Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 91

Thread: Israeli airstrike kills senior Hamas rocket maker

  1. #61
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Israeli airstrike kills senior Hamas rocket maker

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    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.

  2. #62
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Israeli airstrike kills senior Hamas rocket maker

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    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.”
    Last edited by donsutherland1; 08-03-10 at 04:07 PM.

  3. #63
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Israeli airstrike kills senior Hamas rocket maker

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    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.

  4. #64
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Israeli airstrike kills senior Hamas rocket maker

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    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...

  5. #65
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,496

    Re: Israeli airstrike kills senior Hamas rocket maker

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  6. #66
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,496

    Re: Israeli airstrike kills senior Hamas rocket maker

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  7. #67
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Israeli airstrike kills senior Hamas rocket maker

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    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.

  8. #68
    Educator
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    01-17-15 @ 02:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    629

    Re: Israeli airstrike kills senior Hamas rocket maker

    Quote Originally Posted by other View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by other View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by other View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by other View Post
    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.

  9. #69
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Israeli airstrike kills senior Hamas rocket maker

    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".

  10. #70
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,496

    Re: Israeli airstrike kills senior Hamas rocket maker

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    [b]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.
    Last edited by apdst; 08-03-10 at 05:17 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •