in the boston massacre, who was at fault, did the soliders attack in self-defense?

who was right? the soliders or the americans?|||There is no right answer in this case. The British soldiers said they fired in self defense while the Americans said that the British soldiers were at fault. It all depends on which side you believe more.|||IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, THE PEOPLE OF BOSTON WERE STONING THE RED COATS AND THEY FIRED THEIR MUSKETS INTO THE CROWD KILLING 7 OR 8. CALL IT A DRAW.|||Mariano Rivera for giving up those two hits to Ortiz….|||The American crownd got mouthy and pushy with armed soldiers standing guard. As the Americans expected, the soldiers opened fire. Only a few were killed.

Why are Arab terrorist called 'Islamic terrorist' or 'Muslim extremist?

Why aren't the South-American druglords(most of them catholics) called 'Catholic druglords' and the Italian mafia(Catholic, watch Godfather) called 'Catholic terrorist'?

I know a little sumthing about the Quran and know where is it written that you can go on a suicidal killing spree. The Quran only allows war if it is in SELF DEFENSE and DON"T KILL INNOCENTS!!!

What happened to the the New Testament's ways of turning the other cheek? 'Christians' sit in church and 'testify' to the Lord while their hitmen are out Killing people.|||If South American drug lords and the Italian mafia started executing people while waving crosses in the air and screaming "For Jesus!" then they would be called Catholic drug lords and Catholic terrorists.

The "Arab terrorists" you mention aren't all Arab and they DO shout "Allah akbar!" as they behead people and blow up children. Calling them Islamic terrorists is actually a more appropriate term than Arab terrorists.|||not all Arabs are Muslims… There are Christians who are Arabs Report It
|||Becasue they say that they are doing it for their religion.

Droglords ofcourse hava diff motive and are not fighting for christianity.|||Because majority of Arabic terrorists commit their acts in the naem of Allah while screaming Allahu Akbar" (an islamic phrase in arabic meaning "God is great".)|||Well it depends on what religous afilitation they call when they la claim to what ever unspeakable horror they have commited. Islam is different from Muslim one has the Torah and one has the Koran, both different books|||Lack of understanding my dear, lack of common sense.|||the Bible also says an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.

I don't believe that you, or anyone with any common sense, can sit back and Say, just let terrorist take over a nation, kill us, because they do not approve of our lifestyle………

And one more thing….

They are not afraid of killing us of because of our materialistic nature?

Well, how unselfish of them, they only believe that they have 70 virgins waiting on them..

how would they like it, if we wanted to kill them, because we had 70 BMW's awaiting us!|||Like someone above said, the acts of an Islamic terrorist are done out of a misguided attempt to protect/propagate thier religion. South American drug lords' actions are not related in anyway to thier religion.|||It is they themself that claim the title of Muhajidin and Jihad Fighter.Since it is a word for islamic Quran of Holy warrior of Die in the Way of Allah,the world consider it as a terrorist based on Islamic Ideology,synonim of Islamic Terorrist.

If they claim themself without involving any terms from the Quran or the Islam itself,we simply we call it The Arab Terrorist.Make sense,isn;t it.|||In Quran it's clear stated that fight n protect your religion family n country from those who wanted to destroy it. What people in Iraq n palestine does is to protect their religion, right, family n country.

When muslim do these people called us terrorist, but what people call to the Israel when they killed the innocent people of iraq??

I pray that one day people will stop being racist of religion. Respect each other faith. Wassalam|||Because they use their religion, Islam, to justify murdering people. For more on the origins of this aspect of Islam, see http://www.prophetofdoom.net

why is that this is so one sided against men? There are plenty of women who also punch, slug, scratch etc…

why is it that if a man receives this kind of deal..he is expected to just deal with it…since he is typically bigger and stronger than she is..even if she doesn't hurt him….why is it OK?

are we to ALWAYS assume that for her to do whatever…she HAD to be provoked? That she HAD to be doing it out of self defense?

who thinks that this kind of stereotypical CRAP is the VERY foundation of what Lifestyle Channel plays against men? That for women to release that inner rage HAD to have their switch turned and COULD NOT do this of thier own will?|||There are MANY many men who suffer domestic abuse daily..mental and physical…it is highly under-reported because of the stigma attached to men NOT being able to defend themselves. IF a man prevents a woman from hitting him, HE will be hauled into court for abuse. The only remedy for this, either sex, is to RUN! As far away as you can get, period. Abusers, regardless of sex, will never change. A man who stands for this stuff has very low self esteem..issues far beyond the reach of this site.|||I agree|||A friend of my parents had a brother that was actually killed by his wife. She beat him for years. It happens a lot more than people think, but most men are too ashamed to admit that this is happening. They are also brought up to not hit women so they will not hit back. It is like breast cancer. People don't think that breast cancer can happen to men, and they ashamed to admit that they had/have it.|||Its not talked about much. However I think there are probably far more women who are verbally abusive toward their husbands than are physically abusive. In fact I think the verbal abuse rate against men is probably pretty high.|||No we shouldn't assume that she can do whatever. Or that she was provoked. It's just as wrong for a women to committ domestic abuse as it is for men.

There just doesn't seem to be very many men that are willing that their wife or girlfriend abuse them.

I feel that men sould get the same treatment as women do if their being abused. they have feelings just like women do.

There should be shelter's for abused men like there is for women|||I've never heard anyone say the man just has to "deal with it."

Any man or woman who stays with a person who uses them as a punching bag is sick.

My ex hit me once. I hit him back with an iron skillet. That was the end of that. No SOB is going to take his anger out on me. I don't believe that people are for hitting.

I wish I better understood the anger and frustration that makes people hit other people. And you are right…women abuse their husbands but the men get the raw edge because they are usually physically larger than the woman. The perception is that he is stronger and could better protect himself.

Life is strange, isn't it?|||http://new.photos.yahoo.com/abusive_viol…

i scratched my man in a fight we had…i decked him first like 4 times then the SOB pushed me from behind…so I hit him a bit more….

who was wrong? he totally pissed me off..so I told him off|||At times mine beats me like a drum. Last night, i changed the channel while she was watching a show and she hit me with more combinations than a safe. I'm taking kickboxing and tai kwan do so I can defend myself in the future a little bettr.|||i agree no one should be hitting on another person.. if your wife or husband. bf or gf is hitting on you then they dont really love you.. you dont treat a person you love that way… but if a women puts her self in a man place and hits him then he has every right to defend himself|||My ex was like that verbally abusive, throw me around (she had a 60lb weight advantage), and then she would call the cops claim I hit her, then procede to hit me with the phone. Just couldn't win with that one.

John Adams spoke in favor of “arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion…in private self-defense.” (a) Which side of the gun control debate is more likely to cite this quote? (b) How might individuals on the other side respond?|||The framers of the constitution intended that the private citizen should be able to buy any and all weapons owned by the government. Of course they never dreamed of the weapon systems available today. I am not sure they would allow the US Military to have some of them. NBC comes to mind!|||right to bear arms, who would argue with?

Even if you did take everyones guns away, then knives would be the weapon of choice. Still have the very same issue,which people attacking other people with a different weapon.

Guns dont kill people, peoples intentions kill people.|||The whole "right to bear arms" and "militia" bit has no relevance in the gun control argument. The only way any individual could stand up to a modern army is if they were armed with tanks, and fight-bombers, and nuclear missiles. That is beyond the means of individuals.. and should be kept that way.|||Your damned if you do and damned if you don't, regardless of which side you take on this topic.|||a. The side that is opposed to gun control.

b. Murmer, Mutter, MUTTER, murmer, murmer, murmer. Okay, we have decided that the statement of Mr. Adams is in fact irrelevent, since Mr. Adams was clearly referring to the arms of the offender, held in the hands of the citizens, not guns or other weapons. Next topic!|||(b)How might individuals on the other side respond? I guess you are referring to the socialist democrats with a communist agenda. They will put thier hands over thier ears, go to screaming, try to out shout you, or revert to yelling obscenitys and name calling to keep from facing the truth, thats how they respond.|||people who want gun control aren't going to use this quote because they are all for the totally defenseless citizen. who can't even begin to fight back against gov. control. or any other kind of aggression like the guy with the knife who wants your money and will probably stick you even if you give it to him.i personally feel that guns can stop . this case right there by pulling a gun the odds are the guy with the knife runs away and if not gets shot and therefore prevents him from doing it again. and saves the person from getting stabbed . police aren't there when it's happening so how can they do anything? you could possibly call them after the incident but to what effect?they're not going to find the guy unless you shot him in the leg and he ran away then they will probably catch up with him at the hospital.which you will be going to as well. if you let him stab you you 'll be going to the morgue. the right to carry lets the outlaws wonder who is and who isn't carrying a gun and just that in itself is enough to deter lots of crime .and say you're eating at Mcdonald's and some nut comes in with a gun and starts shooting people. won't it make your day when someone who's got the right to carry shoots him and stops him before he turns the gun on you or your kids ? as far as the other side goes i feel they are just after total control. they don't feel we're responsible enough to defend ourselves.they haven't been to england where people are killed every day because their gov. dosen't trust them with a gun so the only people there with guns are the criminals .look at england and see what gun control gets you. gun control. i believe is being able to hit your target and not an innocent bystander. besides that if i want to kill someone a gun is just the fastest way maybe you'd rather get the butter knife ? maybe we could outlaw the use of steel . then the killers in society would be coming at you with baseball bats .Id rather be shot at least its quicker.killers should be hung by the neck until dead as long as there's no question of their being guilty. thats also quite a effective deterent.|||There is a mountain of researchable writings by the Framers regarding their feelings about the citizenry having arms. It is all strongly in favor of such. Only in modern times do we have people in government who argue vociferously against the People having the right to keep and bear arms. Some even make the specious claim that the Second Amendment is there to protect the government's ability to keep guns! (How ludicrous would it be for such a thing to be found in the Bill of Rights, which exists to protect the rights of individual citizens?)

A) Clearly, this is an argument that would be used by those favoring the citizens' right to keep and bear arms.

B) Those on the other side (the wrongheaded anti-gunners) would claim that the 2nd Amendment is outdated because the Framers knew nothing about AR-15s and Glocks and such. They would claim, falsely, that the wording of the amendment attaches the right to keep and bear arms to service in the National Guard (which did not exist until like a hundred years after the amendment was written). They would claim that there is no longer any need for citizens to keep arms for the purpose of opposing a tyrannical government. Why? Because that battle is already lost, since the government has tanks, F-15s, B-1s, nukes, etc. So what they're actually saying is that nothing can ever stop the U.S. government from becoming totalitarian, not even a population of 300,000,000 in which 80,000,000 own guns and many are ex-military with training and familiarity with weapons and tactics.

The fact is that while many say that we couldn't possibly go up against our own government, our own government's military is made up of citizens. Would those citizens drop bombs on Main Street, USA just because some whacko president or Congress said to? Can the military live inside their tanks and planes, or would they have to come out sometime and be vulnerable to guerrilla warfare? How long would the government maintain support by the citizenry after it started to wage war against average Americans?

We can't even get rid of the insurgents in Iraq, who are far fewer in number than the 80M gun owners in the U.S.A., in a country smaller than Texas. And you people think that the U.S. military would vanquish an armed popular insurrection?! You must be crazy.

I heard it is a great self-defense sport for women. Also, don't those falls hurt!?|||you learn HOW to fall, and that's most important. Then, they don't hurt. Aikido only has defensive moves, no offensive. Not intended to be used to "start something". But wonderful in the event that someone much larger than you would try to use bodily force to harm you, aikido is perfect! I definately recommend it to any person trying to decide which of the martial arts is right for them!|||The main philosophy behind this discipline of Aikido is to promote harmony. so yes basically it 's an non-aggressive martial arts system that applies the use of circular motions. Report It
|||Wikipedia offers a lengthy introduction to the Japanese martial art of akido. The article includes information about the origins of the form, the training process and the techniques, both offensive and defensive.

You'll find a link to the article below. Hope this helps!|||as a "sport" it's great physically. As self defense, do not think that it will translate into real life situation. The practical knowledge of how to receive force and then re-direct it againt the opponent is great. But for application purposes, if you really want to learn self defense, look into arts such as Krav Magaw which is a battle tested Israeli system of Defensive Tactics, or Kajukenbo which is a combination of 5 arts. Kajukenbo takes the best aspects out of Karate, jujitsu, Judo, Kenpo and Kung Fu (Chinese Boxing). Developed in Hawaii for the sole purpose of defense.

do you think it is used as self-defense by people that refuse to accept "Love"|||I think unconditional love is something parents have for their children, but beyond that it's rare. There are almost always conditions. Some things to consider:

Before you met them, did you love them? Unconditional love exists prior to meeting the condition that you have met them.

Would you love them if they tried to kill you or somebody you love?

Would you love them if everything you thought you knew about them turned out to be untrue, and you were really being used or conned?

Although extreme conditions, those are the kind of litmus tests I think should be applied when considering whether or not love is unconditional.|||To me unconditional love is when you love somebody no matter how flawed they are and no matter how much they mess up you still love them without any conditions at all. Unlike conditional love unconditional love is true love. I don't think it's something that is used as a self defense mechanism at all.|||Loving somebody no matter what they have done in life!

I am currently studying self-defense in a system that is based on the mixing of various martial arts styles. Particularly, western boxing, Jeet Kun Do, some Philipino stick fighting, and a few othe things. Is there any advantage to this? Or should I study just 1 style like Akido or Tae Kwon Do?|||Actually, in my personal experience, it's better to mix up the styles. Most sytles of fighting really only deal with one type at a time. It can be ranged, close quarters, and grappling. Taking different forms actually gioves you a bit of each world and skill to make you able to be well rounded in defending yourself. In fact, the military teaches mixed styles in hand to hand combat. But I also not only mixed styles, I also took about 8 years of Shoto Khan, to which I liked the best.|||you dont realy need all of them

i did Tae Kwon Do

do 1 and be good at it

any more questions mail me|||What do you want to do?

Do you want to learn to defend yourself…or be good at sport martial arts?

MMA is the way to go if you want to be a better fighter & physical shape. Traditional MA's train your mind & body but with much more traditional techniques.

It's really up to you. I do not like all the frills & techniques one must learn to master a tradional MA…I much rather train smart & effeciently to get the most out of my training in the little amount of time we have nowadays…

Your first set of knuckles should be the foremost part of the fist, and your fingernails tucked into the meaty part of your palm. Your thumb should be wrapped around the second section of your fingers. Your wrist and forearm should be flat and level enough for a ruler to be balanced upon it evenly. After several punches your index and middle fingers' knuckles should be the only one's with redness.

but after all, it takes two to fight. self defense becomes a fight when your object is no longer to protect yourself, but to win.

yeah I would suggest talking it out or leaving. nine times out of ten police will arrest the winner because they either went the farthest and got the most out of line, or started it.|||Sounds perfect.

I want to carry a retractable baton when I'm jogging in the park for self-defense if needed. What are the laws in Houston, Texas about a civilian carrying a baton or in the car for that matter?|||This might be considered a weapon (illegal), but then again it might be considered a concealed weapon (possibly legal). I found this site, didn't read it…but I skimmed.

http://dao-web.dao.hctx.net/ie/TEXAS W…

>Emily<

Most conservatives are in favor of tougher laws including capital punishment for premediated murder however why are they more likely to justify vigilante justice against violent criminals that are non self defense. Isnt murder murder and should all people who commit crimes regardless of what type of individual they are or their victim be subjected to the same punishment or execution.|||cause they are full of love?|||depends on the case.|||That have been doing that for hundreds of years. thats a good question.|||You know, I had this same exact question and was going to ask it when I thought to myself…"self… I really need to get a life and nobody would really care if I asked this question…"|||All political parties contradict themselves. It's part of politics. And you're generalizing. Not everyone in a catagory feel the same way. "Conservative" covers a lot of ground.|||I agree with you, however I don't think it's limited to conservatives. For example, I know plenty of liberals who are opposed to killing animals for food or even for use in medical research to cure diseases, but are in favor of aborting human fetuses for no better reason than to avoid the inconvenience of having a child. Humans can be a pretty contradictory bunch with pretty bizarre logic.|||There's an old Texas proverb that goes "There's less horses needing stealing, and more men needing killing"…

A pedophile isn't worth keeping around. Kill em and be done with it, protect the kids.

It's not murder, it's surgery for the good of society.|||Are you pro-choice, talk about contradictions…|||Contradictions can be seen in anything. Some contradictions are just worse then others. It's not like contradictions are exclusive to conservatives, liberals contradict themselves as well.|||When did this happen? Do you have any links to verifiable information that shows this to be true?|||Funny, when liberals do it, it's called flip flopping.|||hmmm……

as an Independent I could ask Liberals why they contradict themselves on a number of issues.

But I thought this was a place for serious questions not personal attacks…..

Guess I was wrong….oh well…..|||conservatives love to talk about how "emotional and touchy feely" liberals are… truth is… conservatives are just as, if not more, emotional… but the emotion is more anger, often rooted in fear…

if you can "hit that button" on a conservative… make them believe they are threatened… most will give away any freedom or right they have in the world for the feeling of security, if they think you can provide it…

both parties have their buttons that you can "push" to make them stop thinking logically… but it seems that liberals are more out of care for others, while conservatives are out of fear from others…