" I would rather die on my feet then live on my knees "

you all know i feel the same way. ofcourse using mahatma ghandis methods would be great but, its been over 40 years...no even gandhi coulda fasted that long

 

I am unaware of any Tories commiting what we would now call terrorist acts, but to be fair, until you win a Revolution, you are by definition criminals, so i don't think that Tories would have been in a position wherein they would have had to resort with that kind of action...they were the ones in legitimate power, not the ones fighting against the status quo. Had the war stretched out, it is possible that they might have resorted to quid pro quoisms, as Israel did, but the war went from almost assuredly won to essentially lost so fast, in terms of common perception, from the British/Tory P.O.V...remember that irrespective of whatever happened on land, the British practice of using the sea as their undisputed highway, to pull and put troops wherever they wanted, and having the naval firepower to cover any such action, made it was almost impossible for the Americans to 'win' without neutralizing their sea power. The French suddenly closing that highway resulted in them being trapped separated and strung out, without the ability to consolidate or be supplied, and it completely destroyed their 'center of balance'...

...as such the Tories were never really in that much of a sense of being overpowered, the kind of position which normally leads to the kind of desperate acts the patriots, Palestinians, le Resistance, etc. make..

 

It's not like the violence has helped matters over that same period of time.

If a non-violent approach was tried, it might not take 40 years to meet with success.

It may be too late for that now since most don't believe violence has ended during times between violent acts. It would take a long time period without any violence to get people to start believing that a side had given up violence.

At this point, the only way to find a solution is to not let those opposed to peace derail the process.

 

Sums up perfectly how I feel about the whole thing, but at the same time the Palestinians have no real organization and that is killing them during talks and in reality. Most Palestinians do not support the terrorism and want peace but what they want never materializes because of the incompetent leadership that represents them.

 

Just because America did something in the past, that does not mean it is okay to do. Nor does, it neccessarily make it wrong. Terrorism is wrong. Intentionally targeting civilians is wrong. Bringing up the fact that colonial Americans did the same thing does not excuse it, just as you could not excuse another country practicing slavery by pointing to America.

 

the fact that we're even discussing nonviolence as means of resistance implies that Palestinians are victims of mistreatment.

why must we demand the palestinians meet ANY conditions before we're willing to end their suffering?

if we know something is wrong, why must we wait until someone suffers too much, until too many people are martyred, before we're willing to do anything? are we waiting for another massacre or genocide?

if you pause to think to think about it, ALL of the Palestinians who are not terrorists ARE practising nonviolence. that's around 99.99% of them. only when they become frustrated with nonviolence do they turn to terrorism. it's just that these typical palestinians have no charismatic leader who can speak for their suffering and their resistance is overshadowed by both our general pro-israel sentiment and by the spectacular cycle of violence between israel and terrorist groups.

the terrorists are wrong, but they represent the extremist fringe of palestinian society. why should their actions deny the most basic freedoms to the rest of palestine?

that's like saying some foreign country has to a right to enslave all Americans just because SOME Americans are prone to murder and violence.

palestinians deserve do get their state back. pure and simple. no ifs or buts. how some of the Palestinian people are willing to fight for it should have no bearing on the fact that the people as a whole DESERVE A STATE RIGHT NOW, and no specious reasons like "security" or "living space" for anybody else should override it.

if israel cannot set up a proper functioning self-ruling govt in Palestine in the 30 years it has occupied palestine, then it needs to hand Palestine over the U.N. to do the job. if israel cannot force itself to surrender its occupied territories, then the U.N. needs to go in there and TAKE IT FROM THEM. israel's existence is not the issue here. but their unlawful occupation of foreign countries IS. the jewish people's right to their own state is not the issue here. but their continuous violation of another people's rights IS. we're not going in to destroy israel or kill jews, but we need go in there and restore palestine and free the palestinians. it's that simple.

these are fundamental human rights and a fundamental obligations which we as americans signed on to when we established the international order. today, we are being judged and condemned by these very standards each time israel's actions and america's sponsorship of them is examined.

 

Not to disrupt the thread, but just for the sake of accuracy, the title quote of the thread doesn't come from your average dead white male, it comes from Catch 22 (the movie, not sure if its in the book) which took it from Mexican revolutionary Emiliano Zapata, who allegedly coined the phrase (en espanol).

Carry on boys.

 

Pardon? The only surveys that I am aware show that 70% orf Palestinians support the suicide bombings. Do you have a different source?

 

I am curious what sources you have that make claims about terrorist acts against Tories, but none from Tories. As for the quid pro quos, it is a chicken v egg issue, eh?

Are you aware of Bejamin Franklin's position on the Tories? Just curious.

 

A very valid a germane point, but it really goes to a tangential discussion about whether 'terrorism', by todays definition, did occur during the Revolution.

 

that would be 70% of the palestinians who participated in the poll. maybe your poll was taken of hamas members and 70% of them said that they dsupport bombings, and ofcourse they are technically considered palestinians.

 

'My' poll?


At least it's dropped under 70%:

http://www.jmcc.org/publicpoll/results/2003/no48.htm

As for suicide bombing operations against Israeli civilians, there is a slight trend of decreased support for them since 59.9 percent of those interviewed somewhat or strongly supported them dropping from 62.7 percent last December, 64.3 percent last September, 68.1 last June 72 percent last March and 74 percent in December 2001. Of those surveyed, 30.329.8 percent somewhat or strongly opposed suicide bombings compared with 29.8 percent last December and 21.7 percent in March 2002.

 

stats can be skewed anyway you want them to.... thas wat my point was.

 

I understand the caveats of statistics.

The poll was conducted by a Palestinian think-tank. I don't see any obvious reasons for them to skew this result to the high-side.

It's probably better to be cautious when something sounds unreasonable to you and just request a reference so you can make an informed assessment, as opposed to insinuating an intentional bias.

 

As for sources, they are varied. A few frineds have written some fairly lengthy works on the subject, but I can't really name them in this format. I tried to contextualize the Rebellion as it would have been at the time; think of Say's Rebellion, or the Civil War, even less so...Until a rebelling party achieves independance, they are, by definition, commiting treason, murder, sedition, etc. As such, it would not only have been pointless for the enpowered to commit 'acts of terrorism', it would have been contradictory.

But the overwhelming attitude the British took to the American Revolution was that it was ill-fated, inpolite, something they had dealth with before, and above all, something to be resolved with the least emnity raised, as in their view, relations would have to be resumed shortyl after hostilities ended, and for the benefit of both parties. It should be noted that there was a distinct difference of opinion in Britian about the Revolution between George III, who was contemptous, and Parliament, who was more sympathetic, if not overtly so, di the the monarch's stated view. But the prevailing sentiment was pragmatic, and there were even some discussions, although they didn't progress all that far, of removing or restraining the German mercenaries when it was learned that they caused such affront.

It was an odd mix of thinking us traitors, and knowing that when it all blew over we would have to resume compatibility for mutual benefit. Remember, too, that even in America the position of rebelling was a minority one. The vast majority ( 2/3) were either loyal to the Crown, or indifferent. As such, again, the probability of 'terrorist acts' would have been unlikely, as it's disadvantageous to the majority within a mixed populace, as America was then.


Can I state categorically that no single Tory took out his displeasure on a civilian rebel? No, of course not...I only know that there are no major recorded cases, to the best of my knowledge, and that the pracitces invoked by each side, which would now seem barberous to us, such as firing towns, etc. were not considered so at the time, and that the british, unlike the Patriots, practiced controlled firing..'ie', evacuated sites only. But firing, etc. was a conventional tactic of the time. To fire without evacuation, or to restrain the populace from evacuating would have been considered inhumane, but there are no recorded incidents that I am aware of wherein the British did this. They did, as I said, err on the side of omission. We erred on the other side. They did not commit summary excecutions, but held trisl for treason ( and remarkably few of those) with judgement passed by law. We practiced summary excecutions. There are other examples.


We did, however, behave incredibly well to the defeated once we had achieved victory, something for which I am incredibly proud, and is, I believe, the source of why we stand as the only really sucessfull Revolution in modern history.


Re: Franklin...I am unsure of which aspects of his position towards the Tories you refer. do you mean his negating the question of reparations? You must remember the context...I am not saying his position was not rational, but you also have to consider the mitigating factors; the fact that this was not an isolated position, but was part of a broader negotiation during which Franklin's primary goal, the annexation of Canada, was refused. Also the emotional element must be considered, with regards to his son William. Again, it's too broad a topic to comment on without knowing wto which aspect you were drawing my attention.

 

well. i guess we'll just have to wait until the arabs get their own nuke. some things have a way of sorting themselves out. lol.

 

(shudder)

It's not a question of "if," but "when." And if we don't improve our relations with Arab nations before then, we're gonna be in a lotta trouble.

 

who does these surveys?

Rocket River
I'm really just curious. . . If i'm in the middle of a terrorist atmosphere. . . I'm not trying to take time to do a little survey