' origin was about 30 years prior.

__________________
2010 528Xi
I demand justice.
Or, if there must be injustice, let it be in my favor.

Reynold's Wrap: it's not just for hats anymore.

Way to go. Just because the Hapton Roads newspaper calls it a suicide bombing doesn't make it one.

Since you're so fond of WW2 comparisons, here's one:

If that was a suicide bombing, then so were the Kamikazis during WW2.

Quick tip: neither were. Now see if you can figure out why.

__________________
2010 528Xi
I demand justice.
Or, if there must be injustice, let it be in my favor.

Reynold's Wrap: it's not just for hats anymore.

I am going to guess at this answer. Because Kamikazis and the guys during the Jefferson Era were going after military targets not civilian.
If Japanese fighter planes were crashing into temple's, night clubs, library's, bus's, airplane's, etc. then maybe too would they be considered suicide bombing?
The obvious difference being the targets?

B

__________________
----------------------------------------------------------

"When two people agree on everything, one of them is not necessary" - Arliss

Good job, B-Line. You're partly right. They were going after military targets.
The other part of it is that they were uniform-wearing members of their country's military.

So to sum up:

Military v. miltary is not terrorism, so no "suicide bombing"

Civilian v. civilian = terrorism

__________________
2010 528Xi
I demand justice.
Or, if there must be injustice, let it be in my favor.

Reynold's Wrap: it's not just for hats anymore.

__________________

An unwavering defender of those I see worth protecting.

"promote the general welfare, not provide the general welfare"

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Ummmm...last time I checked, the word "suicide" has nothing to do with terrorism. A suicide bombing is one in which the bomber is killed in the explosion.

Here is an official definition from the encyclopedia:

A suicide attack is an attack in which the attacker (attacker being either an individual or a group) intends to kill others and intends to die in the process of doing so (see suicide).



As far as your definition requiring them to be uniform-wearing members of their country's military, you are basically discounting all types of insurgencies and rebel movements. Are you of the opinion that all types of insurgents and rebels are "terrorists"? After all, none of them wear uniforms.

And define "country". What if you have a situation like a civil war? For example, was the Confederacy considered a "country"? Their military wore uniforms.

In the case of Afghanistan in 2001, the Taliban soldiers wore uniforms while the Northern Alliance (which we backed) did not. Was Afghanistan a "country"? And if so, who were their official military during this war in November-December 2001?

If Al-Queda wore uniforms and attacked only US military targets in Iraq, would you still consider them terrorists?

Was David Ben Gurion's army during Israel's Independence War terrorists? They did not wear uniforms nor were they an army of a country (Israel was not a country at that time and was part of a British colony called Palestine)??

I get the feeling here (and whenever we have such discussions) that you have already decided in your mind who the "terrorists" are and you will change and alter your definition as need be in order to define those specific groups who you think are terrorists while not implicating groups who you think are not terrorists.

__________________


my experience on X5world when I spend too much
time posting in political threads in the lounge...

No. That is if Al-Queda actually had a formalized and recognized political structure. (BTW, I don't consider HAMAS a terrorist organization...figure that one out )

Now...onto the ranting

Terrorists, IMO, are any group of people devoid of political representation in a formal structure of command who's tactics are, for the majority, directed at civilian populations.

For instance Kamikaze pilots and proposed Selbstopfer by the Nazis were "suicide" or "self sacrifice" missions aimed at military infrastructure, not civilian populations in general. While carpet bombing missions during WWII did focus on civilian areas, these were not the bulk of the campaigns waged during the war. Where as, in case of terrorists, the population in general is the target.

During the civil war in the United States, there was a formalized government for the confederacy, and had the confederacy won the formalized government would have assumed power.

Calvin says:

__________________

An unwavering defender of those I see worth protecting.

"promote the general welfare, not provide the general welfare"

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.