quote:

These conflicts were resolved by finding political solutions that have worked

quote:

ORIGINAL: FMRFGOPGAL

The Hamas -
   Purveyors of peace, love, and understanding
         SINCE THE DAY THEY CRAWLED OUT FROM UNDER THAT ROCK THEY CLAIM TO WORSHIP:

http://world.time.com/2012/11/21/tel-aviv-after-the-bus-bomb-eerie-silence-and-revived-traumas/

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Local-News/2012/Nov-21/195808-palestinians-in-south-lebanon-celebrate-tel-aviv-bus-blast.ashx#axzz2CtLi9ufW

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/tel-aviv-bus-bombing-wounds-27-rider-ceasefire-threatened-article-1.1205736?localLinksEnabled=false

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/22/world/middleeast/explosion-reported-on-tel-aviv-bus.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: FMRFGOPGAL

The Hamas -
  Purveyors of peace, love, and understanding
        SINCE THE DAY THEY CRAWLED OUT FROM UNDER THAT ROCK THEY CLAIM TO WORSHIP:

http://world.time.com/2012/11/21/tel-aviv-after-the-bus-bomb-eerie-silence-and-revived-traumas/

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Local-News/2012/Nov-21/195808-palestinians-in-south-lebanon-celebrate-tel-aviv-bus-blast.ashx#axzz2CtLi9ufW

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/tel-aviv-bus-bombing-wounds-27-rider-ceasefire-threatened-article-1.1205736?localLinksEnabled=false

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/22/world/middleeast/explosion-reported-on-tel-aviv-bus.html

How exactly does that differ from the american revolution?

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Your point seems to be that the "terrorists" are the bad guys. My point was that we used "terrorism" during our revoution. So how do the two differ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Your point seems to be that the "terrorists" are the bad guys. My point was that we used "terrorism" during our revoution. So how do the two differ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: PunisherNOLA

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Your point seems to be that the "terrorists" are the bad guys. My point was that we used "terrorism" during our revoution. So how do the two differ?

Yes, as defined by the 4th Geneva Convention in 1949, and the amendment Protocol I in 1977, the US colonists would have been in violation of the Geneva Convention. Instead of the large scale battles with the two armies facing each other in large columns, the Minutemen emplyed some of the tactics used so effectively in Vietnam by the Vietcong. In particular, they didn't wear any distictive uniform as is required by Protocol I, and they didn't engage the British armies head on, but rather hid behind rocks and trees.

Many believe the Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism, and the colonists used the Boston Massacre as propoganda. The soldiers accused were in fact acquitted and were defended by the 2nd POTUS, John Adams.

quote:

The difference? The colonists did not want nor seek the destruction of England, and didn't indiscriminately target English civilians.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FMRFGOPGAL

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Your point seems to be that the "terrorists" are the bad guys. My point was that we used "terrorism" during our revoution. So how do the two differ?

Excuse me, but show me in the TOS where it says I need to give a crap what you wish to ask of me and I will comply.

quote:

You may find that not everyone agrees with your notion that the revolutionary war was predicated by terrorism.

quote:

Nice that you live in a country that you are free to wax oversimplification about a rather complex period in history.

quote:


You of course owe that to a conventional army with infantry, captains, and even generals. Send your "thank you" note to General Washington c/o The Continental Army.

quote:

Oddly. I also have no recollection of any one from the colonies either strapping on a suicide vest and sailing over to blow themselves up around shoppers in London or the colonies lobbing missiles into Liverpool. 

quote:

And for the record, I have not referred to even one act of "terrorism" that has not occurred on ISRAELI SOIL.
A rather critical distinction.

quote:


   I actually don't care how the Palestinians engage in Gaza. And I even throw them the bone that we can safely call that "Palestine"

quote:

I may be wrong, but I've already indulged you more than I cared to in the first place.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: PunisherNOLA

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Your point seems to be that the "terrorists" are the bad guys. My point was that we used "terrorism" during our revoution. So how do the two differ?

Yes, as defined by the 4th Geneva Convention in 1949, and the amendment Protocol I in 1977, the US colonists would have been in violation of the Geneva Convention. Instead of the large scale battles with the two armies facing each other in large columns, the Minutemen emplyed some of the tactics used so effectively in Vietnam by the Vietcong. In particular, they didn't wear any distictive uniform as is required by Protocol I, and they didn't engage the British armies head on, but rather hid behind rocks and trees.

Many believe the Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism, and the colonists used the Boston Massacre as propoganda. The soldiers accused were in fact acquitted and were defended by the 2nd POTUS, John Adams.

Perhaps you might want to read david mccaullum's biography of john adams to disabuse yourself of your ignorance concerning the trial.

quote:

The difference? The colonists did not want nor seek the destruction of England, and didn't indiscriminately target English civilians.

The colonies were england at the time or had that fact escaped your notice?
Perhaps a history book written for someone beyond the fifth grade could do something to disabuse your of your lack of factual knowledge concerning the revolution and perhaps even give you some insight behind the causes of the war of 1812.

quote:

1. As long as Hamas or Hezbollah or any other "liberation" group put out videos and continue to hide their faces they won't be given any credence here. It is a cowardly thing to do and if you believe in the fight you are making you wouldn't care who saw who you were.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


[quot]ORIGINAL: PunisherNOLA


[quot]ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Your point seems to be that the "terrorists" are the bad guys. My point was that we used "terrorism" during our revoution. So how do the two differ?

quote:



Yes, as defined by the 4th Geneva Convention in 1949, and the amendment Protocol I in 1977, the US colonists would have been in violation of the Geneva Convention. Instead of the large scale battles with the two armies facing each other in large columns, the Minutemen emplyed some of the tactics used so effectively in Vietnam by the Vietcong. In particular, they didn't wear any distictive uniform as is required by Protocol I, and they didn't engage the British armies head on, but rather hid behind rocks and trees.

Many believe the Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism, and the colonists used the Boston Massacre as propoganda. The soldiers accused were in fact acquitted and were defended by the 2nd POTUS, John Adams.

Perhaps you might want to read david mccaullum's biography of john adams to disabuse yourself of your ignorance concerning the trial.

quote:

The difference? The colonists did not want nor seek the destruction of England, and didn't indiscriminately target English civilians.

The colonies were england at the time or had that fact escaped your notice?
Perhaps a history book written for someone beyond the fifth grade could do something to disabuse your of your lack of factual knowledge concerning the revolution and perhaps even give you some insight behind the causes of the war of 1812.

quote:

Seriously, this is how you respond? Why don't you save that nonsense for someone who will engage you on that level, okay pal?

quote:

Yes, the colonies were a part of England, and that has absloutely nothing at all to do with the answer to your question.

quote:

The colonists did not seek the destruction of England, they only wanted independence from her. That is one of the ways it was different than the tactics employed by groups such as Hamas.

quote:

My mistake on the trial. Only 6 of the 8 were acquitted, the other two were convicted of Manslaughter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx



Your point seems to be that the "terrorists" are the bad guys. My point was that we used "terrorism" during our revoution. So how do the two differ?

Excuse me, but show me in the TOS where it says I need to give a crap what you wish to ask of me and I will comply


You are free to do as you choose. If you feel unable or unqualified to carry on this discussion please feel free to absent yourself from it at will. There is a block button for those who find my questions too difficult to field.

quote:

ORIGINAL: YN
So one must have a modern army as defined by some chairborne imperialists to defend your home and country?

quote:

Sardis was sacked by the Persians. According to Herodotus, Croesus asked Cyrus, “What is it that all these men of yours are so intent upon doing.” Cyrus replied: “They are plundering your city and carrying off your treasures.” Croesus then corrected him: “Not my city or my treasures. Nothing there any longer belongs to me. It is you they are robbing.”

quote:

ORIGINAL: YN
If the Chinese catch a Seal unit or the SAS committing murders inside China, should they execute them as terrorists, or are they obligated to consider them POWs?

quote:

In every war, both sides believe they are fighting for just causes... Or there would be no war. I don't believe it's naive to think this is a truism, there's always a reason for the war. You and I sitting at home watching it unfold on our favorite 24/7 newscycle may see it differently, but the combatants always think they're fighting for a just cause.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
What do you think?

I think that it sucks when cowardly combatants use civilians as hostages to hide behind. So yes: shoot the hostages first and subsequently engage the combatants.

quote:

ORIGINAL: YN

I like the part where it is perfectly acceptable to use a drone or a bomber to bomb civilians in their homes but terrorism to toss a a grenade or a satchel charge through the window to accomplish the same end.

And that marching an army of stormtroopers into another's lands is acceptable, but if the natives pick up even a farm implement, never mind a firearm and use it on these invaders they are terrorists.

Or that a military can secretly send a team of disguised commandos around the world to engage in assassinations, lay mines, conduct ambushes and set off explosives, but should a band of third world peons do the same thing, they are terrorists.


So one must have a modern army as defined by some chairborne imperialists to defend your home and country?

If the Chinese catch a Seal unit or the SAS committing murders inside China, should they execute them as terrorists, or are they obligated to consider them POWs?