- Joined
- Aug 1, 2014
- Messages
- 26,719
- Reaction score
- 6,278
- Location
- California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
What terrorist attack?
Exactly.
What terrorist attack?
I demonstrated that we celebrate a terrorist act.
The point is that thing far above your head.
Was the hotel evacuated or not?
Nice little alternate universe you inhabit, but no one besides you considers the Boston Tea Party to be a terrorist attack. So any 'point' you think you've made would be beyond most people's grasp.
lol. As opposed to the Palestinians who glorify folks whose only "contribution" to any sort of cause is the murder of civilians.
This was not a terrorist attack. it was an attack against the military headquarters of the British who had betrayed their mandate and instead of facilitating a Jewish national home were both undermining it and systematically working to reduce the Jews' ability to defend themselves.
And yes, even then the British were warned. Something that the folks who you don't seem to mind so much on the Palestinian side wouldn't have ever done because the murder of civilians is the explicit object of the actions for which they have been lionized.
This thread is not in I/P for a reason: the OP has nothing to do with the Palestinians. Do not mention them again.
Have you read and do you understand the definition of a terrorist attack?
Obviously not.
Now you're mimicking Irgun's talking points from 1946.
Do you believe the 91 casualties were the fault of the British for not evacuating the hotel?
By every accepted definition of 'terrorist attack', the Boston Tea Party does not fit the criteria. You aren't even using the terminology correctly.
Political protests involving destruction of property are NOT considered to be terrorist attacks in the country where you reside.
ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun
noun: terrorism
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
"the fight against terrorism"
Was it unlawful?
Was it intimidation?
Was it in the pursuit of political aims?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Was?
Was not?
Do you believe the 91 casualties were the fault of the British for not evacuating the hotel?
Was it violent?
"No one died during the Boston Tea Party. There was no violence and no confrontation between the Patriots, the Tories and the British soldiers garrisoned in Boston. No members of the crews of the Beaver, Dartmouth, or Eleanor were harmed."
No.
https://www.bostonteapartyship.com/boston-tea-party-facts
Who did it intimidate? The King of England, who was at that time... THE MOST POWERFUL MAN IN THE WORLD? Really mouse, did King George III feel 'intimidated' by some tea being chucked in the harbor, or are you grasping at straws?
Was it violent?
"No one died during the Boston Tea Party. There was no violence and no confrontation between the Patriots, the Tories and the British soldiers garrisoned in Boston. No members of the crews of the Beaver, Dartmouth, or Eleanor were harmed."
No.
https://www.bostonteapartyship.com/boston-tea-party-facts
Who did it intimidate? The King of England, who was at that time... THE MOST POWERFUL MAN IN THE WORLD? Really mouse, did King George III feel 'intimidated' by some tea being chucked in the harbor, or are you grasping at straws?
ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun
noun: terrorism
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
"the fight against terrorism"
Was it unlawful?
Was it intimidation?
Was it in the pursuit of political aims?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Did they evacuate the hotel? Yes or No?
The Irgun group did not represent all of Israelis and was violently opposed by other Israeli groups. No one I knew in the last year that I lived in Israel celebrated the act.
When is violence or casualties REQUIRED to be a terrorist attack?
You are just weird.
You think the Boston Tea Party was a terrorist attack, while also thinking the King David Hotel bombing wasn't one, and was somehow the fault of the British.
Weird.
Why did the IDF accept fighters from Irgun to join?
lol. As opposed to the Palestinians who glorify folks whose only "contribution" to any sort of cause is the murder of civilians.
This was not a terrorist attack. it was an attack against the military headquarters of the British who had betrayed their mandate and instead of facilitating a Jewish national home were both undermining it and systematically working to reduce the Jews' ability to defend themselves.
And yes, even then the British were warned. Something that the folks who you don't seem to mind so much on the Palestinian side wouldn't have ever done because the murder of civilians is the explicit object of the actions for which they have been lionized.
This thread is not in I/P for a reason: the OP has nothing to do with the Palestinians. Do not mention them again.
Pointing out the obvious double standard ties directly into the purposeful mischaracterization of the attack on the british hq. It also is a much better observed comparator than the boston tea party, since morally and factually it is a much more obvious, systematic and brutal set of terrorist activities than what you are trying to argue about.
But sorry to burst your bubble pointing out the obvious massive gaping hole in your position, world view and moral compass. I know anti-Israel propagandists hate to have their bubbles burst with facts and reality.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
They needed people...
Derp.