If you didn't want to be asked this specifically, you shouldn't have phrased your accusation in this way
Not at all, I simply pointed out that you were careful to say CARRIED OUT instead of asking for a list of terrorist incidents they were involved in. There are many terrorist incidents they were involved with, smaller is the number they themselves carried out. In any case they clearly did both.
Can you explain what an operation designed to prevent a ship filled with refugees from leaving, but ended up killing them by mistake has to do with terrorism?
Are you serious? It's not supposed to instill terror in deportees or the British authorities that deportee ships were active bombing targets? LOL!
I know about Palmach. Again, I'd like you to be specific, because it seems our understanding of what constitute proof is vastly different.
Yes, you're clearly intellectual dishonest.
Just a few of Palmach's terrorist activities, the Night of Bridges, the Night of Trains, Numerous ambushes against British and Arab personnel, numerous bombings (especially radar installations,)
I see it as one army fighting another
Of course you do, that's how you lie to yourself that it wasn't terrorism. If that isn't terrorism, then there is no such things as terrorism. You certainly couldn't call Hezbollah terrorists then, because at least they're elected, LOL.
You are correct that these foundations are found in actions carried out in Palestine as far back as the early 20th century. You are, however, missing the culprit. Firing at civilian buses merely because its occupants are Jews and accidentally killing an innocent, unrelated Arab with a bomb, and then declaring him Shahid are actions that Arab radicals in Palestine were doing well before the 1930's. These are the foundations of modern terrorism.
Really, Arabs shooting at a bus with Jews on it. That's the foundations of modern terrorism - LOL. Not bombing hotels. If that's the case then "modern terrorism" was invented in the 18th century in America.
That's what my previous reply was meant to be. You were specifying actions I was not aware of, and I asked for citations. Turns out, I disagree with your analysis (or, possibly, you were more ignorant on those matters than you thought you were). There is no reason to sound smug about your answer. This is how discussion is supposed to go.
Yes, little did we know that you would refuse to acknowledge that bombing ships carrying civilians in order to further your political goals was terrorism. Basically you wasted our time since there's nothing you'd acknowledge as terrorism unless an Arab did it.