What Am I Missing? - Israel and Hamas (Palestinians)

[DeusExMachina]

Yeah I got it. Now about those pre-teen transgenders....

Just joking, we've been unnaturally civil with each I don't want it to change.

Now we must kungfu fight!!

[CMP_5.56]

During the revolutionary war the colonials that fought against the crown were labeled terrorists. Because our militia used guerilla warfare tactics. Ambushes, the killing of officers first in battle. For that, the crown called us terrorists. The difference is the targeting of military targets and not the targeting of non combatants. To compare the guerilla fighting tactics of our militia to the tactics of hamas, al qeda, or their like is not only ignorant, but disrespectful.

The line between freedom fighter and terrorist is pretty easy to see. Perspective has little to do with it. Just because they believe killing innocents is justified, doesn't make it so. And to stand behind their actions and say "but they think its okay, so it is perspective", shows a lack of morals and and a spine.

[mcantar18c]

Ok, let's try this. Explain to me a situation in which raping a woman is not wrong.

Its not rape if they don't say "no."

[Byte Stryke]

there is a lot of antisemitism that is prevalent at the occupy wal street protests, that has been edited out by the media.

because a lot of the people who are there are very liberal. and generally liberal people are pro palestine rather than israel.

both sides have done good and bad things, but if I had to pick one I'd pick israel.

oh, and what deusex said is absolutely true.

if the revolutionary war had been lost the founding fathers would have been hung as traitors.

if you disagree, then say you disagree. don't have a damn tantrum about it.

Absolute win


I love how some get in a tizzy about how horrible it was that the Romans and everyone picked on and almost exterminated the Jews...


aww...

But when it comes to the Native Americans, "Tough (doo-doo), we kicked your ass, deal with it."



history is always written by the victors.
Our forefathers , in the eyes of the British, were terrorists.

and that Gentlemen, is the sad fact.

[Byte Stryke]

During the revolutionary war the colonials that fought against the crown were labeled terrorists. Because our militia used guerilla warfare tactics. Ambushes, the killing of officers first in battle. For that, the crown called us terrorists. The difference is the targeting of military targets and not the targeting of non combatants. To compare the guerilla fighting tactics of our militia to the tactics of hamas, al qeda, or their like is not only ignorant, but disrespectful.

The line between freedom fighter and terrorist is pretty easy to see. Perspective has little to do with it. Just because they believe killing innocents is justified, doesn't make it so. And to stand behind their actions and say "but they think its okay, so it is perspective", shows a lack of morals and and a spine.

So EXACTLY what is the difference between a Terrorist and a freedom fighter, if not perspective?



Lemme guess, Is it that they are fighting against what they believe is destroying their way of life or liberties? Religious Ideology?

Is it that a freedom Fighter will stay in their own country to fight?


Funny how when the USSR invaded Afghanistan and when the CIA helped the Mujaheddin repel in foreign invaders they were called..........

sorry? Couldn't hear you?

Perspective... at THAT time, they were fighting for what WE wanted....



(This is in no way an endorsement for acts of violence or war against the United States, interests thereof, nor should be taken as such. All statements made are to illustrate the concept of perspective as it relates to historical confrontation. Just so no one gets their feelings hurt.)

[roberth]

Your third sentence should be switched to keep the presentation consistent.

Fixed

[Bailey Guns]

I completely disagree with any attempt to portray British sentiments toward the Colonial fighters as terrorists. At least in the same sense as we use the word today.

Traitors or rebels is far more accurate. Were there incidents where the Colonials targeted non-combatants? Yeah, I think so.

But to say they used the same tactics as what we refer to as terrorists today shows a complete misunderstanding of either history, the English language or both.

On almost any occasion when the Colonial fighters engaged against inappropriate targets they were rebuffed, sometimes severely, by the leadership at the time.

As an example here's an excerpt from a recent Ann Coulter column (she explains it clearly and accurately) where she outlines some of the differences between the OWS nutjobs and true patriots. It applies to this as well:

(Paul) Revere made sure to replace a broken lock on one of the ships and severely punished a participant who stole some of the tea for his private use. Samuel Adams defended the raid by saying that all other methods of recourse -- say, voting -- were unavailable.

Our revolution -- the only revolution that led to greater freedom since at least 1688 -- was not the act of a mob.

As specific and limited as it was, however, even the Boston Tea Party was too mob-like to spark anything other than retaliatory British measures. Indeed, it set back the cause of American independence by dispiriting both American and British supporters, such as Edmund Burke.

George Washington disapproved of the destruction of the tea. Benjamin Franklin demanded that the India Tea Co. be reimbursed for it. Considered an embarrassment by many of our founding fathers, the Boston Tea Party was not celebrated for another 50 years.

It would be three long years after the Boston Tea Party when our founding fathers engaged in their truly revolutionary act: The signing of the Declaration of Independence.

Modern-day terrorists (especially those of the radical Islamist persuasion) are not at all like our Founding Fathers.

[Byte Stryke]

I completely disagree with any attempt to portray British sentiments toward the Colonial fighters as terrorists. At least in the same sense as we use the word today.

Traitors or rebels is far more accurate. Were there incidents where the Colonials targeted non-combatants? Yeah, I think so.

But to say they used the same tactics as what we refer to as terrorists today shows a complete misunderstanding of either history, the English language or both.

On almost any occasion when the Colonial fighters engaged against inappropriate targets they were rebuffed, sometimes severely, by the leadership at the time.

As an example here's an excerpt from a recent Ann Coulter column (she explains it clearly and accurately) where she outlines some of the differences between the OWS nutjobs and true patriots. It applies to this as well:Modern-day terrorists (especially those of the radical Islamist persuasion) are not at all like our Founding Fathers.

a fine a narrow view of some very select events...

and what of the raids on England itself??

[Bailey Guns]

Well it wasn't meant to be a dissertation on the entire revolution. Of course it was based on a particular event.

That doesn't change the fact that you can't compare modern day terrorists (again...as we use the word) to the Colonial fighters in any sort of rational way.

[Byte Stryke]

Well it wasn't meant to be a dissertation on the entire revolution. Of course it was based on a particular event.

That doesn't change the fact that you can't compare modern day terrorists (again...as we use the word) to the Colonial fighters in any sort of rational way.

it is a bit like comparing apples to pears...

given the differences in time and culture they simply labeled our forefathers as Heretics, Traitors and Pirates. Society hadn't really coined the term "terrorist" yet.
We broke from the church of England, we dared raise arms against the King and we were setting fire and pillaging his majesties cities in the "homeland."

Just saying, there are some parallels.