Terrorism gave birth to the US and Israel.

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

George Washington attacked the British fort under Commander Cornwallis at Princeton during XMas day. The British lost and George was branded a terrorist for more than 200 years. Irgun gang terrorist Monakam Begin and fellow terrorist, Stern gang leader Yitzak Shammir, bombed the British in Palestine. Begin and Shammir became Likud leaders and Prime Ministers of Israel. It seems terrorism is the birth pangs of an emerging nation. Same with Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian terrorist, became leader of the Palestinians.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,567 • Replies: 38

No top replies

The meaning of the word "terrorist" has certainly evolved over the years. I'm certain that Sun Tsu preferred his enemies to be terrified of him and his army.

0 Replies

You fail to make one small difference. The targets of George Washington were military targets, not civilians. The British that were bombed in Palestine were again, military targets. You cannot even get close to saying that Arafats' targets were military.

There is a distinct difference between revolutionaries and terrorists, a distinction you obviously do not quite get.

0 Replies

Oh, and before this goes any further, had Arafat limited his activities to military targets rather than specifically targeting civilians, then I would agree with your basic premise.

0 Replies

But the attack was on XMas Day which made the soldiers civilian like as they behaved as civilians celebrating XMas.

0 Replies

talk72000 wrote:

But the attack was on XMas Day which made the soldiers civilian like as they behaved as civilians celebrating XMas.

lmao This is the silliest thing I've ever seen anyone utter on A2K. If a person is in the military sitting within the walls of a military fort then you are military. Foolishness on your part that distracts you from remaining prepared to do you duty doesn't make them a civilian target. A person isn't "military" only during the hours they are standing dressed and armed for guard duty.

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

You fail to make one small difference. The targets of George Washington were military targets, not civilians. The British that were bombed in Palestine were again, military targets. You cannot even get close to saying that Arafats' targets were military.

There is a distinct difference between revolutionaries and terrorists, a distinction you obviously do not quite get.

The Irgun and LEHI, along with targeting British military targets, also terrorized and targeted civilians. The Irgun would plant time bombs in milk cans, and place them in Arab markets in Palestine, among other tactics. Also, they would murder civilian informants to the British. In September, 1948 LEHI assassinated the UN's first ever peace mediator, Count Folke Bernadotte af Wisborg of Sweden, who had been assigned to mediate between the Arab League and the nascent state of Israel. Yitzhak Shamir, one of the three LEHI leaders to order the assassination, later went on to be an elected Prime Minister of the State of Israel. In July, 1946 the Irgun bombed the King David Hotel in Jerusalem which was the base for the British Secretariat, a civilian administrative dept. of the British government in Palestine, the military command, and a branch of the Criminal Investigation Division, a police unit. The leader of the Irgun at that time, Menachem Begin, orchestrated the bombing. He also went on to be elected to the Israeli Prime Ministry. To fund itself, LEHI would routinely rob banks in various cities in Palestine.

0 Replies

I don't know if anyone dubbed Washington a "terrorist". I went to school in both the UK and Australia and studied some American history at university here in Australia and never once heard Washington described in those terms. Washington has always been seen as a military campaigner who waged a successful war of independence using military means.

As for the Stern Gang - yes, they were terrorists for sure.

0 Replies

Infrablue, I actually totally agree that the Irgun was basically a terrorist organization. I was going to patiently wait for Talk to mention something along the lines of what you did. I limited my first response to only what he brought up. That is why I specified that their attacks on British military forces, which he gave as an example of terrorism, was not terrorism.

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

talk72000 wrote:
But the attack was on XMas Day which made the soldiers civilian like as they behaved as civilians celebrating XMas.

lmao This is the silliest thing I've ever seen anyone utter on A2K. If a person is in the military sitting within the walls of a military fort then you are military. Foolishness on your part that distracts you from remaining prepared to do you duty doesn't make them a civilian target. A person isn't "military" only during the hours they are standing dressed and armed for guard duty.

Following talk's logic, this would also mean that the attack on Israel that is also called the Yom Kippur war would also be purely an act of terrorism -- or is it only terrorism when it isn't happening to Israel, or is it only terrorism when soldiers are celebrating their religion in a church, and not a synagogue, mosque or other house of worship?

0 Replies

Strapping a bomb to your waist composed of nails coated with blood thinner and blowing yourself up in a market place is terrorism. Attacking the Hessian mercenaries at Trenton on Christmas night was not.

0 Replies

http://www.coyotescorner.com/images/13-hslt.jpg

I believe the Wounded Knee Massacre was terrorism.

0 Replies

jespah:

Did I not include Yasser Arafat as a terrorist? My point is who is a terrorist? A terrorist is a national hero to another.

What about supplying infected blankets to kill American native Indians, killing off the buffaloes thus killing by starvation, giving alcohol so they would become alcoholic? Is this not attack on native American civilians? This was done by American soldiers during "How the West was won".

0 Replies

talk72000 wrote:

jespah:

Did I not include Yasser Arafat as a terrorist? My point is who is a terrorist? A terrorist is a national hero to another.

What about supplying infected blankets to kill American native Indians, killing off the buffaloes thus killing by starvation, giving alcohol so they would become alcoholic? Is this not attack on native American civilians? This was done by American soldiers during "How the West was won".

You really need to brush up a bit on things. The killing of the great buffalo herds was not done with the intent to starve the indians. Trading alcohol to them for goods was not done with the intent of making them alcoholics no more than selling alcohol to people is done to make them alcoholics. So get a bit of a grip on yourself.

You are quickly giving people an impression of you that will make it difficult for anyone to take anything you say seriously. That is not the best way to act in a discussion forum.

And yes, you did say Arafat was a terrorist. Right along with George Washington. Nuff said.

Have a good day. And in case I did not say it before, welcome to A2K. Always good to have new people come aboard.

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

You really need to brush up a bit on things. The killing of the great buffalo herds was not done with the intent to starve the indians.

maybe i can use a little brushing up myself. so tell us what was the intent behind killing off the buffalo?

0 Replies

yitwail wrote:

I believe the Wounded Knee Massacre was terrorism.

And you are correct. But no one involved in it is still alive.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

And you are correct. But no one involved in it is still alive.

no, and in the Black Hills, which by treaty belonged to the Lakota "as long as the grass is green and the waters run," we have Mt. Rushmore.

0 Replies

yitwail wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

And you are correct. But no one involved in it is still alive.

no, and in the Black Hills, which by treaty belonged to the Lakota "as long as the grass is green and the waters run," we have Mt. Rushmore.

You got a relevant point? Are you blaming me for stuff that happened before I was born?.....I know...yeah, it's Bush's fault.

0 Replies

yitwail wrote:

CoastalRat wrote:

You really need to brush up a bit on things. The killing of the great buffalo herds was not done with the intent to starve the indians.

maybe i can use a little brushing up myself. so tell us what was the intent behind killing off the buffalo?

Mostly for sport. But it was not to make the indians starve. Any good history of the west would give you this info, but I am glad to provide it for free. :wink:

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

yitwail wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:

And you are correct. But no one involved in it is still alive.

no, and in the Black Hills, which by treaty belonged to the Lakota "as long as the grass is green and the waters run," we have Mt. Rushmore.

You got a relevant point? Are you blaming me for stuff that happened before I was born?.....I know...yeah, it's Bush's fault.

the point was the irony of the location for a monument. sorry if that upsets you.

0 Replies

Terrorism gave birth to the US and Israel.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know