[Mr White0161]

This is a question I like to ask myself every now and then. Patriotism and Terrorism, are they the same thing?

To me they are, it depends however which side your on. I've asked this question since the start of the war in the Middle-East.

Definitions:
Patriotism: Devoted love, support, and defense of one's country; National Loyalty.

Terrorism: The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for Political purposes.


In my mind they basically mean the same thing. It only depends on which side you represent.

Ex; US/CAN/UK soldier takes down a squad of Taliban and finds weapons. They are a patriot that saved there country by destroying what could become a possible threat.

Ex; Taliban soldier destroys a squad of US/CAN/UK soldiers, kills them all, destroys there vehicles, takes their gear. We call him a terrorist, but to his people and faith he's seen as a hero or Patriot.

...But isn't it we who are the true terrorist? Think about it, we've invaded there country, destroyed cities, towns, villages, innocents. All in the conquest to bring "freedom" to the middle-eastern countries. However all we've been able to accomplish is destroying there homes, killing there people, harvesting there natural resources and making them pissed off at us all because of it. In most cases we are seen as the true 'terrorist'.


I don't agree with either side, they are both just as f*cked up as the other. But when I hear the phrase "Patriot" or "Patriotism" being used to talk down too "Terrorist" or "Terrorism" all I see is a contradiction and probably the worlds biggest mount of irony ever. It doesn't matter which side your on, they both mean the same thing.


...Now, let's have some fun

[Jeeebuuus]

Like one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter? Maybe.

One thing that I never completely understood was Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We slaughtered over one hundred thousand innocent men, women, and children. Civilians. We could have targeted a military instillation but chose a civilian population. How is that not terrorism when its purpose was supposed to be to change the Japanese governments stance on the war. Surrendering. Changing politics through creating fear in a civilian population with acts of violence is terrorism. We see it as patriotic. Isn't it ironic? Don't you think?

[Mr White0161]

QUOTE (Jeeebuuus @ Friday, Feb 17 2012, 08:29)

Like one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter? Maybe. One thing that I never completely understood was Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We slaughtered over one hundred thousand innocent men, women, and children. Civilians. We could have targeted a military instillation but chose a civilian population. How is that not terrorism when its purpose was supposed to be to change the Japanese governments stance on the war. Surrendering. Changing politics through creating fear in a civilian population with acts of violence is terrorism. We see it as patriotic. Isn't it ironic? Don't you think?

Exactly what I mean. However one thing that needs to be noted is that "Terrorism" is a fairly new term whereas "Patriotism" has been around for some time, yet they mean practically the same thing. I think you hit it right on the head with "...one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter...".

[d0mm2k8]

Patriotism and terrorism do not mean the same thing no matter which way you look at it. A terrorist is someone who wants to invoke fear into a population by means of violence, usually involving the targeting of civilians, to get a political/idealogical point across.
A patriot is someone who loves their country and what it stands for greatly.

You'd have to be blind not to see they are completely different things no matter which way you spin it. Sure someone can be both, none or one and not the other, but they are not the same things by any stretch of the imagination. Your own definitions you posted even show how different they are.

QUOTE

Ex; Taliban soldier destroys a squad of US/CAN/UK soldiers, kills them all, destroys there vehicles, takes their gear. We call him a terrorist, but to his people and faith he's seen as a hero or Patriot.

I wouldn't call him a terrorist, because he technically isn't. He's an enemy combatant/insurgent.

QUOTE

...But isn't it we who are the true terrorist? Think about it, we've invaded there country, destroyed cities, towns, villages, innocents. All in the conquest to bring "freedom" to the middle-eastern countries. However all we've been able to accomplish is destroying there homes, killing there people, harvesting there natural resources and making them pissed off at us all because of it. In most cases we are seen as the true 'terrorist'.

Of the two main recent middle-eastern wars (Iraq and Afghan) I'd argue that western forces have saved far more civilian lives (from the massacre of the previously ruling regimes) than they have inadvertently killed during combat. In fact, during combat, it is estimated by the UN in the past two years that 70-80% of civilian casualties were caused by the Taliban insurgents themselves.
Also 'harvesting natural resources'? What would those natural resources even be? And don't make me laugh by saying oil.

QUOTE

We could have targeted a military instillation but chose a civilian population.

Yeah they could have, if the Japanese military installations weren't among the civilian population. And what's with all the focus on the atomic bombings? You do know the U.S. initiated massive air raids across major Japanese cities over the course of the war which killed more civilians than both atomic bombs combined? Let's not forget the amount of POW and civilians the Japanese military committed atrocities against (the number is at least around 3 million I think). The Japanese were as bad as the Nazis in some respects, so why does the US get all the sh*t?
The atomic bombings were a quick and efficient way to finally end a 6-year-long, world-wide conflict that took the lives of millions. Not to mention that it arguably changed the course of history itself with the display of utter technological power used.
But I suppose I shouldn't properly get into this stuff, since it's not the topic at hand.

[Jeeebuuus]

QUOTE (d0mm2k8 @ Friday, Feb 17 2012, 19:02)

QUOTE We could have targeted a military instillation but chose a civilian population. Yeah they could have, if the Japanese military installations weren't among the civilian population. And what's with all the focus on the atomic bombings? You do know the U.S. initiated massive air raids across major Japanese cities over the course of the war which killed more civilians than both atomic bombs combined? Let's not forget the amount of POW and civilians the Japanese military committed atrocities against (the number is at least around 3 million I think). The Japanese were as bad as the Nazis in some respects, so why does the US get all the sh*t? The atomic bombings were a quick and efficient way to finally end a 6-year-long, world-wide conflict that took the lives of millions. Not to mention that it arguably changed the course of history itself with the display of utter technological power used. But I suppose I shouldn't properly get into this stuff, since it's not the topic at hand.

Perhaps the military instiallations were only among the civilian populated cities, I don't know. I am not saying whether what we did was right or wrong on a moral level. I was only trying to define what the acts themselves, in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were. We wouldn't call it terrorism but patriotic, or heroic, or justified, or whatever. But it was terroroism.

[Brad]

QUOTE (Mr White0161 @ Friday, Feb 17 2012, 08:11)

...But isn't it we who are the true terrorist? Think about it, we've invaded there country, destroyed cities, towns, villages, innocents. All in the conquest to bring "freedom" to the middle-eastern countries. However all we've been able to accomplish is destroying there homes, killing there people, harvesting there natural resources and making them pissed off at us all because of it. In most cases we are seen as the true 'terrorist'. ...Now, let's have some fun

While d0m cleared up on the definitions, that aside, the combat that has been initiated in Afghanistan and Iraq has had an objective set of rules of engagement. In the rules of engagement set forth precautions to undertake when conducting combat in a hostile area which explicitly state to minimize civilian casualties. In contrast, Taliban forces have shown no real effort to conduct to international standards of conduct of war. IED placements in villages, the use of human shields and direct and indirect use of force on any civilian shown to be assisting coalition forces.

Secondly, while Iraq was indeed named 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' and the justification of the war tainted and slightly flawed, is Iraq in the long-term better to have a tyrannical, genocidal dictator out of the way then if he were still in power? Aside from that, it pays dividends too for having a more Western-friendly state in the Middle East that isn't Israel particularly with the growing political and diplomatic hot air that is expelling from Iran.

Thirdly and in respect to Afghanistan, the use of using 'freedom' as a military and political motive isn't so black and white. The crux of the operations conducted in Afghanistan is to dismantle al-Qaeda training camps and operational capability and to eradicate a state-sponsor of terrorism (the Taliban government whom harvested these training camps). Promoting freedom is a mere bi-product of assisting Afghan civilians to be on the side of the Coalition forces to raise public support in foreign intervention. This is done through diplomatic pressure in giving civil liberties that were once not found under the Taliban regime. This creates a sterile state for the Taliban to enlist further recruits into the Taliban and henceforth, will make the change and mandate of security from the Coalition forces to the Afghan security force more smoother and more effective.

On the topic at hand, patriotism and terrorism are not the same. Indeed, patriotism can be a catalyst for inspiring terrorist actions, particularly in regards to Right-wing and nationalist terrorism but that is one and quite narrow side of what patriotism is. If you are a liberal nationalist, it is an aspirational entity. Patriotism is a mechanism that gives individuals the right to self-determination, the right to express and exhibit culture. There comes a point in which patriotism becomes dangerous is when one nation becomes chauvinist and the belief that members of other nationalities are somehow inferior to their counterparts. I personally don't believe that the West conducts overseas operations with an objective chauvinistic doctrine.

This post has been edited by Brad on Friday, Feb 17 2012, 20:06

[SagaciousKJB]

I think this debate is at risk of devolving into a discussion about various controversial war campaigns and incidents. We should try to avoid using such incidents as examples, since not everyone has the same view on all of these incidents and it will only serve to distract from the real topic at hand.

Patriotism is just a very passionate belief and love for one's nation. What's really at stake here is that patriotism is often used to justify terrorism. It is also used to justify other acts of war that many would not condone otherwise, such as usurping the rule of a dictator and interfering with other nation's affairs. Once you put in the idea that there could be a threat to our country from this, is when patriotism enters into the picture. You also have men and women who join the military just to serve their country regardless of the conflict or issues at hand--that is patriotism.

To say that our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan ( and I know I'm on the verge of being guilty of what I said we should try to avoid ), but I don't really see our actions as "terrorism". If one were to concede that more people have been killed in Iraq due to our actions, the validity of that statement isn't really important. What is important is what we are actually doing on the ground there. Yes civilians die in the fighting, but no where in this conflict has the U.S. relied on the fear of the citizens to control them.

Same with the atomic bombings. One could say that by using such formidable weapons, that the intention was to strike fear into the Japanese military leaders and coerce them to surrender. However is this really terrorism? I think that's where it becomes a slippery slope, because many do not realize but our promise was that we kill keep dropping bombs every day until they surrendered. Many in the Japanese military still did not want to surrender even after the second bomb was dropped even though the emperor and his advisers had chosen to surrender, they led a coup to try to suppress this information and keep the war going. Long story short, one could say that the emperor chose to surrender because he feared the loss of any more lives, but one could also say that a direct threat such as this is natural to war in general. In the end though, we were bluffing, we did not have any more bombs, we were simply counting on their fear to lead them to surrender.

However, the key difference here that I still see is that we were using fear to get them to surrender to end a war. Terrorists use fear because they want to control, they want to create fear and uncertainty to weaken a government or populace, and as someone else put, this is usually for political or religious reasons. Long story short, using fear as a tool of war to make one's enemy surrender just isn't the same as using fear against civilians in order to weaken and control a populace long after the fighting has stopped.

Realistically I'm not sure that you can really tie the two together either. Patriotism is a love/pride for one's nation or homeland, but a lot of your traditional Islamic terrorists are fighting for religious reasons. I'm sure that many of them have patriotic initiative though, such as the mujaheddin that get recruited after their country becomes a warzone. Ultimately though, the people that are actually leading these movements are wrapped up in religious reasoning that doesn't have a lot to do with nationality. There is usually a conflict over claim to land, but generally any such conflict comes about due to religious reasons. So in other words, Islamic/Middle Eastern "terrorists" aren't fighting because they love Iraq/Afghanistan/Wherever ( a lot of them are insurgents from completely different countries), and members of the IRA weren't fighting over Ireland just because they liked that area so much--there were other very important reasons.

Finally though... When you talk about our soldiers that are a broad right now, a lot of them are serving for the "honor" of it. Because they want to "serve their country". This is really the essence of patriotism, but realistically most of these people are just pawns and don't concentrate a lot on the actual reason they are fighting. A Japanese Kamikazee charge struck fear into our fighting men in WWII, and must of the motivation for the Japanese soldiers to be able to commit to a suicide charge of that fashion was their patriotism. Now without getting too much into arguing the merits of WWII, Japanese soldiers were not "Nazis", they weren't "evil", they were just men blindly fighting for their country, and their country was engaged in what many would consider "evil". In the same way today our modern military members are told not to think, to follow orders, and if our ultimate agenda in the wars we're fighting now were somehow "evil" or "wrong", they wouldn't be any less patriotic. Patriotism is neither good or evil, so both your terrorist and your war hero are patriots.

I can see where you are coming from with this thought though. A lot of people in the countries our military men are in now view them as bringing war, strife and violence to their country. They are acting out of patriotism, but whether they are fighting for "good" or "bad" is really irrelevant and pretty much up to perspective. However, if from your perspective they are fighting for "bad", and if others of your perspective are fearful of them and their tactics, then they could be terrorists to you, while to others who oppose you, they are heroes. There is a great matter of perspective that influences that part of it.

[CheesyJ]

They're not the exact same thing, by any stretch of the imagination. What I will say though is that they can both lead into the other one, so they are linked together in a way.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (Jeeebuuus @ Friday, Feb 17 2012, 09:29)

Like one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter? Maybe.

Just to throw my hat into this, a "freedom fighter" and a "terrorist" are technically completely different things in technical terms.

A terrorist or terrorist organisation seek to invoke political change through creating a climate of fear; undermining the legitimate rule of law and operating contrary to the doctrines and theories of good governance (as a non-state actor, they possess no mandated permission for the legal use of lethal force) by actively targeting the civilian population of a nation or nations to bring about or to at least attempt to invoke political change through the use of force. Terrorism is generally typified by attacks on the civilian infrastructure and populace of a nation or sub-sector of a nation; the invocation of sectarian, religious or political conflict for the gains of a small minority. A terrorist group cannot be a state or state-sponsored actor (state-sponsored terrorism is an entirely different entity) and they cannot claim to have a legitimate political role in the function of a nation; a good example of this is ETA or Hezbollah; both of whom represent an element of a national population so small as to be essentially insignificant in the grand scale of regional or international politics, yet both of whom have used violent activities to undermine (or attempt to undermine) the actions of a legitimate state power.

A freedom fighter or organisation of freedom fighters represent a sizeable proportion of a population; a proportion who have been sidelined in the correct political process either by undemocratic actions of a host nation or through violence, subjugation or oppression. They possess a mandate for the use of violence or lethal force solely because they represent an element of the population who not only seek self-determination from a larger political entity, but who have also been unable to realise this self-determination through the disproportionate use of violence or oppression in a host nation. Their entire mandate is based on the fact that they receive a large proportion of popular support and their political views are sidelined through subjugation or overt violence. Their actions will generally be targeted against the security apparatus of a nation, it's political structure and its government, and not against its people (a true freedom fighter should recognise the right of the individual to their own political views, and not actively target individuals who do not have a mandate of power based on their preconceived views). They may use violence, but only in the furthering of a political cause and only against the apparatus of a state who has actively oppressed them.

In short, a terrorist uses violence as a tool to destabilise a nation or to attack citizens- individuals based on their political views, heritage, ethnic or legal status or other factor. A freedom fighter uses violence as a tool to instigate political change against a government who have lost their mandate to rule a population or element of a population.




In reference to some earlier statements- a Taliban fighter is not a terrorist unless he conducts his activity against civilian infrastructure or individuals based on identifying factors. He is only a freedom fighter if he uses violence in the pursuit of a legitimate political goal which is supported by a large, determined portion of a population whose views have been sidelined by an acting state or regional government. Outside of these two definitions, he is a violent non-state actor; often used as a byword for a terrorist, but simply meaning an individual who has no clear mandate to use force, yet does so. Classifying him as either is incorrect unless he meets certain requirements.

This post has been edited by sivispacem on Friday, Feb 17 2012, 22:37

[GTAvanja]

They are not the same thing. Patriotism is a broader term. Some patriots can be terrorists. But a lot of patriots are just people with normal jobs and rednecks. Anyone can be a terrorists if properly motivated and/or brainwashed. I think that in order to be a patriot you have to be partially brainwashed or mentally challenged. It involves loving a piece of territory only to the border, for f*ck sake. And people on the other side of the border are thinking the same thing about their piece of territory. Being a patriot is one of the most retarded things you can call yourself in my humble opinion.

[Irviding]

QUOTE

In short, a terrorist uses violence as a tool to destabilise a nation or to attack citizens- individuals based on their political views, heritage, ethnic or legal status or other factor.

I'm really baked right now so I hope this makes sensing but when I read that I thought what about the US and UK and other intelligence agencies that do exactly what your definition is in countries like destabalise.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Saturday, Feb 18 2012, 04:59)

QUOTE In short, a terrorist uses violence as a tool to destabilise a nation or to attack citizens- individuals based on their political views, heritage, ethnic or legal status or other factor. I'm really baked right now so I hope this makes sensing but when I read that I thought what about the US and UK and other intelligence agencies that do exactly what your definition is in countries like destabalise.

Ahh, but intelligence agencies are part of a security apparatus. Therefore they have a legitimate mandate regarding the use of force. As I've said before, a state or its apparatus cannot be a terrorist organisation. Sure, you can have allegations of "state-sponsored terrorism" and states that are found or proven to be assisting violent non-state actors in attacks against other states place themselves in a position where a conventional military attack is a deemed a proportionate response, but both terrorists and freedom fighters need to be non-state groups.

[Irviding]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Saturday, Feb 18 2012, 03:43)

QUOTE (Irviding @ Saturday, Feb 18 2012, 04:59) QUOTE In short, a terrorist uses violence as a tool to destabilise a nation or to attack citizens- individuals based on their political views, heritage, ethnic or legal status or other factor. I'm really baked right now so I hope this makes sensing but when I read that I thought what about the US and UK and other intelligence agencies that do exactly what your definition is in countries like destabalise. Ahh, but intelligence agencies are part of a security apparatus. Therefore they have a legitimate mandate regarding the use of force. As I've said before, a state or its apparatus cannot be a terrorist organisation. Sure, you can have allegations of "state-sponsored terrorism" and states that are found or proven to be assisting violent non-state actors in attacks against other states place themselves in a position where a conventional military attack is a deemed a proportionate response, but both terrorists and freedom fighters need to be non-state groups.

In the purest definition of the term, sure. But what about if the UK decided to use its power to incite a rebellion in Indonesia to take some oil and tin or something? Is that not terrorism if the UK uses such strategies to achieve those political goals? I'm really playing a devil's advocate role here - I recognize that our countries need to take actions to maintain our respective ways of life and our power in the world that are sometimes not too clean or nice. What the CIA has done in the 20th century especially is deplorable, but necessary. I don't know much about what MI6 has done but I'm sure it has done equally terrible things.

[Sanjeem]

I'm Patriotic and would call myself a nationalist, however that doesn't mean I want to push my belief and my feelings onto other people, not even influence them. It's truly what I believe, and if other people respect my opinion and agenda that's good, as I will respect theirs and not try and push mine on them. Terrorists on the other hand use terror, obviously to try and push their beliefs on others, to scare them into doing what they want.

Now a lot of the time people like certain criminals and Fascists can be similar to terrorists, by the fact that they can force their ideology on others, especially if it's the state. However at the same time they can be patriotic, so I suppose you can be both.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Sunday, Feb 19 2012, 02:13)

In the purest definition of the term, sure. But what about if the UK decided to use its power to incite a rebellion in Indonesia to take some oil and tin or something? Is that not terrorism if the UK uses such strategies to achieve those political goals? I'm really playing a devil's advocate role here - I recognize that our countries need to take actions to maintain our respective ways of life and our power in the world that are sometimes not too clean or nice. What the CIA has done in the 20th century especially is deplorable, but necessary. I don't know much about what MI6 has done but I'm sure it has done equally terrible things.

I'm sure it would be labelled as terrorism, but it's technically not. Though I do appreciate the point your making. Interestingly, neither of the UK's intelligence services have a publicly avowed mandate for the use of violence- (all three British intelligence agencies have their roles and mandates publicly published to the best of anyone's knowledge) basically, they don't have the capability to use force in themselves, but are instead reliant on UK special forces to conduct direct covert actions.

[Irviding]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Sunday, Feb 19 2012, 08:16)

QUOTE (Irviding @ Sunday, Feb 19 2012, 02:13) In the purest definition of the term, sure. But what about if the UK decided to use its power to incite a rebellion in Indonesia to take some oil and tin or something? Is that not terrorism if the UK uses such strategies to achieve those political goals? I'm really playing a devil's advocate role here - I recognize that our countries need to take actions to maintain our respective ways of life and our power in the world that are sometimes not too clean or nice. What the CIA has done in the 20th century especially is deplorable, but necessary. I don't know much about what MI6 has done but I'm sure it has done equally terrible things. I'm sure it would be labelled as terrorism, but it's technically not. Though I do appreciate the point your making. Interestingly, neither of the UK's intelligence services have a publicly avowed mandate for the use of violence- (all three British intelligence agencies have their roles and mandates publicly published to the best of anyone's knowledge) basically, they don't have the capability to use force in themselves, but are instead reliant on UK special forces to conduct direct covert actions.

Our CIA has its own paramilitary operatives, but it does outsource things to elite military units sometimes I'm sure. That's news to me regarding British intelligence though. I had always thought they had paramilitary employed directly by their agencies (MI6 is like the CIA, MI5 is like the FBI, what's the third you mentioned, out of curiosity?). Regarding the terrorism thing, I think it's important to realize though that while you're right, the definition of the term is not exactly carried out, it's still for all intents and purposes, terrorism. The things we've done to the people of other countries, I mean Guatemala for example, is just abhorrent, but necessary to maintain the lifestyle we enjoy. I do consider it terrorism to be perfectly honest. When we destabilize a nation for our own political goals, again, for all intents and purposes, terrorism. That's like saying me taking an aluminum bat and hitting you with it isn't assault, it's battery. If I walk in on you nailing my girlfriend, and I draw my weapon and shoot you, that's voluntary manslaughter in definition terms. But when it comes down to practice and fact, it's murder, plain and simple.

[Typhus]

Ultimately, the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is success. We only judge a man a terrorist in hindsight, once his cause has either been lost or utterly discredited. If he should succeed, he will be known as a brave, patriotic hero. Just like the Irish revere Michael Collins or the intelligentsia deify Castro. Our final judgements on a man or organisation are not based on ethics or ideals, only success or failiure. Both patriotism and terrorism are fluid concepts, almost symbiotic. One can often invoke the other to remain relevant.

[Vercetti27]

QUOTE (Sanjeem @ Sunday, Feb 19 2012, 01:27)

I'm Patriotic and would call myself a nationalist, however that doesn't mean I want to push my belief and my feelings onto other people, not even influence them. It's truly what I believe, and if other people respect my opinion and agenda that's good, as I will respect theirs and not try and push mine on them. Terrorists on the other hand use terror, obviously to try and push their beliefs on others, to scare them into doing what they want. Now a lot of the time people like certain criminals and Fascists can be similar to terrorists, by the fact that they can force their ideology on others, especially if it's the state. However at the same time they can be patriotic, so I suppose you can be both.

you don't want to push your beliefs onto other people, yet you have a fascist eagle in your avatar.

your definitley pushing nationalism there pal, don't you live in england?

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (Vercetti27 @ Sunday, Apr 29 2012, 12:58)

QUOTE (Sanjeem @ Sunday, Feb 19 2012, 01:27) I'm Patriotic and would call myself a nationalist, however that doesn't mean I want to push my belief and my feelings onto other people, not even influence them. It's truly what I believe, and if other people respect my opinion and agenda that's good, as I will respect theirs and not try and push mine on them. Terrorists on the other hand use terror, obviously to try and push their beliefs on others, to scare them into doing what they want. Now a lot of the time people like certain criminals and Fascists can be similar to terrorists, by the fact that they can force their ideology on others, especially if it's the state. However at the same time they can be patriotic, so I suppose you can be both. you don't want to push your beliefs onto other people, yet you have a fascist eagle in your avatar. your definitley pushing nationalism there pal, don't you live in england?

That was not worth a two-month resurrection.

[goin-god]

QUOTE (Vercetti27 @ Sunday, Apr 29 2012, 08:58)

QUOTE (Sanjeem @ Sunday, Feb 19 2012, 01:27) I'm Patriotic and would call myself a nationalist, however that doesn't mean I want to push my belief and my feelings onto other people, not even influence them. It's truly what I believe, and if other people respect my opinion and agenda that's good, as I will respect theirs and not try and push mine on them. Terrorists on the other hand use terror, obviously to try and push their beliefs on others, to scare them into doing what they want. Now a lot of the time people like certain criminals and Fascists can be similar to terrorists, by the fact that they can force their ideology on others, especially if it's the state. However at the same time they can be patriotic, so I suppose you can be both. you don't want to push your beliefs onto other people, yet you have a fascist eagle in your avatar. your definitley pushing nationalism there pal, don't you live in england?

Oh yeah, that makes perfect sense. I'm probably a neo-nazi too.