Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
You are an apologist for Hezbollah, you are condemning the US here, not Hezbollah, you are saying they are the same as the US revolutionaries. I can't stand such awful, self-righteous and off base moral equivalence where there is no such equivalence.
|
I'm going to have to coin a new term. Every time Israel is mentioned, and someone takes the devil's advocate position....they are labeled a terrorist apologist. Let's call it 'The Law of eventual terrorist apologism'.
Ustwo, if group A uses the same basic military tactics as group B, do group A and group B have interchangable moral standpoints? The answer obviously being no, it's clear that Mephisto was only comparing military tactics, and not general morality or reasoning. To compare Hezbollah to the early Americans in a discussion on morals is absurd, but to compare their military tactics is perfectly reasonable (as was illustrated by his post). Instead of seeing this as a simple comparison, you viewed it as him taking a dump on the American revolutionaries.
The point is that methods will come and go, but it's the idiologies and morality that should decide histories view of a group. Deciding to condemn purely on method is a bit niave.
American revolutionaries did sleep, rest, refuel, and rearm in towns, making them prime targetrs for attack from the red coats. Despite what you might see in Mel Gibson movies, not all battles were fought in lines on an open field.