Israeli airstrike kills senior Hamas rocket maker

[justabubba]

I'm not surprised that no specific general order was available. The "account" is wholly a matter of incorrect speculation without foundation in fact. Not one of General Washington's orders calls for what today would be characterized as war crimes. In numerous orders, he called for restraint and also punishment for those who committed improper acts that would amount to abuses or war crimes. All of his general orders, among his papers, are online via the Library of Congress.

i see it differently
his reversing general putnam's order, directing the soldiers to end their riding the loyalists thru the streets on a rail, indicates Washington believed it acceptable to mistreat the civilians who were disloyal to the patriots' cause, in NYC in 1776
sorry to disappoint you, but many of the founding fathers actually had clay feet

 

[apdst]

please explain why you find this to be the case as i fail to see any logic in your assertion

Because most Germans saw the Nazis as, "freedom fighters", to stop Jewish oppression, right the wrongs of the Treaty of Versailles and exact revenge upon the French and English, for creating the terms of the Treaty.

Do you think it was an accident that the French Army in 1940 surrendered to the Germans in the exact same rail car that the Germans surrendered in, during WW1?

 

[apdst]

I'm not surprised that no specific general order was available. The "account" is wholly a matter of incorrect speculation without foundation in fact. Not one of General Washington's orders calls for what today would be characterized as war crimes. In numerous orders, he called for restraint and also punishment for those who committed improper acts that would amount to abuses or war crimes. All of his general orders, among his papers, are online via the Library of Congress.

He's right, Don. Washington did condone violence against Torries in New York.

General George Washington seems to have approved mob persecution of the Tories. In 1776 General Israel Putnam, one of Washington's generals, met a procession of the Sons of Liberty parading a number of Tories on rails up and down the streets of New York and he attempted to halt this inhuman proceeding. On hearing this, Washington reprimanded General Putnam, stating that "to discourage such proceedings was to injure the cause of liberty in which they were engaged, and that nobody would attempt it but an enemy of his country."

http://www.fortklock.com/loyalistspersecution.htm

 

[Zyphlin]

the acts are similar but fundamental differences exist, you say
please point out the fundamental differences you find that make this an inappropriate comparison

Well first, the "loyalists" that typically had these things occuring were members of militias or regiments and thus not just non-combat citizens but an actual opposition force. This is different then the decidingly civilian targets common amongst terrorists.

Additionally, one must look at the scope as well when ones talking about these things. "Proportionality" I believe is what your type likes to trot out. Tarring and Feathering someone for the hopes of shaming and embarassing is leagues different in its proportionality than setting off bombs.

Your dishonest attempts at crying about those that fleed to Canada and other areas was of course lacking, which is not surprising. These individuals were loyal to the Crown and who they felt should be the rightful leader, as such they opposed the notion of the America's. They identified with England and where in essence still citizens under the Crown, not Americans. Why would they just stay in the country then after the British have been driven out and no longer have control? Why would they be allowed to stay within a country they actively worked against or wish no citizenship to?

Not to mention the legions of other differences. There was no hope and desire by the Founding Fathers for the end of the British existance in general, to end the British way of life. There was no continual effort after the fact to continue to attack British citizens or to punish the British for being in locations close to the colonies still. One can not simply look at only the efforts of terrorists to "free" their countries and ignore all else those groups do when attempting to compare one thing to another as if its a legitimate and worth while comparison.

 

[Zyphlin]

i see it differently
his reversing general putnam's order, directing the soldiers to end their riding the loyalists thru the streets on a rail, indicates Washington believed it acceptable to mistreat the civilians who were disloyal to the patriots' cause, in NYC in 1776
sorry to disappoint you, but many of the founding fathers actually had clay feet

Please provide link to evidence of Washington reversing general Putnam's order? Don actually provided this thing called "EVIDENCE" showing a pattern of good treatment towards civilians by Washington. All you've provided is your own statements, which are highly dubious by your comments throughout this thread, suggesting that such an order took place.

 

[Zyphlin]

He's right, Don. Washington did condone violence against Torries in New York.

Am I misunderstanding that the Torries were part of militias and regiments of the English, generally armed in some way, that were not merely citizens that disagreed with what the revolutionaries were doing but were active participants in the opposition of them?

If we bomb the house of a key politician in a country we are at war in, that is not terrorism. Likewise, raiding the house of a Governor of the British whose loyalty lies there and is acting against the revolution is not terrorism either. Its an attack on an official, which while not military, is not strictly civilian either.

At worst, you have a suggestion that some founders...such as Adams and his Sons of Liberty...were terrorist groups in nature. However that is a far stretch from suggesting the founders as a whole, or the revolution as a whole, is "no different" than terrorists today as you're taking what is a small segment and suggesting that to be the overriding fact despite the glaring evidence to the contrary when looking at a larger scale. EVEN if we are to acknowledge the SOL acts as "terrorism", to use that to slander the entire revolution and founders would mean that Justabubba...along with Loving Hitler...must agree that Muslims are Terrorists, because apparently a small segment acting poorly means the entire grouping is of that classification.

 

[justabubba]

Am I misunderstanding that the Torries were part of militias and regiments of the English, generally armed in some way, that were not merely citizens that disagreed with what the revolutionaries were doing but were active participants in the opposition of them?

If we bomb the house of a key politician in a country we are at war in, that is not terrorism. Likewise, raiding the house of a Governor of the British whose loyalty lies there and is acting against the revolution is not terrorism either. Its an attack on an official, which while not military, is not strictly civilian either.

the loyalists were estimated to comprise about 1/3 of the population
they were active in the fight under the command of the british
but many were civilians and they were terrorized by our forefathers
the lessons of history can be a bitch, such as this one

 

[jmh423]

Happy to live in peace....thats beautiful. Unfortunately, does not apply to Hamas and their supporters. You will notice that I didn't say Palestinians. Existence as a Palestinian is an accident of birth. To be Hamas is a choice. Hamas have been offered peace on many, many occasions and they have spit on it each and every time.

ric

Many people consider those who support and tolerate the actions of the Irgun/Likud party in Israel to be terrorists. I guess it just depends on which side of the fence you are on. The vast majority of Israeli Jews and Palistinian Muslims want the same things, peace, security, prosperity and freedom. The leaders of both sides are complict in causing and funding the murder and mayhem. From it's inception Israel has glorified and even elected several admitted and proud terrorist murderers to high office. The same can be said of the Palistinian authorities over the years. As long as people like Begin, Sharon, Arafat etc. are honored by their constituents, this idiocy and insanity will continue. War is a racket that is staged and choreographed by those who profit by selling battlefield expendables. Find out who makes money selling bullets and bombs and then you'll know who is behind all bloody conflicts.

WAR IS A RACKET!!!

NEW RELEASE, 113 pages with ALL NEW COVER DESIGN

EXCERPT:

"WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.In the World War a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows. How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?"

 

[apdst]

Am I misunderstanding that the Torries were part of militias and regiments of the English, generally armed in some way, that were not merely citizens that disagreed with what the revolutionaries were doing but were active participants in the opposition of them?

If we bomb the house of a key politician in a country we are at war in, that is not terrorism. Likewise, raiding the house of a Governor of the British whose loyalty lies there and is acting against the revolution is not terrorism either. Its an attack on an official, which while not military, is not strictly civilian either.

At worst, you have a suggestion that some founders...such as Adams and his Sons of Liberty...were terrorist groups in nature. However that is a far stretch from suggesting the founders as a whole, or the revolution as a whole, is "no different" than terrorists today as you're taking what is a small segment and suggesting that to be the overriding fact despite the glaring evidence to the contrary when looking at a larger scale. EVEN if we are to acknowledge the SOL acts as "terrorism", to use that to slander the entire revolution and founders would mean that Justabubba...along with Loving Hitler...must agree that Muslims are Terrorists, because apparently a small segment acting poorly means the entire grouping is of that classification.

Yes, you are. There weren't any English Militias, because the British Army wouldn't allow it. The Brits fielded a very conventional army. Pride, honor, a lack of understanding of the ground where they found themselves deployed and the accepted rules of war of the time period, wouldn't allow them field assymetrical units.

There were some tories that served in the British army, but not many. The British had a hard time trusting the tories, was the main reason.

 

[Zyphlin]

the loyalists were estimated to comprise about 1/3 of the population

Source? The numbers I'm seeing in my search puts them at 1/5 to 1/6th of the population, roughly 15 to 20%.

they were active in the fight under the command of the british

Well thanks, you at least destroy your own point for me.

but many were civilians and they were terrorized by our forefathers
the lessons of history can be a bitch, such as this one

I know, it is my Obama loving islam = terrorist believing friend, it is. Especially when one realizes it through their own words. Read one quote box up and you'll realize the fallacy of your argument.

 

[donsutherland1]

He's right, Don. Washington did condone violence against Torries in New York.

The referenced site is merely opinion. Indeed, the site offers the following disclaimer: "The KILTS site is based on the Kilts publication by Herman W. Witthoft, Sr."

If such an incident occurred, it would be reflected in George Washington's papers. No such mention is made. Rather, mention is made about carrying out the New York provincial congress' orders to have prominent Tories arrested.

From his May 21, 1776 letter to Philip J. Schuyler describing problems being created by the Tories:

Dear Sir: I have inclosed for your Perusal Copies of two Informations, and a Letter I received on Saturday last from the Committee of King's District by the Hands of a Martin Bebee, who says he is their Clerk and was sent Express.

From these you will readily discover the diabolical and insidious Arts and Schemes carrying on by the Tories and Friends to Government, to raise Distrust, Dissensions and Divisions among us.

Having the utmost Confidence in your Integrity, and the most incontestible Proof of your great Attachment to our common Country and its Interest, I could not but look upon the Charge against you with an Eye of Disbelief, and Sentiments of Detestation and Abhorrence, nor should I have troubled you with the Matter, had I not been informed that Copies were sent to different Committees and to Governor Trumbull, which I conceived would get abroad, and that you, (should you find that I had been furnished with them) would consider my suppressing them, as an Evidence of my Belief, or at best of my Doubts of the Charges.

The Confidence and Assurance I have of the Injustice and Infamy of the Charges against the Convention, obliged me also to lay the Matter before them; least my not doing it, should be construed a Distrust by them of their Zeal, and promote the Views of the Tories; who, to excite Disorder and Confusion, judge it essential, to involve those in high Departments in a Share of the Plot, which is not unlikely to be true in some Parts, believing that our internal Enemies have many Projects in Contemplation, to subvert our Liberties.

His May 21, 1776 statement before the New York Convention:

Gentn: Congress having been pleased to request my attendance at Philadelphia, to advise with them on the Situation of affairs and being about to set out immediately; I judged it proper to give Major Genl. Putnam Instructions similar to those I have the honor to inclose you; for the regulation of his Conduct, in case you come to any determination respecting the Tories here and on Long Island and should have occasion for Military assistance, to carry it into execution. I have &ca.

His May 21, 1776 instructions to General Putnam:

Sir: I have reason to believe that the Provencial Congress of this Colony have in Contemplation a Scheme for Siezing the principal Tories, and disaffected Person's [in the most obnoxious parts of the Government] on Long Island, in this City, and the Country round about; and that to carry the Scheme into Execution, they will be obliged to have recourse.

I need not recommend secrecy to you, as the success, you must be assured will depend absolutely upon precaution, and the dispatch with which the measure, when once adopted, is executed.

General Green will, tho' not in person perhaps, have a principal share in ordering the detachments from his Brigade on Long Island, of course will be a proper Person to let into the whole Plan. I wd. therefore when application is made by Congress, have you and him concert Measures with such Gentlemen as that body shall please to appoint and order the execution with as much secrecy and dispatch as possible and at the same time with the utmost decency and good order.

Finally, none of his other instructions or orders to General Putnam revealed content that would corroborate Kilt's opinion.

 

[donsutherland1]

There weren't any English Militias, because the British Army wouldn't allow it. The Brits fielded a very conventional army. Pride, honor, a lack of understanding of the ground where they found themselves deployed and the accepted rules of war of the time period, wouldn't allow them field assymetrical units.

Not quite. For instance, there was the Queen's Rangers, a regiment of loyalists that was organized for irregular warfare.

FWIW, there is a New York State historical marker that notes one location at which Washington’s forces skirmished with elements of the Queen’s Rangers:

http://www.hmdb.org/Marker.asp?Marker=32017

A Library of Congress note providing context with respect to Washington’s papers in which troops were being withdrawn to a new position on October 25, 1776 states, “A surprise of the British was attempted by a detachment under Col. John Haslet, of the Delaware Regiment, which only partially succeeded.” The skirmish noted by the New York State marker was that “surprise.”

 

[Zyphlin]

Yes, you are. There weren't any English Militias, because the British Army wouldn't allow it. The Brits fielded a very conventional army. Pride, honor, a lack of understanding of the ground where they found themselves deployed and the accepted rules of war of the time period, wouldn't allow them field assymetrical units.

There were some tories that served in the British army, but not many. The British had a hard time trusting the tories, was the main reason.

Stats by writers and historians like Paul Smith, Claude Van Tyne, and Robert Calhoon disagree. They suggest that the British actively attempted to mobilize the loyalist community. That 19,000 loylaists were enlisted into the British provincial line in regular military type service. That another 10,000 were serving in militia or "associations". Van Tyne specifically suggests about 50,000 loyalists were either solidiers or militia in support of the British Forces. This all doesn't even include those that were serving in the actual British Military and Navy.

 

[donsutherland1]

Stats by writers and historians like Paul Smith, Claude Van Tyne, and Robert Calhoon disagree. They suggest that the British actively attempted to mobilize the loyalist community. That 19,000 loylaists were enlisted into the British provincial line in regular military type service. That another 10,000 were serving in militia or "associations". Van Tyne specifically suggests about 50,000 loyalists were either solidiers or militia in support of the British Forces. This all doesn't even include those that were serving in the actual British Military and Navy.

Smith et al., are correct. For instance, among Washington's papers is a letter that had been circulated by Robert Rogers who was recruiting for the Queen's Army Rangers. In part, the December 30, 1776 letter states:

Whereas his Majesty's Service makes it absolutely necessary that recruits should be raised, this is to certify that Mr. Daniel Strong or any other gentleman who may bring in recruits shall have commissions according to the number he or they shall bring in for the Queens American Rangers--No more than forty shillings bounty to be given to any man which is to be apply'd towards purchasing necessaries...

 

[apdst]

Not quite. For instance, there was the Queen's Rangers, a regiment of loyalists that was organized for irregular warfare.

FWIW, there is a New York State historical marker that notes one location at which Washington’s forces skirmished with elements of the Queen’s Rangers:

Skirmish of Heathcote Hill Marker

A Library of Congress note providing context with respect to Washington’s papers in which troops were being withdrawn to a new position on October 25, 1776 states, “A surprise of the British was attempted by a detachment under Col. John Haslet, of the Delaware Regiment, which only partially succeeded.” The skirmish noted by the New York State marker was that “surprise.”

If you'll note in your link, The Queen's Rangers were wearing uniforms and had a very strict military orginization. I don't think you'll find any instances where the Queen's Rangers engaged in assymetrical tactics on the same level as the patriot militias did.

 

[apdst]

Stats by writers and historians like Paul Smith, Claude Van Tyne, and Robert Calhoon disagree. They suggest that the British actively attempted to mobilize the loyalist community. That 19,000 loylaists were enlisted into the British provincial line in regular military type service. That another 10,000 were serving in militia or "associations". Van Tyne specifically suggests about 50,000 loyalists were either solidiers or militia in support of the British Forces. This all doesn't even include those that were serving in the actual British Military and Navy.

Like I said, there were tories in the British Army, but not many. The 50,000 you quote was over a period of time, as Van Tyne suggested, which you left out.

 

[donsutherland1]

I don't think you'll find any instances where the Queen's Rangers engaged in assymetrical tactics on the same level as the patriot militias did.

On that, there is no disagreement. The point is that the British did not deploy solely regular forces. Others involved on the British side were mercenaries e.g., the Hessians, and various militias comprised of loyalists e.g., the Queen's Rangers. Importantly, there is documentation to substantiate such deployment e.g., the Rogers recruiting letter.

That is in stark contrast in which a spurious family claim finds no substantiation from actual American Revolution-era documents. Therefore, to bring things full circle, the assertion made earlier in this thread that Washington's forces engaged in tactics similar to Hamas with respect to deliberately targeting civilians is entirely baseless. There is no comparison between the rules of engagement of Washington's forces from more than 200 years ago and Hamas' acts. In fact, the record demonstrates otherwise with numerous documents revealing repeated orders from Washington for his troops to avoid abuses on persons and property.

 

[Opteron]

So you are trying to make an equivalency between this and firing rockets into crowded cities to kill indiscriminantly?

Tarring and Feathering during the revolution wasn't pretty, but there are also no reported deaths during that time as it was often done on top of the victims' clothes-- it was done to humiliate, not to kill mass numbers of civilians indiscriminantly, and there's no evidence it was sanctioned by the founding fathers, which was the claim made. Mobs did it.

Destruction of property is a typical war time endevour, not terrorism. Harassing treatment of troops is also not terrorism.

Let me post the Merriam-Webster definition of terror:
4 : violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary terror>

The Boston Tea Party and tarring and feathering were violent and destructive and they did it to intimidate a population and coerce the British government, they were terrorist acts. Tarring and feathering was very painful, they poured hot burning tar on someone. I'm glad the founding fathers did not support tarring and feathering and other violent acts.

So you are trying to make an equivalency between this and firing rockets into crowded cities to kill indiscriminantly?

Tarring and Feathering during the revolution wasn't pretty, but there are also no reported deaths during that time as it was often done on top of the victims' clothes-- it was done to humiliate, not to kill mass numbers of civilians indiscriminantly, and there's no evidence it was sanctioned by the founding fathers, which was the claim made. Mobs did it.

Yes, it is when you're suggesting they're interchangable things. That the founding fathers are no different than Hamas.

I'm not at all claiming that the founding fathers are no different than Hamas. Other posters were saying that I believe, I am not saying that. I'm just saying you can draw comparison between what happened in the revolution and today in Israel/Palestine. I'm not claiming they are interchangeable or the same thing, I'm saying you can draw comparison from one time-period to the other. What I'm trying to say is that you can't condemn one group while exonerating the Revolutionaries. Again I condemn terrorism and the killing of civilians as well.

Furthermore, just because there's similarities does not necessarily mean the comparison is apt. As I said, look at the "Obama is Hilter" things. There are definitely, legitimate, comparisons between the two. However, the comparison is not apt when you look at a far larger picture of it and realize that those similarities exist over a number of individuals ranging from benevolent to pure evil. The attempt to insult and degrade the Founders and to lift up the terrorists is no different than these Obama and Hitler comparisons. It is an attempt to link something that causes one emotional response to another thing in hopes of that emotional reponse to rub off. In the case of Obama and Hitler, trying to get the hatred for Hitler due to WWII and his treatment of the Jews onto Obama by comparing some of their domestic policies. In this case its attempting to humanize Hamas or insult the founders, hopefully befuddling his opposition rather than actually trying to debate them, by suggesting that because they treated prisoners in odd ways (And seriously, slow public beheading > tar and feather) they're no different than hamas.

Hey, you breath air. You eat food. You probably have had feelings for a woman before. You may've looked at art before and appreciated it. Well, I guess you're just like Hitler. Don't get upset, I'm just making a comparison.

The latter comparison is not specific. What it's saying is that I'm probably like other many, many other humans who fit that broad description. I'm drawing a more narrow comparison using specific examples.

And I believe you're mistaken, Hamas and Hezbollah do not behead people, I believe you mean Al-Queda. Beheading condemned by Hamas and Hizbollah - Middle East, World - The Independent

Again, there's no equivalency that can be made here. What you describe was not acceptable to the standard sensibilities of warfare at the time, which counted the life of an aristocratic officer as inherrently more valuable than an infantryman in the line, but they were also violated quite often in european wars and all the targets were military. Complaints from the time were distributed as propaganda against the colonial revolutionaries. None of it was terrorism, not even close.

You can make a comparison between the two. Just as America did use under-handed tactics during the Revolutionary War, Hamas is currently using under-handed tactics as well to achieve their objectives. They both used tactics considered under-handed in their time period.

Similar could be said previously regarding different groups and civilizations engaged in war. Unusual tactics does not alone a terrorist make.

They would snipe soldiers, harass them while they were on march, use guerilla tactics and these were almost "terrorist-like".

I bolded something for you.

So it's ok to do that just because they are soldiers? Also, is it ok to torture captured soldiers as well? When you throw out some rules of war, it's only natural to throw out the rest of the rules as well. An anything goes attitude in war with respect to soldiers will take you to an anything goes attitude for the rest of the war. Civilians can also be considered participants in a war in that they support the country at war and that without their support, the war would not be possible. In total war, the entire country and people are at war with another people. Hamas is adhering to the principle of total war against Israel and that is what they use a justification.

Total war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The practice of total war has been in use for centuries, but it was only in the middle to late 19th century that total war was identified by scholars as a separate class of warfare. In a total war, there is less and sometimes no differentiation between combatants and non-combatants (civilians) than in other conflicts, as nearly every human resource, civilians and soldiers alike, can be considered to be part of the belligerent effort.

Again, there's no equivalency that can be made here. What you describe was not acceptable to the standard sensibilities of warfare at the time, which counted the life of an aristocratic officer as inherrently more valuable than an infantryman in the line, but they were also violated quite often in european wars and all the targets were military. Complaints from the time were distributed as propaganda against the colonial revolutionaries. None of it was terrorism, not even close.

Sniping of officers is not acceptable. Generally, higher ranked officers were directing and giving commands, not doing the actual fighting. If you defeated a whole unit, and then defeated the officers as well, that is acceptable, but specifically targeting the officers first was not good for that time period, especially when the two countries fighting were supposed to adhere to standards in war. Ambushing soldiers that are marching is also not good and not fair. Again, when you throw out the rules for war, you are on your way to throwing out all of them. Also, these tactics were unacceptable in their time-period just as killing civilians is in our time-period.

I'm just trying to give some perspective and understanding of the two situations. The Revolutionaries and Hamas both had their backs against the wall. They both resorted to using under-handed tactics. If America had a military comparable to Britain's would they have resorted to using these tactics? Probably not. But they had to out of necessity. America quite possibly would not have won the war had they not resorted to these tactics. Also, America could have negotiated for peace with Great Britain. They could have lived peacefully under British rule from the beginning. In fact, most of the tax acts were repealed by the Parliament except one which was left in place which was somewhat negligible, but was just to make a statement of authority of Britain over the colonies. But the founders chose independence, freedom, and war and proceeded that way.

 

[Zyphlin]

I'll respond in full when I get home Operton, however one thing you seem to be missing.

Your initial response to me was a response to a post I made specifically towards a poster who WAS suggesting that the founding fathers were similar to Hamas. My argument was coming from the view point that such is an incorrect assessment. Suggesting that there are similarities between the founders and terrorists is not incorrect. However, as I already stated, it is a disingenuous argument to make...akin to the Obama = Hitler arguments...because it is not a truly apt description when looked at in any kind of honest sense and when its evident its being used for ulterior emotional purposes.

One can say Jesus is similar to a terrorist and could be technically correct. One could say Mother Teresa is similar to Charles Manson and be technically correct. One can say that Ahmadinijad is similar to Abraham Lincoln and be technically correct. However actually making those arguments is far from apt, and is exceedingly dishonest when its obvious one is doing such to attempt to influence the reader to equate the emotions and views of one of those individuals to the other individual, typically for reasons other than why those emotions are generated, to somehow bolster their political point. It is no more dishonest then the ridiculous continual character assassinations of Bush or Obama being "hitler".

 

[apdst]

On that, there is no disagreement. The point is that the British did not deploy solely regular forces. Others involved on the British side were mercenaries e.g., the Hessians, and various militias comprised of loyalists e.g., the Queen's Rangers. Importantly, there is documentation to substantiate such deployment e.g., the Rogers recruiting letter.

That is in stark contrast in which a spurious family claim finds no substantiation from actual American Revolution-era documents. Therefore, to bring things full circle, the assertion made earlier in this thread that Washington's forces engaged in tactics similar to Hamas with respect to deliberately targeting civilians is entirely baseless. There is no comparison between the rules of engagement of Washington's forces from more than 200 years ago and Hamas' acts. In fact, the record demonstrates otherwise with numerous documents revealing repeated orders from Washington for his troops to avoid abuses on persons and property.

Granted, but they operated in accordance with the accepted rules of war of the period. Which Patriot militias didn't

The Patriot militias and the irregular units that the British deployed are two very different things. You're trying to say that British and Patriot militias are the same thing, which they're not.

Compared to their conventional, the patriots engaged in very few assymetrical operations. The British engaged in even fewer assymetrical operations, making them nearly non-existant.

In fact, the record demonstrates otherwise with numerous documents revealing repeated orders from Washington for his troops to avoid abuses on persons and property.

Later in the war. Your original argument was that Bubba was wrong; Washington never gave such an order, which we now know it actually true.

 

[justabubba]

I'll respond in full when I get home Operton, however one thing you seem to be missing.

Your initial response to me was a response to a post I made specifically towards a poster who WAS suggesting that the founding fathers were similar to Hamas. My argument was coming from the view point that such is an incorrect assessment. Suggesting that there are similarities between the founders and terrorists is not incorrect. However, as I already stated, it is a disingenuous argument to make...akin to the Obama = Hitler arguments...because it is not a truly apt description when looked at in any kind of honest sense and when its evident its being used for ulterior emotional purposes.

One can say Jesus is similar to a terrorist and could be technically correct. One could say Mother Teresa is similar to Charles Manson and be technically correct. One can say that Ahmadinijad is similar to Abraham Lincoln and be technically correct. However actually making those arguments is far from apt, and is exceedingly dishonest when its obvious one is doing such to attempt to influence the reader to equate the emotions and views of one of those individuals to the other individual, typically for reasons other than why those emotions are generated, to somehow bolster their political point. It is no more dishonest then the ridiculous continual character assassinations of Bush or Obama being "hitler".

we get it
you WISH the comparison between the use of terroristic techniques against us could be found different from the terroristic techniques we have employed ourselves
welcome to reality. more doses of it will be dispensed in the very near future

 

[apdst]

we get it
you WISH the comparison between the use of terroristic techniques against us could be found different from the terroristic techniques we have employed ourselves
welcome to reality. more doses of it will be dispensed in the very near future

The techniques are the same, but the reasons are different. Therein lies the difference.

 

[justabubba]

The techniques are the same, but the reasons are different. Therein lies the difference.

please explain how the reasons for the application of terrorism by us is different than for those who apply terrorism against us

 

[apdst]

please explain how the reasons for the application of terrorism by us is different than for those who apply terrorism against us

We targetted civilians, killing hundreds of thousands during WW2. We did that for a good reason: to defeat Germany and Japan and protect the United States. See the difference?

 

[Opteron]

I'll respond in full when I get home Operton, however one thing you seem to be missing.

Your initial response to me was a response to a post I made specifically towards a poster who WAS suggesting that the founding fathers were similar to Hamas. My argument was coming from the view point that such is an incorrect assessment. Suggesting that there are similarities between the founders and terrorists is not incorrect. However, as I already stated, it is a disingenuous argument to make...akin to the Obama = Hitler arguments...because it is not a truly apt description when looked at in any kind of honest sense and when its evident its being used for ulterior emotional purposes.

I will check back later. One thing I don't think you need to do is have to argue against technicalities. I'm not trying to argue on technicalities and I won't say something just to be technically correct. I'm trying to make a pretty applicable and narrow comparison. I don't think I can speak for justabubba, but I don't think he quite meant to equate the Founding Fathers with Hamas, but I think he meant that both had the same motives of freedom and independence, but one is using total war as a justification. The Sons of Liberty are probably more comparable to Hamas, and the West Bank government is more comparable to the Continental Congress and Founding Fathers.