Talking to terrorists works! Somebody tell GWB.

[bevin]

Same source

General George Washington seems to have approved mob persecution of the Tories. In 1776 General Israel Putnam, one of Washington's generals, met a procession of the Sons of Liberty parading a number of Tories on rails up and down the streets of New York and he attempted to halt this inhuman proceeding. On hearing this, Washington reprimanded General Putnam, stating that "to discourage such proceedings was to injure the cause of liberty in which they were engaged, and that nobody would attempt it but an enemy of his country."

As the revolution progressed, semi-official organizations began to harass the Tories. The Continental Congress or Provincial Congress laid down the general policy to be observed in the treatment of Tories, and local committees carried it out in detail. Early in 1776 the Continental Congress, which at the time had no basis in law, recommended that Tories be disarmed; it was the committee which then enforced the recommendation. Tories were arrested, tried, exiled to other districts and, in some cases, imprisoned. A few Tories, particularly in the southern states, were hung.

[there buster]

It is still quite distant from Washington's army targeting civilians.

And it is a symptom of moral bankruptcy to equate such things--unpleasant as they were-- with blowing up buses of school children.

[bevin]

Let's see, if blowing up a bus of school children makes the perpetrators "terrorists" -

what about nuking or fire-bombing whole cities full of civilians including school children?

In other words, "terrorist" in your vocabulary is simply an alternative for "anyone who uses force not accurately directed at military targets, and whom is opposed to me".

It is only the "is opposed to me" bit that stops the USA govt clearly meeting your definition.

/Bevin

[there buster]

When the facts don't support your position, keep changing the topic. It's not a very ethical approach, and alas, no longer unusual. Or did you miss the fact that George Washington, the subject of the false accusation, died in 1799, before the invention of the airplane?

The firebombing of Cologne, and the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are worthwhile topics for discussion, but not with someone who can't keep his centuries straight.

And you should avoid projecting your definitions into someone else's thought. It's another disreputable tactic. I'm sure you find it quite rewarding, right along with the 'fact' of George Washington using poison gas in WWI. Next thing, you'll be accusing George Washington of mining Haiphong harbor.

[bevin]

Did you miss the fact that General George Washington repremanded one of his generals for trying to stop the torture of Tories?

/Bevin

[there buster]

I like the red letter thing. It distracts the attention from the fact that nothing new was introduced, and that it had already been addressed.

Washington and the Continental Army did not target civilians.

The primary purpose and effect of tarring and feathering and riding the rail was humiliation. But this is barely removed from a time when ordinary miscreants were put in stocks. Although we might in some tenuous way consider these torture, that was not the way they were seen at the time. They were seen as humiliating.

And as I said, but you apparently missed, as bad as it was, it pales before homicide bombings.

If you were serious about terrorism and America, then the activities of several groups come to mind. The KKK, the Weather Underground, and the SDS. All three were terrorist in intent and practice.

You commit the error of chronological superiority, assuming our standards are superior to those of earlier people. In that reasoning, we are superior to Paul the apostle, because he took slavery for granted and we do not. In the end, this error also makes men superior to Christ, since He did not eradicate those evils. It is the original sin, to believe oneself to be as god, knowing good and evil.

So far you have based your whole case on the attempt at confusing categories and blurring distinctions. It makes for poor reasoning, deplorable morals, and disastrous policy.

[Dr. Shane]

So this pine tar was not hot enough to burn and scar the skin like coal tar or bitumen? I was never clear on that. If coal tar or bitumen was poured on someone they would most likely die from it.

[bevin]

Quote:

The primary purpose and effect of tarring and feathering and riding the rail was humiliation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarring_and_feathering

Quote:

First degree burns are sustained after a split second contact with a material that is about 70 ºC (160 ºF). The same is also sustained after thirty seconds of contact with 55 ºC (130 ºF) material. The tar of that period was of such a quality that it only melted at about 60 ºC (140 ºF). At temperatures of 60 °C (140 °F) burns can be created with a three second contact. The thin tar layer presumably cooled quickly; nevertheless, the victims possibly sustained some burns in addition to their humiliation.

I would guess first (redness) and second (blistering) burns were normal - and would be very painful, but usually not life threatening. If you tried to peel it off, the damage would be made much worse - you might be able to dissolve it off with something like mineral spirits.

I would not volunteer to have it done to me.

/Bevin

[bevin]

Lazarus has correctly pointed out that the IRA was never defeated.

Ed has correctly pointed out that the IRA targetted non-military personnel. He neglected to mention that the Protestant militia's did the same thing.

This is indeed an example when the British government finally woke up enough to realise that their previous strategy of non-negotiation was turning ( people into © people.

Quote:

Bevin:

( people who want to change it, but don't want to risk damaging goods/people to do so

© people who want to change it, and are prepared to risk damaging goods/people to do so - because they feel that the changes are either worth the damage

They then realized that the © group's demands were, in fact, reasonable, and through a long and slow process involving developing trust and understanding have successfully converted a lot of the © group into ( group.

Great example, Lazarus - and one that certainly illustrates the point extremely well that negotiating with © groups is indeed a profitable and politically savvy move.

/Bevin

[lazarus]

WASHINGTON — U.S. military commanders are talking with Iraqi militants about cease-fires and other arrangements to try to stop the violence, the No. 2 American commander said Thursday.

Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno said he has authorized commanders at all levels to reach out to militants, tribes, religious leaders and others in the country that has been gripped by violence from a range of fronts including insurgents, sectarian rivals and common criminals.

"We are talking about cease-fires, and maybe signing some things that say they won't conduct operations against the government of Iraq or against coalition forces," Odierno told Pentagon reporters in a video conference from Baghdad.

"It's just the beginning, so we have a lot of work to do on this," he said. "But we have restructured ourselves to organize to work this issue."

Odierno said it augments reconciliation efforts by the Iraqi government.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and other leaders are under increasing pressure from Washington to do more to achieve reconciliation among factions because, officials argue, no amount of military force can bring peace to the country without political peace.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,276686,00.html

[John317]

Sober topic, sober words

I can't verify that the following is part of a speech given by Newt Gingrich, but someone sent it to me as a FWD in which it was claimed that Newt spoke these words recently. Is the threat as serious as Newt says it is? Where does he have his facts wrong?

NEWT GINGRICH: The third thing I want to talk about very briefly is the genuine danger of terrorism, in particular terrorists using weapons of mass destruction and weapons of mass murder, nuclear and biological weapons. And I want to suggest to you that right now we should be impaneling people to look seriously at a level of supervision that we would never dream of if it weren't for the scale of threat.

Let me give you two examples. When the British this summer arrested people who were planning to blow up ten airliners in one day, they arrested a couple who were going to use their six month old baby in order to hide the bomb as baby milk.

Now, if I come to you tonight and say that there are people on the planet who hate you, and they are 15-25 year old males who are willing to die as long as they get to kill you, I've simply described the warrior culture which has been true historically for 6 or 7 thousand years.

But, if I come to you and say that there is a couple that hates you so much that they will kill their six month old baby in order to kill you, I am describing a level of ferocity, and a level of savagery beyond anything we have tried to deal with.

And, what is truly frightening about the British experience is they are arresting British citizens, born in Britain, speaking English, who went to British schools, live in British housing, and have good jobs.

This is a serious long term war, and it will inevitably lead us to want to know what is said in every suspect place in the country, that will lead us to learn how to close down every website that is dangerous, and it will lead us to a very severe approach to people who advocate the k illing of Americans and advocate the use of nuclear or biological weapons.

And, my prediction to you is that either before we lose a city, or if we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can find to break up their capacity to use the Internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech, and to go after people who want to kill us to stop them from recruiting people before they get to reach out and convince young people to destroy their lives while destroying us.

This is a serious problem that will lead to a serious debate about the first amendment, but I think that the national security threat of losing an American city to a nuclear weapon, or losing several million Americans to a biological attack is so real that we need to proactively, now, develop the appropriate rules of engagement.

And, I further think that we should propose a Geneva convention for fighting terrorism which makes very clear that those who would fight outside the rules of law, those who would use weapons of mass destruction, and those who would target civilians are in fact subject to a totally different set of rules that allow us to protect civilization by defeating barbarism before it gains so much strength that it is truly horrendous.

This is a sober topic, but I think it is a topic we need a national dialogue about, and we need to get ahead of the curve rather than wait until actually we literally lose a city which could literally happen within the next decade if we are unfortunate...