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>
Correct, and if one takes a literalistic reading of it one could argue that the revolutionaries engaged in "Terrorism". Additionally one could argue that every act of war ever was terrorism, any protest that has turned violent is terrorism, any vandalism with a political message is terrorism, etc.
There is a rather large difference between speaking of the very technical definition of terrorism and comparing someone to "terrorists" in a colloquial way that is referencing specific groups and a specific type of terrorist.
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.
By this statement you're stating any form of political protest where anything is done either violent or destructive = terrorism. Let us start shipping those anti-war protesters or pro-immigration individuals to GITMO since they're terrorists since a few of them have broken windows before in their protest.
Or one could denote that protests, such as the Boston Tea Party or most war protests, are just that. Protests, aimed at showing the government that the citizenry is unhappy with a particular form of law rather than a concentrated effort to intimidate or scare the government into changing said law. I believe it is a stretch to suggest that people believe that the people performing the Tea Party were hoping such an action would legitimately frighten the crown into actually doing anything as much as it was a show of civil disobedience.
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.
You may not be, but the implication by the person whose post I was initial responding to WAS that they were no different than Hamas. When you referenced my original post my posts was in line with that line of reasoning and argument being made. Your argument however that they can be compared is worthless, and hollow however. One can absolutely condemn one group and exonerate the other, because in all ways the revolutionaries are NOT the same as terrorist groups such as Hamas. You can not speak to a comparison of some ambiguous "terrorist group" and then to a specific group like the revolutionaries either and except accurate comparisons. That said, one group targets civilians for death, the others don't. That alone is a worth while reason why it would be more apt to condemn one while exonerating another. In direct reference to what this thread was speaking about, you have islamic terrorism, specifically Jihad. They seek to destruction of a globally recognized country, obliterated and made non-existant. The revolutionaries did not seek the destruction of Britain as a whole. Many of the islamic terrorists seek for the conversion or death of all Jews, such was not true with Revolutionaries and the British. Islamic Terrorists wish the end of western culture and society, wishing for them either death or conversion. The Americans did not seek to end British culture or society, only to be able to live their own.
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.
You're drawing a more narrow comparison, but its like saying the Sears Tower is bigger than the Empire State Building. Its true, but its not of a great magnitude. For example, one could compare the Founders to many things other than terrorists as well using the similar examples and others. One can also show decided differences between the founders and terrorists as well.
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.
Well, obviously you could be viewed as a pedophile.
Let me explain.
You've undoubtedly found an attraction to another person before, and engaged in some sort of sexual activity. More than that, I would wager at some point in your life you were attracted to someone under the age of 18, hell under the age of 14, and more than that I bet you've been attracted to someone younger than you in general. I would imagine you have engaged in sexual acts other than missionary sex, which to some people is considered deviant sexual behavior. All of these things....having a sexual attraction for someone under the age of 18/14 that is younger than you and participating in deviant sex acts...are something one can apply directly and specifically to a pedophile. You have those things in common with a pedophile. Therefore its perfectly reasonable to talk about and have vast discussions describing how you are obviously comparable and no more upstanding or worthy of praise then a pedophile.
(Obviously this is factious, and I do not believe you to be like a pedophile, but it is the exact same line of reasoning Justabubba is using and you're defending)
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.
Is it okay? Hard to answer moral question that's up to the individual whose answering it. For me, if you're asking, I'd base it off the standards of that time and say yes, its "okay" though perhaps not moral. Ditto for torture. Even if immoral, it does not a terrorist make.
As far as your reference to total war, to my understanding even hamas dismisses this notion. Though I'd be happy to see otherwise. IF this is their justification it would severely change my stance in regards to the Israeli situation to one where it is perfectly obvious Israel should obliterate Gaza off the map as they are actively at war with them.
Sniping of officers is not acceptable. Generally, higher ranked officers were directing and giving commands, not doing the actual fighting.
Breaking from war time etiquette does not equate to terrorism, not in the sense that is being referenced by referring to those that are carrying out the acts that this thread was about.
Your fallacy concerning throwing out the rules of war is irrelevant, its a slippery slope argument. This is like me saying that "saying its okay to punch someone is simply opening up the pathway to allowing murder to be okay" and thus someone who punches another person is just like a murderer. Simply because the revolutionaries did things that were considered "Unfair" and a breach of etiquette and one can suggest terrorism could have be described using those two things as well does not suggest that the revolutionaries were terrorists. Something could be described as cold and refreshing...one of those things could be a pool, the other could be a soft drink. One would not say however that a pool is just like a soft drink simply because they can be described in similar ways.
I'm just trying to give some perspective and understanding of the two situations.
Bull****, you're attempting to morally equivocate by taking two large samples, distilling it to a handful of small details, and declaring based on those small details that an overriding comment regarding the generalized similarities of the two groups is apt. You're defending a person who is making a ridiculous and over the top comparison in an attempt to spur an emotional response to score political points by hoping to set a pathetic trap to suggest that anyone disagreeing with him about his continual support for terrorists is also against the founders. He, and you, are no different than those constantly comparing Obama to Hitler.
Much like the Obama to Hitler situation, the differences are far larger and far more profound between the two and even when one looks at the similarities they are even weak at best and greatly disproportionate if not full out erroneously displayed at worst.
Actually, let me retract...
You may have actual sincerity in coming to his defense. You may be arguing an idiotic and rather asinine position, but you may actually be doing it for genuine reasons.
Its clear and obvious Justabubba is doing no such thing.
In both cases you BOTH are engaging in the exact same kind of dishonest political rhetoric as those that suggest Obama is like Hitler, or suggest all Muslism are Terrorists, with the only possible difference between the two of you is that you're doing it out of some sort of odd devil's advocates position without realizing the overall dishonesty associated with the intent to make such a comparison where as he is relishing and relying on that dishonest association just like the Obama/Hitler folks.