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.