Your right, its a thought, not a very good one but a thought none the less
:D

Time marches on.

Bot

I think the favored Tory characterization of Washington was probably traitor.

the only thing that is not comparable is #7.. otherwise it's about the same; give/take a couple hundred years.. ;)

Uhh, #2 and #3 are the same as your #5 and #6.:o I wouldn't call Washington a terrorist, rather a sleazy opportunist. After the French-Indian war came to an end his top priority was to screw all the treaties the British had signed with the various Indian tribes and take their lands. Not exactly my hero if you ask me.

The cherry tree thing is a lie, not many people know this.

That's right and from the English perspective, accurate. It is also how they rationalized NOT treating the American captives and populace with the accepted rules of war on the continent. The rules didn't apply to an insurrection and so, the definition of prisoner treatment in time of war didn't apply. The colonists disagreed with that.

Oh really?

Where is the political leadership and where do they display their arms and what uniform do they wear and how do they treat POW's?

Concerning their "army..."

Where do the suicide bombers carry their weapons?

What uniform do they wear?

How do they treat prisoners of war?

Where is their common government?

No, 2&3 apply to the CinC and 5&6 apply to the soldiers under his command.

Sleazy? How?

B

Only a complete f**king idiot believes that one.

B

Interesting, sounds somewhat similar to the 'Unlawful combatants' tag being used today. Didn't Rumsfeld say something along the lines of - unlawful combatants not having any rights under the Geneva Conventions.

That is legally correct, if politically dumb. It didn't work to England's advantage during the revolution and it hasn't helped Bush with world opinion.

It would be interesting to know whether it has helped in real terms with the sniffing-out and killing of Al Qaedistas. If so, then the hit in world opinion may, in the long run, be worth it. Wont know that for a while. Right now world opinion hasn't meant squat, really. I mean, it makes us feel really bad and all, but it hasn't dissuaded Bush from his actions or policies in any degree that I can see. It just makes all of us civilians weepy.

Bot

i present to you Hamas flag and uniform:
http://zioneocon.blogspot.com/hamas%...%2023%2004.jpg

and here is their current leader, Mahmoud al-Zahar:
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/WORLD/me...tory.hamas.jpg

and here are a couple of suicide bombers just in case you need the visual:

http://www.tampabayprimer.org/images/suicide.jpg http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-...5111501393.jpg

Parade pictures.

Good grief.

--------------------

However, I'll concede the point on Hamas to the degree that they maybe in transition from a terrorist organization to a military command structure.

The civilian side of Hamas has always been a different animal, IMO. Their schools and hospitals have been about the only bright spot in the miserable lives of the people whom they serve. Contrast that with Fatah, which has squandered billions through corruption and ineptitude, no wonder Hamas one a free and fair election.

The leadership of Hamas has a hell of a difficult row to hoe. They want and need outside money to maintain their authority and even their own cadres. They have gotten large off of outside donations, mostly from the Gulf states and Iran. But that money is not enough to run Palestine. They need the tariff money collected by Israel that had been given to the Palestinian Authority; they need the money from the EU, and they need money from the USA that used to go to the PA. Unless they figure-out a way to modify their own charter so as not to threaten Israel they will not get as much money as they need. But to modify the charter risks losing their most committed and ardent supporters.

Hope it works.

B

Only a complete idiot believes everything that sounds good to the patriotic ear.
http://americanhistory.about.com/cs/georgewashington/f/washcherrytree.htm