I’m pretty willing to be converted. I tend to forget how shy people get early in their dating years. (I, um, mostly wasn’t. I was more “Contact my lover’s last three girlfriends and ask for references.” When I was fifteen. I am not joking when I say I was a menace.)

Hmm, I’m not with you on the “doesn’t really intend to send”. The vibe I’m getting from this page is that she really wants to send a text, but is being neurotic about the specific content. Which is fairly understandable, seeing as she is still very inexperienced, and doesn’t want to mess anything up. Definitely been there… I think it also points to Clevin a bit more than it does to Patrick. considering that the relationship with Clevin is still fresh and fragile, whereas the one with Patrick is mature and already broken – there isn’t really any reason for her to walk on eggs, practically anything that she’ll write would be an improvement on their last interaction.

I do agree that she is definitely in drunk-texting mode (due to lack of sleep), but a person may drunk-text anyone, doesn’t have to be an ex. And for Alison to consider texting Patrick in this manner might require something significantly stronger than lack of sleep…

How about giving her the information that can enable her to simultaneously save the lives of unfathomably many people AND rescue her best friend from self-inflicted torture and imprisonment?

(Assuming he did not plan/foresee her convincing Max by coercion, scarring both him and her)

I think that before reading your last message, I assumed that Patrick had ulterior motives in both sending the check and the info on Max. But maybe he didn’t? Maybe he was actually trying to extend an earnest olive branch, but had some uncharacteristic miscalculations on how badly they will be received (at least with the first one)? Seems somewhat out of character for the secretly-still-a-supervillain that I believe him to be, but then, so does his gluing back of the mug after Alison’s departure.

Long term choice sounds, um, a lot more involved than anything I’d think reasonable for the moment. So. Many. Issues. To. Resolve.

Maybe coffee and a chat?

Wow, way to hate on Martha Washington, Julia Dent (Ulysses S Grant’s wife), and Mary Anna Custis Lee (Robert E Lee’s wife).

Not that Patrick is the same as any of their spouses. But they could accurately be described as ‘mass-murdering terrorists’.

A whole bunch of terrorist organizations have declared war on the US. It’s not like everyone in the country agreed to go to war. The whole thing about the Revolutionary War is that they didn’t play by the rules. They used Gorilla Tactics (out of necessity, not criticizing). I mean, sneaking up on Christmas to kill a whole bunch of drunk, sleeping soldiers was pretty big dick move (especially considering the times).

Well, I picked Grant mostly for the mass murder aspect: he was called a butcher for a reason. Yeah it was mostly his own men, but it was A LOT of people that he sent to their death. I think a big portion of the South still consider him and Lincoln both terrorists that attacked them and their way of life without provocation (which is a very very skewed view of history, but one they do hold).

But you’re right that Sherman’s actions better qualify as being terrorist actions. He might not have killed Civilians outright (or at least not ordered it, hard to believe 0 civilian people were killed as part of that), but the whole point was to psychologically attack the civilian population of the South by destroying a crap ton of civilian property. That definitely qualifies as terrorism.

And honestly, those were just the 3 that immediately sprang to mind. There are probably better examples of leaders that were mass-murdering terrorists (with happy, loving spouses) that history gives a kind light to because they won/were ‘right’ 😛

Also, I’d say other mass-murdering terrorists would probably want to pick mass-murdering terrorists that have similar beliefs/reasons (or at least ones that did those things for reasons they find acceptable). Look at Harley Quinn/Poison Ivy, that’s a great couple! Just because you’re a mass murdering terrorist doesn’t mean you can’t be in a healthy, happy relationship.

We didn’t have a nation at the time, so we couldn’t really legally declare war now could we?

Alright, so all those people who were living peacefully in their homes and supporting their country that the revolutionaries drove out and stole from (and occasionally straight up killed) were totally stollen from legitimately and didn’t have terror inflicted on them. Right. Admittedly, those acts weren’t done by Washington, but the Revolutionary War was not committed without terrorism.

I concede to the rest of your points about that War. I was not drawing on any of the action movies based on it, but rather the watered down version they teach you first blurred with some of the finer details taught in later classes (which did not actually spend time correcting the historical context of the nature of the War’s tactics).

“So…. if the enemy kills your men, YOU are the terrorist? What the frack?”

No, I specifically called him a mass murderer there. And you know it’s not ‘because the enemy kills your men’, it’s because he used tactics that gave 0 shits about the well being of his men because he could and the enemy couldn’t. However, since that was all legal I realize now it doesn’t meet the definition of the word ‘murder’. Although it is unreasonable/unjust killing so I personally feel it meets the spirit of the word (which is why I incorrectly considered it the first time).

Terrorism isn’t limited to killing civilians. It’s just the unlawful use of violence and intimidation (often against civilians) for political gains. I’d say stealing massive amounts of food from civilians, telling them that if they resist having their stuff stolen you’ll burn down their home, and then letting that news spread to discourage and frighten and demoralize any other civilians seems to fit that pretty well.

The whole South thing? I said it was what THEY believed. Key word: THEY. My god, I called it a skewed view of history. You don’t need to tell me about it. I was raised on the border, so I didn’t get it so strong – although I do remember the existence of lessons stressing how amazing Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson were (and don’t ever remember one for Grant or Sherman). And I vaguely remember learning about how life was harder for black people when they weren’t slaves anymore (I mostly remember my Dad getting pissed and correcting that idea the instant I repeated it). I also remember learning about it being considered “The War of Northern Aggression” as an alternate view point. But I also took AP History classes and had a Dad who was a major history buff (we watched Ken Burns while I was in high school, it’s a great series!); so I personally was spared the dosing of “Southern Pride” that people who live farther South are more likely to receive.

But not all people who think the Civil War was about “State’s Rights” are bad people (or racists), they were just taught a skewed view of history. Some of them believe the South would’ve eventually moved towards abolishing slavery on their own, and that it was wrong of the North to try and (“unconstitutionally”) enforce their laws on them. Are they right about what would’ve happened? Who knows, but that’s what they were taught. And given that specific view of the Civil War: as one of an unjust war, they can believe anyone who participated on the Northern side could be considered a murderer and a terrorist (as being “unjustly” invaded incites terror no?).

I told you, they were the first that came to mind. I apologize that they require a specific viewpoint to qualify (and not a very good one in the Civil War’s case). You want an unequivocal mass-murdering terrorist from history that doesn’t require a loser’s perspective? Harry Truman. Done. Ordered the dropping of the Atomic bomb on civilian targets. After Japan had decided to surrender.

Patrick didn’t create robots “specifically to kill large swaths of the population AND destroy cities.” He created them to take down the government and its military. He literally made a public declaration of war on the Government and told civilians that if they complied they wouldn’t be harmed. He’s said that he ‘kept casualties to a minimum’, and we don’t actually have the numbers of civilians he hurt. Considering the existence of civilian casualties in most wars (especially revolutionary ones and modern wars) you can’t claim that he’s “specifically targeted them” when that was not his goal.

Weird how when he does that he’s a mass-murdering terrorist, but when the Revolutionaries or Sherman do it, it’s legal and ‘tactics’ and ‘only to people that fight back’.

We’re talking about them Harley/Ivy because your original comment was, “I’m not sure how choosing the mass-murdering terrorist would ever be ‘the better choice’ for anyone”.

Pretty sure Ivy was ‘the better choice’ for Harley 😉 However, that was a choice between one mass-murdering terrorist and another so *shrug*. Although I can’t really see Harley settling down with a non-mass-murdering terrorist (or at least not one that I’d like better than Harley/Ivy) 😛

Oh no. You don’t get to do that. You don’t get to list absolutely horrible examples of what you call “actual terrorism” and then pull “that’s insulting to the victims of actual terrorists”. Not after all the shit you’ve given over me making that exact argument with torture. No sir.

I’m quite happy to argue the merits of my examples on whether they actually ‘unlawfully used threat or violence against civilians for political gain’ or ‘committed mass murder’, but I won’t even bother with such a hypocritical argument.

You’re right about the three I initially listed, they were made flippantly and without much thought put into them. And I have since apologized for those specific examples.

General Sherman however, definitely deliberately targeted civilians. Harry Truman, targeted civilians.

“We didn’t have a nation at the time, so we couldn’t really legally declare war now could we?”

Please tell me you’re just trolling and baiting, because I can’t believe it’s anything else at this point.

That’s exactly what the Declaration of Independence was for. It was a formal declaration stating our independence from England, although up until that point we were colonies which had a fairly independent lifestyle primarily due to the extreme distance between us and England. These are things you learn in junior high school. Why havent you learned any of this?

“Alright, so all those people who were living peacefully in their homes and supporting their country that the revolutionaries drove out and stole from (and occasionally straight up killed) were totally stollen from legitimately and didn’t have terror inflicted on them.”

It’s like you learned history from webcomics or a cracker jack box or something. The revolutionarie were the ones IN their homes. And most of them did NOT want to rebel in the first place. They only did because of the crushing taxes without any sort of representation. You know ‘No taxation without representation’ – it was sort of a focal thing behind the Revolutionary War. It took years to convince all the colonies to sign up for the rebellion, and ALL of the Founding Fathers wanted to negotiate with England to get some say in how they were governed – that was it. England wouldn’t do that so the majority of the colonists rebelled. Also they did not ‘inflict terror on the Loyalists and kill them.’

“Right. Admittedly, those acts weren’t done by Washington, but the Revolutionary War was not committed without terrorism.”

You keep saying that, but don’t seem to have a clue what terrorism is. Or have any knowledge of US history whatsoever.

“I concede to the rest of your points about that War. I was not drawing on any of the action movies based on it, but rather the watered down version they teach you first blurred with some of the finer details taught in later classes (which did not actually spend time correcting the historical context of the nature of the War’s tactics).”

Seems like you were using The Patriot as the sum basis of all your knowledge, actually.

“No, I specifically called him a mass murderer there. And you know it’s not ‘because the enemy kills your men’, it’s because he used tactics that gave 0 shits about the well being of his men because he could and the enemy couldn’t. However, since that was all legal I realize now it doesn’t meet the definition of the word ‘murder’. Although it is unreasonable/unjust killing so I personally feel it meets the spirit of the word (which is why I incorrectly considered it the first time).”

According to your rather unusual definition of ‘mass murderer,’ you’d be saying that Patton was a mass murderer for D-Day, because of how many Allied soldiers died within the first few minutes. Or maybe Winston Churchill was a mass-murderer because of the Germans dropping bombs on London civilian centers daily.

At least you are possibly gleaning that you have no concept of what murder means. And a soldier killing another soldier during a war is not murder. Murder is the illegal killing of one human being by another human being. Key word – illegal. The whole point of a war is some people are going to kill other people. But there are still rules in war to prevent it from spilling over to the civilians. There are no rules with terrorists to do the same

“Terrorism isn’t limited to killing civilians. It’s just the unlawful use of violence and intimidation (often against civilians) for political gains.”

Can you read those two sentences together please. Do it a few times.. Yes. Terrorism is about killing, torturing, and maiming civilians in order to instill terror in the populace because THAT is not allowed by any formal rules of war.

“I’d say stealing massive amounts of food from civilians, telling them that if they resist having their stuff stolen you’ll burn down their home, and then letting that news spread to discourage and frighten and demoralize any other civilians seems to fit that pretty well.”

You can say that, but you’d be absolutely wrong. An army cutting off supply lines and new recruits to an enemy army in a formally declared war between two armies is not the same as terrorism.

And you’ve gotten me going on a tangent again because of the (possibly just ignorant, but more likely trolling/baiting) arguments you’ve been making.

“You don’t need to tell me about it. I was raised on the border, so I didn’t get it so strong – although I do remember the existence of lessons stressing how amazing Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson were”

That would probably be because they actually did run rather strategic battles. A lot better than Grant, actually, if you’re going to base it entirely on bodycount. Especially considering they did not have nearly the same level of industrialization in the South as the North had. Although a lot of that was due to McClellan’s bumbling beforehand. And Grant’s predecessor, McClellan, despite being a supposedly good strategist in practice was absolutely inept compared to Grant because of insane levels of over-cautiousness and paranoia when it came to the number of troops McClellan thought he was going up against.

“(and don’t ever remember one for Grant or Sherman).”

Judging from how little you’ve known about history in this thread so far, I’m willing to bet you probably just didn’t listen to the lesson plan, or forgot what was said in favor of the episode of Timeless where they go back to the Civil War (I believe in the pilot episode).

“And I vaguely er learning about how life was harder for black people when they weren’t slaves anymore (I mostly remember my Dad getting pissed and correcting that idea the instant I repeated it).”

Technically true. Mainly because Lincoln was assassinated before he could write any additional proclamations or orders which would have helped the newly freed slaves with getting plots of land. Andrew Jackson was a pretty piss-poor President.

“I also remember learning about it being considered “The War of Northern Aggression” as an alternate view point.”

Not sure how it would be a war of Northern Aggression when the South started the war. Sort of like if Person A punches you with intent to hurt them, then Person B beat the crap out of Person A for punching them. It’s still Person A’s fault. Although Lincoln DID want the slaves freed from the get-go…. but most politicians WOULD have kept the 3/5th compromise and other flawed concepts like that if it meant preserving the Union without a war. Lincoln and most of his cabinet, and most of the Republicans of the time, though, happened to realize that slavery was an inherent cancer on the nation. If you really want to learn your history from a movie, the movie ‘Lincoln’ is pretty historically accurate. It’s just called Lincoln. If it has anything with vampires in it, you’re watching the wrong (but still pretty cool) movie. Just letting you know in advance.

“But I also took AP History classes”

No offense, but either you didn’t pay much attention in that AP class, or you had really crappy teachers if this thread is any example of what you learned.

“and had a Dad who was a major history buff (we watched Ken Burns while I was in high school, it’s a great series!);”

Pretty sure that Ken Burns never made a documentary about how Lincoln and Grant were terrorists. Or that Sherman killed civilians.

“so I personally was spared the dosing of “Southern Pride” that people who live farther South are more likely to receive.”

Assuming they arent a minority (they are a very small minority btw), why are you using the opinions of clearly idiotic people as the basis of your argument? Especially if you realize that mentality is screwed up?

Not sure why we’re even talking about the civil war, aside from that you’re saying the Union were terrorists. Which is frankly ignorant. And I’ve already pointed out how it is but you seem to gloss over facts presented to you for some reason. :/

“Patrick didn’t create robots “specifically to kill large swaths of the population AND destroy cities.” He created them to take down the government and its military.”

Then why would he have the robots ATTACK CITIES. Instead of… say… attack military installations. Because he’s a terrorist. Not that he has any sort of ‘declaration of independent statehood’ behind his actions but even if he had…. how does having giant robots attack cities where soldiers are NOT stationed not seem like terrorism to you?

“He literally made a public declaration of war on the Government and told civilians that if they complied they wouldn’t be harmed. He’s said that he ‘kept casualties to a minimum’, and we don’t actually have the numbers of civilians he hurt.”

Thousands. He murdered thousands. Real minimal. Right. Complied with what…. NOT being in the buildings that the robots were smashing? Pretty sure they were complying with not fighting the robots since most people CAN’T fight giant robots. They can just run in terror from them.

“Considering the existence of civilian casualties in most wars (especially revolutionary ones and modern wars)”

Again, you don’t know anything about history apparently, and you don’t know anything about civilian bodycounts during war apparently.

“you can’t claim that he’s “specifically targeted them” when that was not his goal.”

Except it WAS his goal. His goal was to cause fear among the populace in order to get the government to do something. That’s textbook definition of terrorism. WHY ARE YOU STILL ARGUING THIS?

Oh wait, because you’re trolling and you realize if you keep writing ridiculous stuff, I’ll keep responding to correct you. Okay yeah, that makes sense….

“Weird how when he does that he’s a mass-murdering terrorist, but when the Revolutionaries or Sherman do it, it’s legal and ‘tactics’ and ‘only to people that fight back’.”

Look just call FDR and Churchill terrorists for killing the Nazis and Hitler. That’s where you’re leading with this argument. You don’t seem to understand the difference between a soldier in a war, and a terrorist. You don’t seem to understand the difference between targetting and murdering innocent civilians in order to influence an enemy government and killing enemy soldiers where there might be unavoidable collateral damage OF civilians. You LOVE false equivalencies and don’t seem to understand that you’re making a huge one here.

“We’re talking about them Harley/Ivy because your original comment was, “I’m not sure how choosing the mass-murdering terrorist would ever be ‘the better choice’ for anyone”.”

Probably would be better to focus on Harley/Ivy than the Founding Fathers and generals in the Civil War then. And technically… Harley LEAVES the mass murdering terrorist for the eco-terrorist who … well… kills less people. Which… okay look, Harley’s insane. That’s the point. It makes sense to be with a terrorist only if you’re INSANE.

Because it’s an insane thing to choose.

“Pretty sure Ivy was ‘the better choice’ for Harley 😉 However, that was a choice between one mass-murdering terrorist and another so *shrug*. Although I can’t really see Harley settling down with a non-mass-murdering terrorist (or at least not one that I’d like better than Harley/Ivy) :P”

She’s also partnered up and befriended Power Girl. Who hasn’t killed anyone. Amanda Conner wrote and drew a whole series about that. Much better than being with a terrorist.

Oh please don’t. I acknowledged the problem of specifically picking Washington. And even in my previous post I admitted that the specific viewpoint needed to consider Grant/Sherman was not one I shared.

“you’re pretty much saying anyone who’s ever been a soldier is a terrorist”

Hmm. I suppose my arguments do boil down to, “anyone in an unjust war that went out of their way to cause terror to civilians or was in charge of people doing so (and therefore culpable for their actions)”, but that can be distorted that to work for any war and a large portion of soldiers (definitely have to do quite a bit of distortion for the Civil War).

Now that you’ve pointed out the ridiculousness of that track, I’ll stop and admit that my examples were ones that required very skewed viewpoints and were not good examples. Like I said, they were made off the top of my head. I apologize for not taking the time to come up with better examples (especially since I know history is full of them and it’s a failure on my part for not being able to come up with them). Although Sherman still used terrorist tactics (but was not a mass-murderer) 😛

In case you were serious about quitting this thread, I’ll reply with some of my points from my other post that are unrelated to the previous examples I gave (so you don’t have to go through all the points that I acknowledge were wrong both in that post and here).

An unequivocal mass-murdering terrorist from history that doesn’t require a loser’s perspective: Harry Truman. Ordered the dropping of the Atomic bomb on civilian targets. After Japan had decided to surrender. I’m not sure how you can spin that one. Although I suppose he was married before that happened, so his wife only chose to stay with a mass-murdering terrorist.

We were talking about Harley/Ivy because your original comment was, “I’m not sure how choosing the mass-murdering terrorist would ever be ‘the better choice’ for anyone”.

Pretty sure Ivy was ‘the better choice’ for Harley 😉 However, that was a choice between one mass-murdering terrorist and another so *shrug*. Although I can’t really see Harley settling down with a non-mass-murdering terrorist (or at least not one that I’d like better than Harley/Ivy) 😛

The Revolutionary War? Definitely. The colonies were taxed waaaay less than the mainlanders, they were only being taxed due to the expensive ass war that we did take part in and gained benefits for (French and Indian War, or 7 Years War for the worldwide version), and it was not about ‘Taxation Without Representation’ it was about ‘All the rich people could make a ton more money if we were independent’. Especially since in Britain itself only 3% of the population could actually vote. So honestly, no one had representation. Hence why, when multiple other rebellions (consisting of mostly veterans) in the US started up afterwards about taxes they felt were unfair, they were struck down swiftly rather than considering their complaints.

I mean, I’m glad it happened and we won, but it was all total BS lol.

Civil War? No. But a large portion of the South thinks so 😛 Seriously, quick google of ‘US Civil War poll’ and you get pretty recent polls of 42%-48% of US people thinking they were about States’ Rights. There’s another poll out there from 2011 where 23% of people from Georgia, Mississippi, and NC think the South should’ve won. *Shudder* It’s really not as small of a group as you’re making it out to be.

As for Truman and Japan:

1 & 2) Japan wanted to surrender. As the dates of the bombing drew closer, they were even willing to give the US everything we wanted, except messing with their Emperor (as they did view him with such high esteem and were afraid we’d execute him or humiliate him if they gave us unconditional surrender). And the bonus reasons for doing it (besides sewing utter terror in the Japanese as well as the world honestly), don’t change the fact that it was a terrorist act.

3) That’s an even shittier reason for committing an act of terrorism.

No, I’m arguing against your statement that ‘mass-murdering terrorists’ can’t be the right choice in partner for anyone.