Welcome to the Lounge

Erudite_Eric6-Dec-13 0:20

6-Dec-13 0:20

The English rebels, for they were English at the time, carried out bombing attacks killing civilians did they?

Gregory Gadow6-Dec-13 3:42

Gregory Gadow

6-Dec-13 3:42

Erudite_Eric wrote:

The English rebels, for they were English at the
time, carried out bombing attacks killing civilians did they?

Yes, actually. There are numerous accounts in American history where revolutionary soldiers, acting on orders from their commanders, blew up depots where the British had been storing gunpowder resulting in much personal and property "collateral damage." While the "tea party" in Boston Harbor is famous, it was only one of a great many such acts. People seen as being sympathetic to the British were assaulted and beaten by mobs, and it was not unusual for such people to have their homes ransacked, farms burned to the ground and places of business utterly destroyed. There are numerous recorded instances of political lynching. Former patriots like Benedict Arnold did not abandon the revolution and return to the British out of any sense of loyalty to the Crown; they abandoned the revolution in disgust at what the revolutionaries were willing to do for their independence.

Erudite_Eric6-Dec-13 3:55

6-Dec-13 3:55

Then by deffinition they were terrorists too.

Of course that doesnt mean Mamndella was any more justified.

Chris Quinn9-Dec-13 2:51

Chris Quinn

9-Dec-13 2:51

Figures produced by the South African government state that ANC actions caused the death of about 130 civilians[^]. The South African security forces killed more than that in one day at Sowete[^], so who were the terrorists?

=========================================================
I'm an optoholic - my glass is always half full of vodka.
=========================================================

Dalek Dave6-Dec-13 0:33

Dalek Dave

6-Dec-13 0:33

They were Traitors and should have hanged.

---------------------------------
Obscurum per obscurius.
Ad astra per alas porci.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

Erudite_Eric6-Dec-13 1:10

6-Dec-13 1:10

I am on their side actually. It was just the Englich Civil War part 2, fighting against a king trying to impose unjust taxation.

In fact many at the time were also on their side, many British Officiers refused to take part in any attempt to control the rebellion.

Shameel6-Dec-13 1:15

6-Dec-13 1:15

Erudite_Eric wrote:
unjust taxation

I pity you. I never knew unjust taxation was a greater crime than apartheid.

Erudite_Eric6-Dec-13 1:36

6-Dec-13 1:36

Is that supposed to be clever or something?

I merely point out to Dave that I would be on the side of the english rebels and you attempt to make it look as if I think unjust taxation is worse than apartheid.

Where did you fail to read the bit where I described Martin Luther King as noble and heroic for his passive fight against segregation?

Oh sorry, yes, you just plain forgot to read that bit in your quest for cheap virtue by trying to paint me a racist.

Idiot.

Shameel6-Dec-13 1:42

6-Dec-13 1:42

Erudite_Eric wrote:
Idiot.

I kinda like your signature.

OriginalGriff6-Dec-13 1:55

OriginalGriff

6-Dec-13 1:55

It's the one he uses on letters and cheques as well... Wink | ;)

Simon_Whale6-Dec-13 1:57

Simon_Whale

6-Dec-13 1:57

Same old fatboy only arguing the parts that he wants to shout about and ignoring the parts that disagree with his views.

from the I would suggest you give yourself a clap, well done you!

Every day, thousands of innocent plants are killed by vegetarians.

Help end the violence EAT BACON

Shameel6-Dec-13 2:08

6-Dec-13 2:08

The point I wanted to make is that you support English rebels who indulged in armed resistance against unjust taxation but you label an armed resistance against apartheid as terrorism. I cannot see it as anything else other than bigotry and racism.

OriginalGriff6-Dec-13 2:15

OriginalGriff

6-Dec-13 2:15

He's a Troll - it doesn't have to make sense as long as it gets a response.
I've already had to invoke Godwin's Law, but he hasn't shut up...

Basically: Don't Feed The Troll! Laugh | :laugh:

Erudite_Eric6-Dec-13 2:32

6-Dec-13 2:32

Thats right, lable anyone whose opinions you disagree with a troll. Its so easy isnt it. Saves you from having to be tollerant.

OriginalGriff6-Dec-13 3:27

OriginalGriff

6-Dec-13 3:27

Correct: I am lacktoes inTrollerant.

Erudite_Eric6-Dec-13 2:16

6-Dec-13 2:16

There is a difference between a militia taking on an army and a terrorist killing civilians thorugh bombs.

I would have thought that quite obvious.

Shameel6-Dec-13 2:38

6-Dec-13 2:38

As I had already stated, one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. If you believe in their cause, they're militia/freedom fighters/armed resistance, otherwise, they're just terrorists.

Erudite_Eric6-Dec-13 2:58

6-Dec-13 2:58

once again, no, they arent the same, regardless of whether you believe in their cause or not.

Shameel6-Dec-13 3:07

6-Dec-13 3:07

Hate him and call him a terrorist all your life, the facts is that he will remain a hero and a warrior who played a major role in abolishing apartheid in SA and will be remembered and cherished for centuries to come.

Erudite_Eric6-Dec-13 3:33

6-Dec-13 3:33

See, thats where you are wromng. He was no 'warrior'.

While being anti racist is admirable, you cannot justify the murder of civilians in bringing about its end.

jschell6-Dec-13 12:36

jschell

6-Dec-13 12:36

Erudite_Eric wrote:
There is a difference between a militia taking on an army and a terrorist killing civilians thorugh bombs.

That is simplistic and not an apt analogy.

For starters civilians died and were threatened in the US civil war.
And military technology was significantly different then. If the US revolution had happened in the 1950s then it is very likely that more bombs would have been used.

jschell6-Dec-13 12:29

jschell

6-Dec-13 12:29

Shameel wrote:
I never knew unjust taxation was a greater crime than apartheid.

What specific part of apartheid do you think existed which did not have a counterpart in the early Americas?

Shameel6-Dec-13 21:15

6-Dec-13 21:15

Apartheid existed everywhere and still exists in many parts of the world, I did not deny that. The question here is if it acceptable to launch armed resistance against a government that systematically institutionalized and legalized apartheid.

jschell7-Dec-13 10:32

jschell

7-Dec-13 10:32

Shameel wrote:
Apartheid existed everywhere and still...

Which does nothing to address the specific statement that you made and to which I responded.

AGAIN which specific part of apartheid, some specific practice that occurred, which you know about and which you believe did NOT have a specific counter part in the early Americas?

Shameel8-Dec-13 0:29