• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Israeli airstrike kills senior Hamas rocket maker

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?

no
why is killing their civilians for our purposes justifiable while their killing our civilians unjustified?
 
no
why is killing their civilians for our purposes justifiable while their killing our civilians unjustified?

For the same reason it's ok to kill their soldiers and it's not ok for them to kill our soldiers.

Let me clue you in on something, there aren't any points for second place in war and there damn sure aren't any good sportsmanship awards handed out at the end of the day.
 
For the same reason it's ok to kill their soldiers and it's not ok for them to kill our soldiers.

Let me clue you in on something, there aren't any points for second place in war and there damn sure aren't any good sportsmanship awards handed out at the end of the day.

well, i am delighted to see that you recognize there is truly no difference, other than which side of the tragedy one is on. if we are committing the atrocities, then it is deemed freedom fighting. if the atrocities are being inflicted against us, then we call it terrorism

and whatever it is called, it is doing what you must do to prevail. that remains the same no matter what term is used to describe it
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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

First, techniques being similar does not equal being the same as a terrorist.

Second, having a few similarities with a number of differences, including differences even revolving around the similarities, makes the comparison apt. Unless you believe that Obama can be considered just like Hitler. Well Justabubba, do you? I'd love to hear it on record to see if your pathetic dishonest attempts at smears through far from apt comparisons is universal or if you just reserve it for times when it supports your political endevours.

Wait, you're forming words and making an argument. Jesus Christ, I had no idea, you could be considered no different than Jeffrey Dahmer Bubba.
 
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.
You're out of wack and out of line in your post. If you can't accept facts presented in a reasonable way, than seriously, continue enjoying flame baiting, arguing, whatever. Didn't know this kind of behavior is tolerated on these boards, especially by a mod.


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.
No we're not. I have made a pretty fair comparison. I am doing nothing like saying Obama is Hitler, but you're trying to make it that way just to discount the comparison I have made. You're the one who's being dishonest, you're relying on technicalities in the whole of your argument. Most of your post was "technically this, technically that". You're clearly not interested in arguing any of the points and you haven't responded to most of the points brought up, and I don't think you can because what I've said is mostly correct.

You've neglected the whole point of total war and the total war argument. You think that somehow anything goes in war between soldiers, but when someone targets civilians, oh no the world is collapsing. Again, you're saying what we do is ok, what anybody else does is terrorism. In war, there is a blending of breaking the rules, including targeting civilians. They all are on the same gradient. This is not an example of a slippery slope argument. What you are doing is being arbitrary and exclusionary. Anything that doesn't target civilians is ok, while the moment you target civilians, its automatically considered not acceptable in war and not allowed.

Targeting officers, ambushing marching soldiers is "terrorist-like". You can make the comparison. Just because one doesn't target civilians, doesn't mean you can't make any comparison. They both are under-handed and defy the rules of war and they both were frowned upon in their time-periods.

I'm not going to retract my defense of justabubba, because I think he was trying to make a valid point. If you think he's baiting, you're a mod, warn him. No excuse for flaming and baiting yourself. I don't think you should be a mod.

You're out of line. You're not interested in the facts, only in calling what other people do terrorism, and exonerating whatever the Revolutionaries did.
 
Last edited:
Calling out your argument as being far from apt and illogical is not baiting. If you think a rules violated, report it.

What you're doing is exactly like the Obama is Hitler comparison. You're complaining about technicalities, but it is all you're giving. You are taking a handful of similarities and through those similarities are trying to suggest a far larger comparison. This is dishonest, and its identical to what's being done with the Obama = Hitler comparisons. In those things they take comparisons between laws and policies pushed by Obama and pushed by Hitler, and while TECHNICALLY true, they push them for the purpose of smeering Obama by referencing to Hitler knowing full well that any invocation of Hitler immediately leads people to think about things far more grandiose then a Health Care plan, and thus attempts to tie feels towards Obama to the negative feelings tied to Hitler for reasons completely separate from WHY people have those feelings.

This is what's being done here.

Are there similarities between Terrorists and the tactics of the revolutionaries? Absolutely. There are similarities between the Revolutionaries and the tactics of anti-war protesters. There's similarities between the tactics of the Revolutionaries and the Allied forces in WWII. There's similarities between the Revolutionaries and the tactics of Gengis Khan, the individuals involved in the Crusade, the Roman Legions, and Brock Lesnar.

However the differences between those things and what the Revolutionaries were as a whole are FAR greater. Additionally, in the case of some of the things like terrorists, the actions and views that cause the largest negative reaction to them are not present when talking about the founders. However, like the Obama/Hitler comparisons, the attempt at equating the two together on a few issues is to then attempt to try and tie them together in a different way.

You entered into a discussion trying to say the founding fathers are terrorists, specifically referencing talks about Hamas. You did not enter into one saying "The founding fathers did some questionable activities" or one stating "The founding fathers did some actions that are similar to terrorists". The first is true, the second is true but irrelevant and most likely being brought up for dishonest reasons.

Fighting outside of the typical norms of war is not what creates the negative connotation for terrorists. It is the specific and purposeful targetting of civilians and the notion of attacks made outside of a recognized war time situation. This is not what is being documented here.

You complain about me speaking of technicalities, however it is you that are doing it. You have gone so far as to try and throw out the definition of terror, arguing from a technical stance of pure literalistic interpretation when its quite obvious from the outset the people of this thread have been speaking about the commonly and accepted view of terrorism. By the technical definition ANY bombing that is not absolutely done with precise aim at military buildings or purely military targets categorizes one as a terrorist, meaning every military force in World War II that had an air force would be considered a "Terrorist" by you, based on you focusing on a technicality. That is ridiculous to interject into such a discussion as this.

Yes, I am aware of Total War. Sherman is one of the generals of the Civil War I find most interesting, and is actually a generalized view I think does have merit in warfare. What you fail to realize or seem to account for however is that an actual state of war needs to be in play for there to be a suggestion of warfare. Total War, like asymmetrical war, is a tactic of WAR and requires said War. There is currently no recognized or accepted legitimized "War" going on between a the unrecognized territory of Gaza or the occupied land of the West Bank and Israel. As such, attacks...specifically attacks aimed at the civilian population...are not actions performed within a war but are acts of terrorism.

Note, that I speak of them and not of Iraq. While there are terrorist elements in Iraq, primarily I point to those coming into the country, I would not say those that were regarded as insurgents are "terrorists". Nor would I call them "Freedom Fighters", as that's another dishonest attempt of humanizing them and relating them in an attempt to keep people from condemning them for the rightful differences they have because they are not fighting for "Freedom" but for the ability to subjugate the population once more to their will or the will of their leaders. They are insurgents, they are essentially soldiers, in a very rough definition of them. They are engaging in a form of asymmetrical warfare that has tendencies of total war within it due to the difference in man power and technological prowess. They are taking part in a recognized and stated war, in what is obviously and realistically considered a war zone, striking against a force that is actively and forcefully working against them in kind.

This can not be said in Gaza and Hamas. Gaza is not an internationally recognized state, and its arguable to suggest Hamas is a legitimately recognized international governing body. There is no standing war between Israel and Hamas or Gaza at this time. Israel is not launching military endeavors into Gaza or sending over artillery, while Hamas is doing such. There is a decidedly different designation between what is considered total or asymmetrical war fare and what is terrorism.

Can war incorporate terror tactics? YES. Absolutely. But terror tactics alone does not make a terrorist. Its a ridiculous notion to suggest such, or we would be labeling a great deal of protesters in this country as "terrorists". It is you that are using technicalities by focusing solely on the literal definition.

No where am I saying what we do is okay, and what others do is all terrorism. Its not.

What I am saying is simple, and I shall admit because you are defending a person that is unquestionably engaging in dishonest and pathetically irresponsible behavior you're getting treated as if you are doing the same because you are supporting him, and I shall explain it once more.

Can one find similarities between the founding fathers or groups of the revolution and terrorists or some terrorist groups? Absolutely. However, does having a few similarities mean that its a legitimate and reasonable argument to suggest that the revolutionaries should be considered the SAME THING as terrorist groups, such as Hamas? Absolutely not. Furthermore, when one looks at the DIFFERENCES rather than the similarities one see's there are far more of those and those differences are of a far greater importance than there are similarities.

I am arguing that I reject the notion of moral equivocation that suggests that because two groups do one or two things similar that they are worthy of exactly the same condemnation or praise, regardless of whatever else they represent. This is like stating that a man who kills someone in war is worthy of the equal amount of condemnation or praise as someone who kills a teen in cold blood for the $20 in their pocket because both involve killing someone and thus are exactly the same. That is asinine. Despite having a few similar tactics, the overall differences in the way in which the founders primarily went about their actions, the differences in their views on how to deal with civilians, the differences on their stated goals with regards to the enemy at large, the difference in their end goals, the difference in the factors that lead to the conflicts all create a situation where it is absolutely reasonable and believable to suggest that one is worthy of more generalized praise and more generalized condemnation. Indeed, certain ACTS may be worthy of condemnation...such as the Sons of Liberty if the mob attacked and assaulted individual citizens who supported the crown but had and wished no active role in the least in the war...but individual and separate acts should not be dishonestly enhanced to somehow suggests an overall comparison.

Finally, due to the above, I am arguing that the comparison of the Founders to Terrorists began from the very onset of this thread as a dishonest and pathetic attempt to obfuscate reality in hopes of creating a scenario and an atmosphere where by criticizing Hamas could be suggested as criticizing the founding fathers and thus hypocritical, or where the hope is to create sympathy for Hamas by invoking a suggestion they're similar to the Founders who are fondly looked upon despite the fact that the REASONS the founders are fondly looked upon have no relation to what Hamas and terrorists like them are doing. I suggest again this is a similar strategy of what people do when comparing Obama to Hitler, where they show just as you have legitimate similarities between the two, but do so for dishonest reasons. While you may not have the same intended goal as Justabubba, your defense of him and claims of his correctness tie you to his same endeavors. The comparison is not apt, loosely made only by ignoring glaring differences and attempting to take small groups or relatively small acts and apply them as if they are an overarching truth that equates everything together. It is YOU playing on technicalities to show that there are few similarities to then suggest a much broader comparison.

If you wanted to have an HONEST discussion about the similar TACTICS employed by the founders and hell, ALL countries, in war and terrorist organizations like Hamas or Al-Qaeada I think it would be an interesting one. But when you start into such a discussion leap frogging off the premise that Founders = Terrorists, that discussion can not realistically take place because it is being done under the back drop that anything said will then be suggested as proof of that illogical, erroneous, and irresponsible analogy.

You complain about lack of interest in facts, yet you and specifically justabubba ignore them throughout this. You cling to singular third hand reports of what Washington "ordered" while ignoring document after document of first hand statements he makes with regards to civilians. You quote poor treatment being perpetrated to individuals involved in the battle or that are part of the fighting forces and then equivocate the fact that people point out that attempting to compare that to being the same thing as attacking civilians does not work. You make a note of total war, while ignoring that such requires an actual war which is not occurring in the situation you site. You state its different from the Obama Hitler comparison, yet show no reason why as you sit there and do exactly as they do, pointing out technical and literalistic examples of similarities and then try to suggest or imply a far larger connection. You site the definition of terror, while ignoring the fact that it is by far not the commonly used reference when speaking as we are in this thread, or else we'd need to be discussing every anti-war or pro-immigration protest that got rowdy as we talk about "Terrorists".

The fact is Justabubba's attempt, and your attempts due to your defense of his attempts, are an emotional ploy to use technicalities to befuddle the debate in hopes of fostering a larger connection between two groups by dishonestly attempting to suggest small similarities is worthy of such a far more reaching connection.
 
...A most excellent wall of text...

Justabubba(sp?), read Zyphlin's post, it's basically the arguement I would have made in response to your question, several pages back.

Albeit far less wordy :mrgreen:
 
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.

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.
You are wrong in much of what you say in your post. I could go in detail and tell you how you're wrong in everything, but it would take too much time and require too many details. Even if I did, it probably wouldn't make much difference, because you probably wouldn't acknowledge when you're wrong and even if I pointed it out, you would find some way to escape with another wrong argument. But I will give it a try in brief.

You're being overly technical. Any political protest that turns violent would be a random act of violence if it wasn't orchestrated beforehand to become violent. If people were organizing violent hit squads, that would be terrorism. If people were doing vandalism consistently, such as tagging "Jew" in Nazi Germany, that would be terrorism. Vandalism would be included with terrorism if you want to be technical about it, if it had a hateful and destructive message. Tagging against minorities with a hateful message would be terrorism. You are being overly technical with the definition, though. The Boston Tea Party was not just a "protest" because they destroyed someone else's tea. If they dumped their own tea that they owned into the harbor in protest, that would not be violent and that would be a true protest.

You just don't want to admit that tar and feathering and the Boston Tea Party were terrorist acts. Its quite clear by the definition that they are, and this is not being technical, they fit the definition appropriately. You're definition of "terrorism" and "terrorist" only involves the killing of civilians and its one sided and partisan. Where in the definition of terrorism does it say "must kill civilians"?

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)
None of this is correct. Your argument is full of flaws and wild stretches. Why are you even talking about this, and why did you even bring it up in a topic about the Mideast? Don't make it personal, and don't talk about disgusting stuff in a Mideast thread, stick to the topic or go to the basement if you want to talk about that.

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.
Yeah, you can equate them. Both are breaking the accepted rules of warfare. Both are under-handed and both were looked down upon in their respective time periods.

Pretty much whatever else you say is also incorrect, it would take some time to go into detail on how its wrong.
 
Last edited:
Zplyin






This sound more like terrorism that war to me.
 
As I understand the discussion, one take on this topic is that actions that cause terror are terrorism, regardless of their taking place during and as a direct result of open warfare or not.

The other take is that actions that cause terror are part of warfare (depending on varied factors), and that such actions are not terrorism within that framework.

---------
Is that correct?
---------

I think everyone would agree that any time such things happen, for whatever reason, it’s a bad thing.
 
The two are not mutually exclusive.

True the two things aren't mutually excursive from the side effects of war. A lot of armies will always will use terrorism as a means for war tactics.....
 
The original assertion was that “our founding fathers, that exhalted group who fought for and won America's freedom from an oppressive enemy, would have been viewed as terrorists - IF they had not prevailed…” (Message #8)

It was noted that far from advocating or tolerating attacks on civilians, George Washington ordered that the Continental Army not harm persons or property. Moreover, he ordered those responsible for such abuses punished. (Message #17)

Later an allegation was made that George Washington had, in fact, made a decision to tolerate harm to loyalists, including civilians (Message #51). Yet, even as George Washington’s papers, including his General Orders from the American Revolution are available online, not a single example was provided to substantiate the claim. Instead, a reference was made to a family’s publication, even as the family member responsible was not a historian and referenced no direct evidence for the allegation. Instead, an examination of Washington’s Papers found orders calling for enforcement of the New York Provincial Congress’ decision to arrest prominent Tories. (Message #61).

The bottom line is that unlike Hamas, which engages in indiscriminate bombardment and also targets civilians, George Washington discouraged harm to civilians and their property. That does not mean that some abuses did not take place, but official orders were to avoid such abuses and there were documented cases where individuals responsible were punished. Hence, when it comes to civilian protections, Washington’s approach was entirely different from Hamas’ approach.

Considering that Washington led the Continental Army well before the Laws of War had been devised and civilian protections had become international principle, Washington's orders to avoid harm to civilians and their property were enlightened and well ahead of their time. In contrast, Hamas regularly violates the Laws of War in engaging in indiscriminate bombardment and targeting civilians.
 
I have read the thread loosely, although I haven't followed it to exactness and point to point prior to when I was posting. Anyways, I have already made clear that I am not making the comparison between the Founding Fathers and Hamas. Yet Zyphlin keeps bringing it up. When someone jumps in the conversation, they are responsible for only what they assert and what they say, not everything that was said by people before them. You jumped in the conversation are you responsible for everything Zyphlin said?

Your guys' biases against Hamas automatically have them placed on some kind of taboo list, that anything they do can not be considered valid, but that's wrong. In the total war concept, civilians can be considered targets. And total war is a concept that anybody can use, it does not require states to be "at war" and formally declared, it simply is a concept that says two peoples seek the destruction of each other using any means necessary.
Total war is a war limitless in its scope in which a belligerent engages in the mobilization of all their available resources, in order to render beyond use their rival's capacity for resistance.
Notice it says belligerents, not states. The concept of total war is valid between Israel and Hamas. Both seek the destruction of each other, both kill civilians, and both use practically any means necessary to achieve their objectives.

And also, just as killing civilians is considered taboo in this time-period, Americans engaged in under-handed tactics such as sniping, etc. that were considered taboo similarly in their time-period. You cannot discount one and overlook the other. What Hamas is doing is pushing the rules of war, and you can make a comparison to what the Americans were doing back during the Revolutionary War. Just because you don't like one and are ok with the other doesn't mean you can discount it.
 
Last edited:
Just like the IRGUN terrorists and their heirs, the Likud party.

What terrorists acts did Israel commit? Terrorist acts against British soldiers? You mean guerrilla attacks?
 
Back
Top Bottom