1 week after the Palestinian elections.... - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Chris Bell · #31 02-08-2006, 02:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by intelligent

I guess he could have been considered as one by the Brits. Hmmmm a thought.

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

Botnst · #32 02-08-2006, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Let's consider it.

(1) Washington identified himself to the British and (2) wore a uniform and (3) clearly displayed his arms. Washington's army (4) acted under good order and discipline common to armies (5) wore a uniform (6) displayed their weapons openly (7) generally treated prisoners well (especially as compared to British treatment of American prisoners, read about the prison ships in NY). Washington and his army (8) maneuvered under a common flag and (9) authorityof a common government. All of these characteristics conform with our MODERN Geneva Conventions, far more restrictive than the ancient rules of war followed by Continental armies of Washington's day.

Now take any modern group that you wish to compare to Washington.

I eagerly await your description.

Bot

Time marches on.

Bot

savas · #33 02-08-2006, 02:41 PM

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

mzsmbs · #34 02-08-2006, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Time marches on.

Bot

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

DieselAddict · #35 02-08-2006, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Let's consider it.

(1) Washington identified himself to the British and (2) wore a uniform and (3) clearly displayed his arms. Washington's army (4) acted under good order and discipline common to armies (5) wore a uniform (6) displayed their weapons openly (7) generally treated prisoners well (especially as compared to British treatment of American prisoners, read about the prison ships in NY). Washington and his army (8) maneuvered under a common flag and (9) authorityof a common government. All of these characteristics conform with our MODERN Geneva Conventions, far more restrictive than the ancient rules of war followed by Continental armies of Washington's day.

Now take any modern group that you wish to compare to Washington.

I eagerly await your description.

Bot

Uhh, #2 and #3 are the same as your #5 and #6.

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.

#36 02-08-2006, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

Uhh, #2 and #3 are the same as your #5 and #6.

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.

Botnst · #37 02-08-2006, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ilvanakis

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

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.

Botnst · #38 02-08-2006, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mzsmbs

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

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?

Botnst · #39 02-08-2006, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

Uhh, #2 and #3 are the same as your #5 and #6.

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.

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

Sleazy? How?

B

Botnst · #40 02-08-2006, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by intelligent

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

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

B

savas · #41 02-08-2006, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

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.

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.

Botnst · #42 02-08-2006, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ilvanakis

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

mzsmbs · #43 02-08-2006, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

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?

i present to you Hamas flag and uniform:

and here is their current leader, Mahmoud al-Zahar:

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

Botnst · #44 02-09-2006, 07:32 AM

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