No. Arafat and the PLO targeted civilians almost exclusively. Begin and the IRGUN targeted military and warned civilians (sounds familiar?) prior to attacks.

beththebaker on January 12, 2009 at 1:50 PM

Whose military?

Here’s the wiki on them. This seems to indicate that your interpretation history is from an alternate universe.

Compare the Irgun emblem with that of Hamas. Swords and guns. Get the Idea?

Or, if that isn’t sufficient, let’s try April 9, 1948, in which an Arab village which had scrupulously followed a treaty signed with the Haganah (even to the point of rendering aid to the Haganah in a battle) were slaughtered by the Irgun.

Comparing the two as equally wrong or evil is ….well…absolutely correct.

And then there is this. As nice as these guys were in the end, there is the slight issue of bombing a train station, which is the equivalent to bombing a bus today.

unclesmrgol on January 12, 2009 at 2:28 PM

George Washington, whatever his faults, is not known for firing weapons off indiscriminately or deliberately targeting civilians.

That “one man’s terrorist” garbage is transparently vacuous when examined honestly. Claiming a political goal does not automatically sanction any action – and some things ought to be off limits to anyone. Unless you’d like to perform the moral acrobatics necessary to justify blowing up a Sbarro.

TheUnrepentantGeek on January 12, 2009 at 1:54 PM

Tell that to Mr. Bishop. He’s the one who brought in Washington and thinks he’s a terrorist; I find nothing wrong with Washington’s conduct as a military officer.

Bishop’s phraseology, however, in making the same X and Y substitutions I made, indicate that he understands my point, which I will write again — slowly — that one man’s terrorist is another man’s patriot.

unclesmrgol on January 12, 2009 at 2:36 PM

Are a fan of Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela?

Johan Klaus on January 12, 2009 at 3:03 PM

Not the first part of his life. And certainly not of Winnie Mendala. As a conciliator, yes, I am a fan. Sadly, his successors in office have made the mistake of supporting Mugabe in Zimbabwe — something Mandela has gone out of his way to condemn.

So, if you use the present tense, yes, I am a fan.

unclesmrgol on January 12, 2009 at 11:55 PM

Now that in mind, if you really subscribe to the level of moral relativism necessary to view Hamas on an equal plane with Washington … on what basis do you judge anyone, ever?

TheUnrepentantGeek on January 12, 2009 at 4:47 PM

Again, as I’ve stated above, Mr. Bishop trotted out George Washington — I didn’t. Whom did I trot out? I trotted out Menachem Begin, who was a member of the Irgun, by every measure a terrorist organization (except those held by Beth — who proves my point yet again) . I certainly do consider Begin’s early record to be fully the equal of Hamas’.

If Mr. Bishop wants to consider Washington a terrorist, he’s welcome to, and I’m not going to dissuade him, but in doing so, he validated my point, which is — and now I’m typing it REALLY slowly — that one man’s terrorist is another man’s patriot. I consider George Washington to have been a patriot — at least with respect to the British.
Sadly, he wasn’t so benevolent with respect to the Indians. Here are his orders to Gen. John Sullivan:

The Expedition you are appointed to command is to be directed against the hostile tribes of the Six Nations of Indians, with their associates and adherents. The immediate objects are the total destruction and devastation of their settlements, and the capture of as many prisoners of every age and sex as possible. It will be essential to ruin their crops now in the ground and prevent their planting more.

I would recommend, that some post in the center of the Indian Country, should be occupied with all expedition, with a sufficient quantity of provisions whence parties should be detached to lay waste all the settlements around, with instructions to do it in the most effectual manner, that the country may not be merely overrun, but destroyed.

But you will not by any means listen to any overture of peace before the total ruinment of their settlements is effected. Our future security will be in their inability to injure us and in the terror with which the severity of the chastisement they receive will inspire them.

As you can see, Washington’s orders to Sullivan far exceeded what Sherman did in his March to the Sea; Washington himself intended that the orders inspire terror in the civilian population. In fact, the orders had the obvious intent of clearing the land for future use by Americans. [The Six Nations and George Washington reconciled, and they later signed treaties with the United States, giving them extensive reservations and land rights in New York State.]

unclesmrgol on January 13, 2009 at 12:42 AM

Mandela’s a Communist.

S on January 13, 2009 at 1:10 AM

So? If I hated everyone who disagreed with me on economic policy, I’d not have a friend in the world, methinks.

I automatically distrust Communists because I think their economic model is untenable — it certainly doesn’t maximize production because the nobody is incentivized to produce more, or even to produce “better”. One of my relatives who escaped communism taught me that maxim, because no matter how diligently he herded ducks, he got paid the same as the guy who goofed off half of the day; after a while, he goofed off half the day too.

That said, there is at least one dyed-red-in-the-wool communist who think Mandela is a capitalist.

unclesmrgol on January 13, 2009 at 2:56 AM

“One man’s patriot is another man’s terrorist” is a formula by which one speaks flippantly of a matter of which it seems good to speak more respectfully. It seems it would have served better to have said something such as, “Men whom we acknowledge as having loved and served their country have sometimes attempted to benefit it by horrible and terrifying means.”

Kralizec on January 13, 2009 at 2:36 AM

Short and to the point is not flippant, but it certainly is better. The idea is rendered in such a way that it sears the mind. And I’ve changed the words around to better represent the idea I was trying to put across: One man’s terrorist is another man’s patriot. That lets some people be patriots without being terrorists, unless one believes that the verb “to be” is reflexive rather than indicative. I honestly think that there is no respectful way of talking about terrorism, and terrorism is an objective act. If someone does terrorism (deliberate acts designed to bring a feeling of terror to a population), their acts do not deserve respect.

It is not something anyone here should want to do, nor is it anything anyone of us here should tolerate.

unclesmrgol on January 13, 2009 at 3:16 AM

Er … that’s just war. Or, do you consider JFK to have been a “terrorist” for threatening to nuke the USSR if Cuba lobbed a nuke at French Guyana, thereby bringing a feeling of terror to all of the Soviet population? Which brings up the point that you must consider our strategic nuclear arsenal to be “illegal”. Is that your attitude about our nukes? (I’m just trying to understand exactly how detached from reality you are)

I view nuclear weapons used against civilians as “illegal”, and am in favor of nonproliferation. The weapons exist — you cannot put the genie back into the bottle. I also view MAD as a valid doctrine, given their existence. Do I think every country is entitled to them? NO. Do I think the US used its arsenal wisely? NO. But we’ve grown up a bit since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

unclesmrgol on January 13, 2009 at 10:39 AM