US recognizes Jerusalem as capital of Israel

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • GIJEW

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 14, 2009
    2,716
    47
    They were the three primary Jewish military organizations which waged a bombing and guerrila campaign against the British Mandate in the 30's/40's leading up to the British abandoning it. They bombed the King David Hotel, they bombed a passenger liner that was being used to deport illegal immigrants leading to the drowning of several hundred Jews, they blew up trains and infrastructure etc. They also assassinated various British government officials.

    The leadership of the organizations largely became the government of Israel once the British pulled out and the Arabs were driven out. The fellow who ordered the bombing of the King David Hotel became prime minister.

    Once again, I'm not trying to make some sort of moral equivalency and nor am I trying to justify the actions of either side. I guess I just grow weary of the moral outrage about "terrorism" when that is exactly what was used to drive to the British out.
    A few more details: The Irgun, L'chi, Haganah, were established as self-defence organizations against Arab attacks. The Haganah evolved from the turn-of-the-century Shomrim and was affiliated with the socialists who were building kibbutzim. The Irgun and L'chi were established by demoblised soldiers from Britian's WW1 "Jewish Brigade" who left "palestine" to enlist and return to fight the Turks. They were right wing nationalists and led by Zeev Jabotinsky. Since the British took the side of the Arabs:
    1)Closing the country to Jewish immigration while allowing unrestricted Arab immigration
    2)Providing logistical & material support to Arab militias like that of kwaukji
    3)Trying to disarm the Jewish community
    4)When the British left they handed all their military infrastructure over to the Arabs, and even fought alongside the Arab militias in Jaffa when the Irgun attacked in order to stop them from firing at civilians in Tel Aviv
    the British were correctly seen as an enemy.

    The Haganah had a truce of sorts with the British when they fought together against the Arabs in the late '30's who turned on the British. The Haganah also became a segregated unit in the British army during WW2.

    The Irgun decided not to have any truce with the British and maintained their guerrilla war against them (the Haganah provided the British with intel against them). While most of the Irgun's action was against the British colonial government and it's troops, it did engage in reciprocal acts of terrorism against the Arabs. As for the King David Hotel it was a gov't/military target when it was blown up since it was requisitioned as a HQ surrounded by 6 rows of concertina wire.

    The British left "palestine" for the same reason they left India, they didn't have the political will or money to suppress tribal conflicts in order to maintain their empire. Speaking of moral equivalency, I find equating guerrilla combat with terrorism wearying. There actually is a difference between fighting soldiers and deliberately murdering civilians. FWIW Begin was in the opposition for almost 30 years before becoming prime minister. Arafat was president of the palestinian authority too--with Israel's cooperation.
     
    Last edited:

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    A few more details: The Irgun, L'chi, Haganah, were established as self-defence organizations against Arab attacks. The Haganah evolved from the turn-of-the-century Shomrim and was affiliated with the socialists who were building kibbutzim. The Irgun and L'chi were established by demoblised soldiers from Britian's WW1 "Jewish Brigade" who left "palestine" to enlist and return to fight the Turks. They were right wing nationalists and led by Zeev Jabotinsky. Since the British took the side of the Arabs:
    1)Closing the country to Jewish immigration while allowing unrestricted Arab immigration
    2)Providing logistical & material support to Arab militias like that of kwaukji
    3)Trying to disarm the Jewish community
    4)When the British left they handed all their military infrastructure over to the Arabs, and even fought alongside the Arab militias in Jaffa when the Irgun attacked in order to stop them from firing at civilians in Tel Aviv
    the British were correctly seen as an enemy.

    The Haganah had a truce of sorts with the British when they fought together against the Arabs in the late '30's who turned on the British. The Haganah also became a segregated unit in the British army during WW2.

    The Irgun decided not to have any truce with the British and maintained their guerrilla war against them (the Haganah provided the British with intel against them). While most of the Irgun's action was against the British colonial government and it's troops, it did engage in reciprocal acts of terrorism against the Arabs. As for the King David Hotel it was a gov't/military target when it was blown up since it was requisitioned as a HQ surrounded by 6 rows of concertina wire.

    The British left "palestine" for the same reason they left India, they didn't have the political will or money to suppress tribal conflicts in order to maintain their empire. Speaking of moral equivalency, I find equating guerrilla combat with terrorism wearying. There actually is a difference between fighting soldiers and deliberately murdering civilians. FWIW Begin was in the opposition for almost 30 years before becoming prime minister. Arafat was president of the palestinian authority too--with Israel's cooperation.

    C'mon man, there's now way you can frame Irgun as not being terrorists. They killed a LOT of people... trains, markets, cinemas, hotels... and they illegally immigrated people from Europe who I'm sure joined their cause.
     

    DoggyDaddy

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    73   0   1
    Aug 18, 2011
    104,384
    149
    Southside Indy
    They were the three primary Jewish military organizations which waged a bombing and guerrila campaign against the British Mandate in the 30's/40's leading up to the British abandoning it. They bombed the King David Hotel, they bombed a passenger liner that was being used to deport illegal immigrants leading to the drowning of several hundred Jews, they blew up trains and infrastructure etc. They also assassinated various British government officials.

    The leadership of the organizations largely became the government of Israel once the British pulled out and the Arabs were driven out. The fellow who ordered the bombing of the King David Hotel became prime minister.

    Once again, I'm not trying to make some sort of moral equivalency and nor am I trying to justify the actions of either side. I guess I just grow weary of the moral outrage about "terrorism" when that is exactly what was used to drive to the British out.

    Thank you for the history lesson! That does sound more akin to the terrorist side of the terrorist/freedom fighter dichotomy, because of the indiscriminate killing of the civilians. And of course civilian casualties are part of any war, but for the most part they're not targeted by "good guys" on purpose, or used to hide behind. It doesn't sound like those groups did the latter at least. Makes precious little difference to the dead though, I reckon.
     

    DoggyDaddy

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    73   0   1
    Aug 18, 2011
    104,384
    149
    Southside Indy
    A few more details: The Irgun, L'chi, Haganah, were established as self-defence organizations against Arab attacks. The Haganah evolved from the turn-of-the-century Shomrim and was affiliated with the socialists who were building kibbutzim. The Irgun and L'chi were established by demoblised soldiers from Britian's WW1 "Jewish Brigade" who left "palestine" to enlist and return to fight the Turks. They were right wing nationalists and led by Zeev Jabotinsky. Since the British took the side of the Arabs:
    1)Closing the country to Jewish immigration while allowing unrestricted Arab immigration
    2)Providing logistical & material support to Arab militias like that of kwaukji
    3)Trying to disarm the Jewish community
    4)When the British left they handed all their military infrastructure over to the Arabs, and even fought alongside the Arab militias in Jaffa when the Irgun attacked in order to stop them from firing at civilians in Tel Aviv
    the British were correctly seen as an enemy.

    The Haganah had a truce of sorts with the British when they fought together against the Arabs in the late '30's who turned on the British. The Haganah also became a segregated unit in the British army during WW2.

    The Irgun decided not to have any truce with the British and maintained their guerrilla war against them (the Haganah provided the British with intel against them). While most of the Irgun's action was against the British colonial government and it's troops, it did engage in reciprocal acts of terrorism against the Arabs. As for the King David Hotel it was a gov't/military target when it was blown up since it was requisitioned as a HQ surrounded by 6 rows of concertina wire.

    The British left "palestine" for the same reason they left India, they didn't have the political will or money to suppress tribal conflicts in order to maintain their empire. Speaking of moral equivalency, I find equating guerrilla combat with terrorism wearying. There actually is a difference between fighting soldiers and deliberately murdering civilians. FWIW Begin was in the opposition for almost 30 years before becoming prime minister. Arafat was president of the palestinian authority too--with Israel's cooperation.

    I clearly have a lot to learn about this period of time. Thanks to all. Interesting stuff for sure and gives me more to think about (on both sides).
     

    BugI02

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 4, 2013
    32,247
    149
    Columbus, OH
    I agree.

    Terrorism comes in many forms but its intent is malicious and hateful.

    I get perturbed when I hear people say "you're acting just like the terrorists, you cannot do that!". Hogwash I say! Why can't the civilized world use the same tactics as the terrorists?

    What is the defining characteristic that separates us from them?


    I think terrorism is defined by its selection of targets, for instance innocent people queuing on the Promenade des Anglais to watch Bastille Day fireworks. Not much of a military target

    Were we to adopt their methods, we might deliver a hellfire bedtime story to any random gathering of people in an unfriendly tribal area, rather than targeting the bad actors and those harboring them


     

    GIJEW

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 14, 2009
    2,716
    47
    C'mon man, there's now way you can frame Irgun as not being terrorists. They killed a LOT of people... trains, markets, cinemas, hotels... and they illegally immigrated people from Europe who I'm sure joined their cause.
    I didn't give the Irgun a pass. You missed the part about reciprocal acts of terrorism? The difference in narrative was that most of the Irgun's attacks were against the British army which wasn't a civilian target and neither was the King David Hotel. Likewise, Fargo mentioned the Irgun, Haganah, and terrorism in the same breath as if they cooperated instead of fighting each other. As for illegal immigration, under the Balfour declaration written BY the British and adopted by the league of nations, it wasn't illegal. It was about the British not doing what they had committed to per the league of nations. Anyway, how is THAT terrorism? BTW most of that was done by the haganah which had more resources and wasn't the focus of British man-hunts
     
    Last edited:

    jamil

    code ho
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,728
    113
    Gtown-ish
    The belief that we are morally right. You see the problem there, right?
    There are subjective moralities and objective moralities. Maybe you don’t know until the outcome. Maybe you think you’re freeing the masses while you fight those who have the power now. But then after you cease power you’re ideological possession betrays you. The truth becomes evident. Castro was a terrorist. Judging from the system the founding fathers gave us, it’s pretty clear what they were.
     

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    There are subjective moralities and objective moralities. Maybe you don’t know until the outcome. Maybe you think you’re freeing the masses while you fight those who have the power now. But then after you cease power you’re ideological possession betrays you. The truth becomes evident. Castro was a terrorist. Judging from the system the founding fathers gave us, it’s pretty clear what they were.

    This exactly. (assuming I'm defining the words the same way you are) ;)
     

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    Is there some way that the government acquires money (and specifically, funds that would be made available for this use), other than through taxation?

    It wasn't American money... but rather money Iranian money held in the US, that was frozen after the overthrow of the Shah. It was money paid for US military equipment that was never delivered.
     

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    10,999
    113
    Avon

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    Correct:

    $1.7-billion payment to Iran was all in cash due to effectiveness of sanctions, White House says

    (I don't think I played Devil's Advocate very well here. Point being: Kut is right.)

    On a side note, not giving Iran the money would've been historically consistent with American foreign policy. We owed the French a ton of money after the Revolution, but once the French had their Revolution, we wrote it off, saying we owed it to the prior regime. The beginnings of the Quasi-War, XYZ Affair... etc, etc.
     
    Top Bottom