It does seem to mean that Haganah back then could not be trusted to keep their word but it does not mean that they are guilty of murdering unarmed civilians. The question on this thread is not whether they were liars, but whether they were terrorists.The failure of the Haganah to respect an agreemnent made with villagers in regard to non-violence is of extreme relevance when that breaking of that agreement results in their massacre. It also means that the Haganah cannot be trusted.
Really? No evidence?It does seem to mean that Haganah back then could not be trusted to keep their word but it does not mean that they are guilty of murdering unarmed civilians. The question on this thread is not whether they were liars, but whether they were terrorists.
Irgun and Lehi were terrorists. You have not provided any evidence, not even disputed evidence, that Haganah were terrorists.
Now my question for you:
Is Hamas a terorrist organization?
False. Haganah broke a non-violence agreement with the villagers and approved the armed attack that DID NOT involve a massacre. The massarce was not part of the plan that Haganah approved.Really? No evidence?
1. Haganah broke a non-violence agreement with the villagers and approved the armed attack that involved a massacre.
True.2. Palmach was part of the operation.
3. They supplied amunition.
4. They helped render the population defenceless.
5. They participated in the expulsion.
True, but lacking context: They warned away citizens who tried to enter a town they had blockaded.6. They also tried to shoot civilians fleeing a massacre.
There is a long way to go from "no responsibility" to "terrorist". I have said they should have done more to prevent Irgun and Lehi from committing a massacre. That is some responsibility, but it does not make them terrorists. It makes them people who did not do enough to stop terrorists, which is different.Only a zionist aplogist would then go on to say they have no responsibility for the massacre.
Well, let's back up for a moment. Are you saying the Irgun and Stern did not commit any murders of civilians before this massacre?False. Haganah broke a non-violence agreement with the villagers and approved the armed attack that DID NOT involve a massacre. The massarce was not part of the plan that Haganah approved.
True.
True, but lacking context: They warned away citizens who tried to enter a town they had blockaded.
There is a long way to go from "no responsibility" to "terrorist". I have said they should have done more to prevent Irgun and Lehi from committing a massacre. That is some responsibility, but it does not make them terrorists. It makes them people who did not do enough to stop terrorists, which is different.
Gryfin, I have been very charitable in answering all of your points in a balanced way. It is time for you to return the favour, to show that you aren't afraid of the truth, and answer this:
Is Hamas a terrorist organization?
And what kind of a warning was this? Where they told they were going to be attacked and you should take precautions to protect yourselves?This is false. Haganah insisted that the villagers be given advance warning and arranged for a truck with a loudspeaker to warn them.
Better than the warnings Hamas gives before they blow up a bus or a restaurant TODAY, not 60 years ago.And what kind of a warning was this?
Irgun was a terrorist organization from the day it existed: It broke away from Hanagah exactly because Hanagah refused to attack civilian targets. One example of a prior attack would be the case where Irgun threw a hand grenade into a crowd of innocent Arab workers. There are of course others, I'm sure you have a list.Well, let's back up for a moment. Are you saying the Irgun and Stern did not commit any murders of civilians before this massacre?
Hanagah arranged for an armored truck with loud speakers to drive around with an announcement that the village would be occupied and that the villagers should leave.And what kind of a warning was this?
Plainly there was disagreement between Irgun and Hanagah on this point. Hanagah insisted that the villagers NOT be killed. By the end of the attack Irgun had put the captured villagers into a school house and was planning to blow it up and kill everyone inside. Hanagah put a stop to that and insisted that the villagers be relocated to East Jerusalem.And if you don't get out, you'll be killed.
What Irgun actually did was terrorism. What Hanagah agreed to and planned may well be ethnic cleansing, but was not terrorism.Because, that's not a warning. That's ethnic cleansing. It's also terrorism.
There have been several lone wolf Muslim attackers, and they have all been called terrorists. Nothing can be done about those cases either, a lone wolf can't be "infiltrated". I am not suggesting we should spend defense dollars on this guy, I am simply asking that we call a spade a spade.you know better than that Fuji...it is a lot more involved than you choose to make it.
Sure call the plane deal terrorism.....Im in...but it is not the eterrorism that I wanna spend defensive dollars on......Its a ONE OFF....
nothing that we can do about it!!!
You make it sound so ordinary..."threw a hand grenade into a crowd of innocent Arab workers". But yes, I do know they've done much worse, including putting land mines into Arab markets. In one case killing and cutting 70 Palestinians to shreds. And they were doing it for many years before Deir Yassin.Irgun was a terrorist organization from the day it existed: It broke away from Hanagah exactly because Hanagah refused to attack civilian targets. One example of a prior attack would be the case where Irgun threw a hand grenade into a crowd of innocent Arab workers. There are of course others, I'm sure you have a list.
Now you tell me about Hamas: Is it a terrorist organization?
Hanagah arranged for an armored truck with loud speakers to drive around with an announcement that the village would be occupied and that the villagers should leave.
Where they told they were going to be attacked and you should take precautions to protect yourselves?
Huh? The threat of another massacre such a Deir Yassin was used to terrorize hundreds of thousands of Palestinians out of their land and their homes. What else is terrorism?What Irgun actually did was terrorism. What Hanagah agreed to and planned may well be ethnic cleansing, but was not terrorism.
I agree, but that was *Irgun* that did that. Not Hanagah. Hanagah was against the massacre at Deir Yassin. Hanagah called Irgun "thieves and murderers" as a result of it.Huh? The threat of another massacre such a Deir Yassin was used to terrorize hundreds of thousands of Palestinians out of their land and their homes. What else is terrorism?
No, Haganah:I agree, but that was *Irgun* that did that. Not Hanagah. Hanagah was against the massacre at Deir Yassin. Hanagah called Irgun "thieves and murderers" as a result of it.
Why are you stuck in the past. Why do you refuse to deal with the terrorism perpetrated on Israeli civilians TODAY rather than dwelling on what happened 60 years ago.No, Haganah:
1. Approved of the attack
2. Participated in the attack
3. Supplied ammunition
4. Helped eliminated the village defences
5. Broke a non-violence agreement with the villagers
6. Shot at the villagers as they fled from the massacre
7. Sent terrorists into the village who they knew would murder civilians
Your sense of responsibility is rather close to a mob figure who thinks he's not responsible because he didn't use the word "murder" when he sends his assassins to his enemies home and they end up mutilated.
Your #6 is out of context and #7 is false. The rest is true, but none of it makes Haganah terrorists. You've officially lost the debate.No, Haganah:
1. Approved of the attack
2. Participated in the attack
3. Supplied ammunition
4. Helped eliminated the village defences
5. Broke a non-violence agreement with the villagers
6. Shot at the villagers as they fled from the massacre
7. Sent terrorists into the village who they knew would murder civilians
