Terrorism gave birth to the US and Israel.

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:

I'm not gonna play this stupid little game of yours. You know as well as I that shooting for the sport of it (which I disagree with, btw) and killing with the intent of wiping out the food supply in order to starve the indians are two very distinct things.

But you go right ahead and think otherwise since it helps your argument.

At this point the person was usually taken about the streets of the town in a cart surrounded by shouting people. In some cases he might be placed in the stocks, hanged or beaten. If he survived, he was finally left on his own. Most who got this far were barely alive, exhausted and severely burned. The tar was extremely difficult to get off the badly burned skin, which often got infected. Those that survived could not be helped by anyone. Giving comfort or first aid to a survivor often would result in the helper being attacked.

During the escalation of violence before the American Revolutionary War rebels would terrorize Loyalists by tarring and feathering them, pouring hot tea down their throats, and beating them.

Pointing out how a government treats or regards these activities does not negate the purpose of their implementation, to terrorize to achieve a political goal.

Differentiating between what is "lawful warfare", "terrorism" and a "criminal act" does not alter the meaning of the word "terrorism," outside of the jurisprudence of a country.

We are not discussing law here, we are discussing acts that can be labeled "terrorism."

So, one country, e.g. the USA, goes through legalistic contortions to distinguish jurisprudentially for itself what is "lawful warfare", "terrorism" and a "criminal act" in regard to its laws. Another country, e.g. Iran, openly supports what can be termed a "terrorist organization," i.e. Hezbollah. Yet another country, i.e. the UK, treated individuals and organizations in Palestine which can be termed "terrorists" as criminals, and treated those activities which can be termed "terrorism" as "criminal acts."

The jurisprudential hair splitting of the first country has done nothing to alter, outside of the jurisprudence of that country itself, the meaning of the word "terrorism," i.e. the the systematic use of violence to produce terror as a means to intimidate and/or coerce societies or governments.

That term can be applied to acts that were committed centuries ago if those acts abide by the definition of that term, "terrorism."

The definition of terrorism I've been using is a dictionary definition thereof.

"International laws and agreements that define what is lawful warfare, terrorism, etc. . . ." are definitions for jurisprudential purposes. Jurisprudential purposes are not the end all, be all criteria of word definitions, and the language is all the better for it.

Going by your criteria, what the Irgun and LEHI committed in Palestine isn't terrorism because the British treated it at criminal behavior, and it wasn't agreed upon by international law.

What the Irgun and LEHI committed in Palestine was terrorism regardless of how the British treated it as criminal behavior, and its lack of international jurisprudential agreement.

I won't be trying to apply the term "to common muggers on the claim that they are trying to force governments to remedy some perceived injustice by 'terrorizing" people with cash in their wallets,' because that is a stupid conclusion, and is merely a weak straw man argument that you have created.

Horsecrap. Your supposed dictionary definition isn't the be all and end all either and your mincing of definitions just leaves a lot of ambiguity.

Nothing means anything and everything means nothing.

More nonsense. The Irgun and LEHI certianly don't fall under the definitions of a lawful combant or beligerent in any International law or treaty which leaves the options of their actions being either terrioism or a simple crime.

Your silly straw man here that it was "treated as criminal behavior" doesn't make it a simple crime.

The difference between a terrorist act and a simple crime is in the motivation and almost no western country has any law against motivations.

The only issues they can arrest and try a person for is their actions - which are criminal. The sanctions for a terrorist act and a siimple crime are usually identical so your claim that they "treated it like a crime" is silly on it's face.

I didn't say my definition was the be all end all of the word terrorism. You're assuming your narrow legalisms are.

The Irgun and LEHI certainly didn't fall under the definitions of a "lawful combatant" or "belligerent" because the British made no such stupid distinctions. Those distinctions have been made recently by the US government for its own legalistic purposes, mostly to curtail individuals' human rights.

Well, you certainly have a predilection for straw men. Who said anything about "simple crime"?

Once again, the British made no such stupid distinctions.

Okay. So what? Once again, you are arguing from a legalistic point of view, whatever "simple crime" means.

What is silly on it's face is the distinctions you are trying to make-- "lawful warfare," "terrorism," "criminal act"--which you yourself have pointed out above. You are arguing against yourself.

My "narrow legalisms" are what the nations of the world have agreed upon. That's hardly narrow.

You ignorance of history is showing agin. The terms (and definitions of..) "lawful combatant" and "belligerent" came from the 1899 Hague Peace Conference at the request of the Russians. Your claim that they came from anything recent within the U.S. is 100% bullshit.

And again you'd be wrong. You must be getting used to that though. Maybe you should try looking up Sir Julian Pauncefote since he was the British representative at the 1899 Hague Conference. The British not only signed the resulting treaty they complained about treatment of British civilians under the treaty during the 1st World War and insisted it be strengthed afterwards. So much for not making distinctions... Or is it your claim that the British ignored these international treaties while dealing with these groups??

Just keep in mind that this "legalistic point of view" is the Internationally accepted view whereas your point of view is accepted only by you.

Your failure to comprehend doesn't create a situation where I am arguing against myself.

. . . sounds more like a criminal act than terrorism.

Your silly straw man here that it was "treated as criminal behavior" doesn't make it a simple crime. The difference between a terrorist act and a simple crime is in the motivation and almost no western country has any law against motivations. The only issues they can arrest and try a person for is their actions - which are criminal. The sanctions for a terrorist act and a siimple crime are usually identical so your claim that they "treated it like a crime" is silly on it's face. .

In US Army manuals, which define terrorism as "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature...through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear." NOTE{_US Army Operational Concept for Terrorism Counteraction_ (TRADOC Pamphlet No. 525-37), 1984.}