Posted on 03/14/2009 7:48:20 AM PDT by PotatoHeadMick
Now that is indeed hardcore. I’d like to check that out.
Eric Rudolph was an amateur compared to the Latvians.
He didn’t steal from the rich and give to the poor. He took the taxpayers’ money back from the government.
And then, there's this character.
There’s no evidence that Robin Hood targeted only tax payments because there was little distinction at that time between the wealth of the landowners wrung from their tenants and the cut they forwarded on to the Crown as its piece of the action.
All the evidence is that Robin Hood and his gang robbed anyone with money who fell into their hands.
“Your lupins or your life”
Dennis Moore, silly b!tch.
So, who decided that media bias was a recent phenomenon?
Hmmm....this redistibution of wealth is more complicated than I thought.
“I implied no such thing.”
Yes you did. You did not say “some” Polish resistance, but THE Polish resistance, which means everyone in the Polish resistance. I say show me the proof that all Polish resistance were thieves and robbers. There is none. It is something you fabricated out of thin air. You also think you can wiggle out of your own words by saying that you meant those resistance who also took lives, but there were many in the resistance who did not take lives and were using non-violent means to resist the Germans and they were also not robbing their fellow countrymen. If you can’t admit that you spewed a bunch of crap in your posts, then you deserve all the criticism that is being directed at you.
“Try not to view everything in black and white, don’t be so naive, not everything breaks down into simple ‘good guy/bad guy’ narratives.”
Pfft! Pot calling the kettle black. You can’t even follow you own advice!
Exhale.
No one accused ALL partisans of being thieves and robbers.
He said “for many.”
Google “the Bielski brothers” and see if you can still maintain your dudgeon.
There is also no evidence that Mr. Hood “gave to the poor”
though he was said to have loaned some poor night some cash.
Further, there is no evidence that Mr. Hood had any political goals. The idea that some have posted that he was
a terrorist is absurd as it is not at all supported by any record.
Ol Robin was referred to as seditious in early references in the sense that all criminals are considered seditious.
You forget that Richard was taken hostage, and part of that tax was raised to pay his ransom. (As a king, he spent very little time in England, if I remember. He much preferred the French holdings of his family to the English as places to stay. But his mama Eleanor loved him. It is also said he never consumated his marriage.)
Richard’s dad Henry had been an able administrator, but his son wasn’t so good. Even before his dad’s death, he had caused a rebellion in the lands of the Aquitaine, if I remember correctly for his poorly managed handling.
John, though, would get into more trouble.
It should not be forgotten that whether Robin Hood fought for King Richard the Lion-hearted, or for the French-aligned Catholic reformists, both struggles were defeated. The evil King John came to rule in England, sending King Arthur (Richard’s chosen heir) into exile in France.
That John’s and Edward’s successors weren’t fond of Robin says almost nothung; that they claim to represent the England populace seems to be a notion introduced by the editor.
You would think this is where libs would love a guy like Robin Hood. Robbing from the evil rich to give to the innocent poor.
I suppose because he wasn’t in a union or working for the government, that’s a couple stirkes against him, but still you’d think they’d like the principle - since they practice it continuously today.
From your link:
“The Bielski group would raid nearby villages and forcibly seize food; on occasion peasants who refused to share their food with the partisans were the subject of violence and even murder. This caused hostility towards the partisans from peasants in the villages, though some would help the Jewish partisans.”
These are war crimes. There were additional reprisal murders of those the Bielski partisans deemed collaborators as well.
“[edit] Allegations of war crimes
Some of the members of the Bielski partisans (but not the Bielski brothers themselves) have been accused of war crimes on the neighboring population, particularly for involvement in the 1943 Naliboki massacre of 129 people, committed by Soviet partisans.[12] Though witnesses and some historians do place members of Bielskis’ unit at the massacre, former members of the brigade and other historians dispute this[13], asserting that the partisans did not arrive in the area until several months after the event took place.[14] Some of the historians working at the Polish Institute of National Remembrance have written in other publications that the Bielski brothers were not involved in the massacre.[13] The Polish Institute of National Remembrance has been investigating the massacre since the early 2000s. As of December 2008, it had not issued findings.[15][12]”
FURH.....
Try reading what I wrote again before you go flailing at your keyboard, it usually helps.
“the “partisans” behind German lines in Poland and Soviet territory, despite them being painted today as heroic figures for many people they were nothing more than bandits killing and stealing according to their own ideologies.”
See that “for many people”? That means ‘not all’ ie “some”, it doesn’t mean that all partisans were bandits it means that some people regarded partisans as bandits imposing their political ideology by means of violence. Furthermore please note the “and Soviet territory” bit, that means I wasn’t only referring to Poland. Anyway as has been pointed out to you some of the Bielski partisans fell into the category of people who used political violence against civilians, let me quote the Wiki entry (and if the Wiki entry is factually incorrect you can tell me in what way);
“The Bielski group would raid nearby villages and forcibly seize food; on occasion peasants who refused to share their food with the partisans were the subject of violence and even murder. This caused hostility towards the partisans from peasants in the villages.”
See that? Well that’s the evidence you were asking for to back up my original claim about “many” people not liking the partisans and that those partisans engaged in “killing and stealing according to their own ideologies”.
I hope this clears things up for you. Now try some valium it’ll ease your obvious hyper-tension.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.