This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I though I'd take this to another thread.
In my mind a terrorist is someone who chooses armed conflict over political process when they have a choice to use the latter.
A freedom fighter is someone who has no access to the political process under which they are governed and resort to armed conflict in order to affect change.
Post edited at 01:18
In reply to aln:
Good question. I'm sure it counts as armed conflict but I'm not sure if that justifies it.
> Does bombing civilans count as armed conflict?
Good question. I'm sure it counts as armed conflict but I'm not sure if that justifies it.
In reply to aln:
Out of curiosity. At what point do you accept that targeting civilians who perpetuate a system of oppression AND deny access to political process is valid?
> Does bombing civilans count as armed conflict?
Out of curiosity. At what point do you accept that targeting civilians who perpetuate a system of oppression AND deny access to political process is valid?
In reply to Removed User:
I mean e.g. setting off a bomb in a restaurant for idealogical reasons as opposed to a bomb landing on a restaurant during open warfare
I mean e.g. setting off a bomb in a restaurant for idealogical reasons as opposed to a bomb landing on a restaurant during open warfare
In reply to Removed User:
Dunno. Is it possible to ascertain that everyone in your particular group of civilians has the same ideaology and therefore is a legitimate target?
Dunno. Is it possible to ascertain that everyone in your particular group of civilians has the same ideaology and therefore is a legitimate target?
Post edited at 02:06
In reply to aln:
But what is an ideology and what is a legitimate quest for freedom? Again, I would point to the ability to take part in the political process with the added requirement that the political process is accepted as fair.
> I mean e.g. setting off a bomb in a restaurant for idealogical reasons as opposed to a bomb landing on a restaurant during open warfare
But what is an ideology and what is a legitimate quest for freedom? Again, I would point to the ability to take part in the political process with the added requirement that the political process is accepted as fair.
In reply to aln:
No, I suspect that is impossible in which case there is only assumption based on observation.
> Dunno. Is it possible to ascertain that everyone in your particular group of civilians has the same ideaology and therefore is a legitimate target?
No, I suspect that is impossible in which case there is only assumption based on observation.
In reply to aln:
It's a dirty game on both sides...
Consider his overall legacy; does that make you feel any different?
> Does bombing civilans count as armed conflict?
It's a dirty game on both sides...
Consider his overall legacy; does that make you feel any different?
In reply to Removed User:
So would you bomb them?
> No, I suspect that is impossible in which case there is only assumption based on observation.
So would you bomb them?
In reply to aln:
Sitting here as a white middle class, relatively well paid, individual in a politically stable country where I have my own house and family and access to political process and reasonable justice then no, I don't think I would.
But if I had no rights as an individual, no access to property, education, freedom of expression or equality. If I wasn't allowed to sit on the same bus, or eat in the same restraunts, drink in the same bars or lie on the same beach then, yes, possibly I might.
> So would you bomb them?
Sitting here as a white middle class, relatively well paid, individual in a politically stable country where I have my own house and family and access to political process and reasonable justice then no, I don't think I would.
But if I had no rights as an individual, no access to property, education, freedom of expression or equality. If I wasn't allowed to sit on the same bus, or eat in the same restraunts, drink in the same bars or lie on the same beach then, yes, possibly I might.
In reply to Removed User:
You'd bomb 'them' ? Coz every one of them thinks feels and acts the same way and deserves to be bombed?
You'd bomb 'them' ? Coz every one of them thinks feels and acts the same way and deserves to be bombed?
In reply to Removed User:
As long as the state or the first world uses weapons systems to control less developed establishments any act of free speech by the lesser or oppressed is unfortunately often expressed by the use of violence.
In my rather idealistic mind, somebody has to change this, all the lessons I learnt at school, as in the bigger man walks away does not apply in this current paradigm.
Until one of the major world powers does something the status quo remains, my old oppo's who are still serving tell me the British Army is skint and it is no longer anything of what it was, and it won't be going anywhere for a long time. To my mind that is the perfect time to become a great nation once again and to pay respects to the long gone dead who fought for freedom so I can type this. And I think as I have done for a long time that HM Forces should withdraw from all combat roles and purely become a ceremonial guard like the Vatican guard, obviously stay sharp and keep the skills base and have a plan for quick training of combat troops. But unless that is required lead by peaceful example.
As long as the state or the first world uses weapons systems to control less developed establishments any act of free speech by the lesser or oppressed is unfortunately often expressed by the use of violence.
In my rather idealistic mind, somebody has to change this, all the lessons I learnt at school, as in the bigger man walks away does not apply in this current paradigm.
Until one of the major world powers does something the status quo remains, my old oppo's who are still serving tell me the British Army is skint and it is no longer anything of what it was, and it won't be going anywhere for a long time. To my mind that is the perfect time to become a great nation once again and to pay respects to the long gone dead who fought for freedom so I can type this. And I think as I have done for a long time that HM Forces should withdraw from all combat roles and purely become a ceremonial guard like the Vatican guard, obviously stay sharp and keep the skills base and have a plan for quick training of combat troops. But unless that is required lead by peaceful example.
In reply to johnj:
I'm not sure you've answered the question? I think you are saying in the first part of your reply that all those who are oppressed by a higher power have the right to take up arms?
I would disagree and suggest only those who are denied fair access to the political process can legitimately take such a course and claim to be freedom fighters and then only in a measured response.
The rest of your reply seems to make a different point?
I'm not sure you've answered the question? I think you are saying in the first part of your reply that all those who are oppressed by a higher power have the right to take up arms?
I would disagree and suggest only those who are denied fair access to the political process can legitimately take such a course and claim to be freedom fighters and then only in a measured response.
The rest of your reply seems to make a different point?
In reply to Removed User:
I'm not saying they have the right, I'm saying due to the situation it appears to them that this is the only way that they can make a stand.
Yes my thoughts maybe do not answer your question, but this is free speech and are about how we can start to working towards a solution to why these people devote theirs lives to violent struggle.
I'm not saying they have the right, I'm saying due to the situation it appears to them that this is the only way that they can make a stand.
Yes my thoughts maybe do not answer your question, but this is free speech and are about how we can start to working towards a solution to why these people devote theirs lives to violent struggle.
Post edited at 04:30
In reply to Removed User:
Semantics aside, what we're talking about is warfare on a budget. A suicide bomber, for instance, is basically the cheapest available terminal guidance system. Targeting the civilian population is a tactic designed to influence politicians, who are usually too well defended to attack directly. When you're hitting military or political targets then you're engaged in irregular warfare. It's only when you target civilians that you become a terrorist - the assumption being, I suppose, that it's entirely legitimate to terrify your military opponents.
Anyway, I hate the term "Freedom fighter" as much as I hate euphemisms like "Shock and Awe" If you're trying to terrorise, then you're a terrorist. My definitions would be:
Freedom fighter: Fighting on a budget - we want them to win.
Terrorist: fighting on a budget - we want them to lose.
The people who have the budget to develop weapons that can fly down a street, stopping at traffic lights; negotiate the one way system and on arrival at the target, have the good taste to use the tradesmen's entrance - And then fire these weapons at weddings and schools......
Apologies for the rambling nature of the post. Awake at 05:00 and painkillers starting to kick in - revised definition:
Freedom fighter: Access to PR apparatus
Terrorist: No access to PR apparatus
Guardians of democracy: Owns PR apparatus
Semantics aside, what we're talking about is warfare on a budget. A suicide bomber, for instance, is basically the cheapest available terminal guidance system. Targeting the civilian population is a tactic designed to influence politicians, who are usually too well defended to attack directly. When you're hitting military or political targets then you're engaged in irregular warfare. It's only when you target civilians that you become a terrorist - the assumption being, I suppose, that it's entirely legitimate to terrify your military opponents.
Anyway, I hate the term "Freedom fighter" as much as I hate euphemisms like "Shock and Awe" If you're trying to terrorise, then you're a terrorist. My definitions would be:
Freedom fighter: Fighting on a budget - we want them to win.
Terrorist: fighting on a budget - we want them to lose.
The people who have the budget to develop weapons that can fly down a street, stopping at traffic lights; negotiate the one way system and on arrival at the target, have the good taste to use the tradesmen's entrance - And then fire these weapons at weddings and schools......
Apologies for the rambling nature of the post. Awake at 05:00 and painkillers starting to kick in - revised definition:
Freedom fighter: Access to PR apparatus
Terrorist: No access to PR apparatus
Guardians of democracy: Owns PR apparatus
In reply to csw:
That sums it up.
> Freedom fighter: Access to PR apparatus
> Terrorist: No access to PR apparatus
> Guardians of democracy: Owns PR apparatus
That sums it up.
In reply to Removed User:
I think it's quite clear. Assuming the cause is righteous, then it's to do with the means.
Freedom Fighters target directly the power of the authorities e.g. attacking army, police.
Terrorists use indirect leverage (terror) that is, targeting civilians in as nasty a way as possible, such as bombing buses, pubs, so they will influence the authorities
This is why there are conventions about rules of war.
In practice, this distinction is hard to maintain in conflicts where one or both sides does not have clarity about who are the authorities and who are civilians.
I think it's quite clear. Assuming the cause is righteous, then it's to do with the means.
Freedom Fighters target directly the power of the authorities e.g. attacking army, police.
Terrorists use indirect leverage (terror) that is, targeting civilians in as nasty a way as possible, such as bombing buses, pubs, so they will influence the authorities
This is why there are conventions about rules of war.
In practice, this distinction is hard to maintain in conflicts where one or both sides does not have clarity about who are the authorities and who are civilians.
In reply to MikeTS:
Those two sentences really do not go together.
> I think it's quite clear. Assuming the cause is righteous,
Those two sentences really do not go together.
In reply to Removed User:
Terrorism is a tactic. "Freedom fighters" and governments both indulge from time to time.
Terrorism is a tactic. "Freedom fighters" and governments both indulge from time to time.
In reply to Removed User:
Like some many things in the world, the lines are blurred and trying to fit everything into neat little pigeonholes is pointless
Like some many things in the world, the lines are blurred and trying to fit everything into neat little pigeonholes is pointless
In reply to davidbeynon:
...In their never-ending Struggle for peace
> Terrorism is a tactic. "Freedom fighters" and governments both indulge from time to time.
...In their never-ending Struggle for peace
In reply to Clauso:
There were some misguided elements in the ANC early on and there were some mistakes made. One of the reasons that stopped was because of Mandela's influence. Much later there were attacks against civilians (like the St James' Church massacre) but that was splinter groups outside of Mandela's control (like the APLA).
> (In reply to aln)
>
> [...]
>
> It's a dirty game on both sides...
>
> Consider his overall legacy; does that make you feel any different?
>
> [...]
>
> It's a dirty game on both sides...
>
> Consider his overall legacy; does that make you feel any different?
There were some misguided elements in the ANC early on and there were some mistakes made. One of the reasons that stopped was because of Mandela's influence. Much later there were attacks against civilians (like the St James' Church massacre) but that was splinter groups outside of Mandela's control (like the APLA).
In reply to Dave Garnett: I know little about this but did he not form the MK, that is the ANC militia and didn't he call for guerrilla tactics? This was before his incarceration as I understand.
In reply to csw:
Does that mean:
When the PIRA were attacking the British Army in response to catholic people’s human rights violations they were freedom fighters. When they shot RPGs at 10 Downing Street Freedom Fighters? And, when they murdered innocent civilians- terrorists, right?
> Semantics aside, what we're talking about is warfare on a budget. A suicide bomber, for instance, is basically the cheapest available terminal guidance system. Targeting the civilian population is a tactic designed to influence politicians, who are usually too well defended to attack directly. When you're hitting military or political targets then you're engaged in irregular warfare. It's only when you target civilians that you become a terrorist - the assumption being, I suppose, that it's entirely legitimate to terrify your military opponents.
Does that mean:
When the PIRA were attacking the British Army in response to catholic people’s human rights violations they were freedom fighters. When they shot RPGs at 10 Downing Street Freedom Fighters? And, when they murdered innocent civilians- terrorists, right?
Post edited at 13:06
In reply to Removed User:
As Peter Ustinov said, "Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich".
As Peter Ustinov said, "Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich".
In reply to Lukeva:
Did they actually ever target civilians (rather than recklessly leave warning too late etc.)?
> Does that mean:
> When the PIRA were attacking the British Army in response to catholic people’s human rights violations they were freedom fighters. When they shot RPGs at 10 Downing Street Freedom Fighters? And, when they murdered innocent civilians- terrorists, right?
Did they actually ever target civilians (rather than recklessly leave warning too late etc.)?
In reply to MG:
Are you serious?
Is that a genuine question?
I mean, Manchester Arndale centre and Warrington High Street are awash with British Military might, yeah?
Are you serious?
Is that a genuine question?
I mean, Manchester Arndale centre and Warrington High Street are awash with British Military might, yeah?
In reply to MikeTS:
How does this definition square with the bombing of Dresden or Hiroshima for example?
> Terrorists use indirect leverage (terror) that is, targeting civilians in as nasty a way as possible, such as bombing buses, pubs, so they will influence the authorities
How does this definition square with the bombing of Dresden or Hiroshima for example?
In reply to Rampikino:
Warnings were given for both with the intention of ensuring civilians left the area.
Warnings were given for both with the intention of ensuring civilians left the area.
In reply to Lukeva:
I'd have no problem calling PIRA a terrorist organisation, on the basis of the Birmingham pub bombings, but then, I'd call the Black and Tans a terrorist organisation too - and Internment was something of a Human rights violation, don't you think? Ireland is a complicated place, and even if you restrict your arguments to the current round of fun and games, nobody comes out of it smelling of roses.
I'd have no problem calling PIRA a terrorist organisation, on the basis of the Birmingham pub bombings, but then, I'd call the Black and Tans a terrorist organisation too - and Internment was something of a Human rights violation, don't you think? Ireland is a complicated place, and even if you restrict your arguments to the current round of fun and games, nobody comes out of it smelling of roses.
In reply to MG:
If you truly believe that then you are naiive in the extreme. PIRA consistently targetted "soft targets" over a long period of time from making innocent people vanish right down to blowing up city centres, often with false warnings or warnings they knew would be too late.
If you truly believe that then you are naiive in the extreme. PIRA consistently targetted "soft targets" over a long period of time from making innocent people vanish right down to blowing up city centres, often with false warnings or warnings they knew would be too late.
In reply to David Martin:
It would mean that the bombing of those cities was not terrorism.
Not everything bad has to be defined as terrorism.
> Terrorists use indirect leverage (terror) that is, targeting civilians in as nasty a way as possible, such as bombing buses, pubs, so they will influence the authorities
> How does this definition square with the bombing of Dresden or Hiroshima for example?
It would mean that the bombing of those cities was not terrorism.
Not everything bad has to be defined as terrorism.
In reply to David Martin:
How do you think it compares?
> How does this definition square with the bombing of Dresden or Hiroshima for example?
How do you think it compares?
In reply to Rampikino:
I don't think you are correct. I don't think they deliberately aimed to kill civilians. They saw army, police, politicians etc as fair game and also economic interests but I don't think they deliberately tried to kill civilians.
I don't think you are correct. I don't think they deliberately aimed to kill civilians. They saw army, police, politicians etc as fair game and also economic interests but I don't think they deliberately tried to kill civilians.
In reply to MG:
http://tinyurl.com/pv5s2ru
Have a read.. they did target civilians. Until the mid 90's when the splinter groups came to the for. Many 100's were killed by the PIRA.
Warrington being the obvious example, that was pure and simple murder of civilians.
> I don't think you are correct. I don't think they deliberately aimed to kill civilians. They saw army, police, politicians etc as fair game and also economic interests but I don't think they deliberately tried to kill civilians.
http://tinyurl.com/pv5s2ru
Have a read.. they did target civilians. Until the mid 90's when the splinter groups came to the for. Many 100's were killed by the PIRA.
Warrington being the obvious example, that was pure and simple murder of civilians.
In reply to MG:
You only needed the first three words.
Naive in the extreme.
> I don't think they deliberately tried to kill civilians.
You only needed the first three words.
Naive in the extreme.
In reply to IainRUK:
A (ineffectual maybe) warning was given. The aim was economic loss and disruption, not murder. The same is true for most if not all the bombings etc on your list. As above, they were reckless and cavalier on occasion with people's lives but I don't think they aimed to kill civilians.
> Warrington being the obvious example, that was pure and simple murder of civilians.
A (ineffectual maybe) warning was given. The aim was economic loss and disruption, not murder. The same is true for most if not all the bombings etc on your list. As above, they were reckless and cavalier on occasion with people's lives but I don't think they aimed to kill civilians.
In reply to MG:
Guildford bombing, Hyde Park, dont think the Baltic Exchange bombing was phoned in either.
Using whether they target civilians or not doesnt really work as a distinction in any case. Since it can be a pragmatic decision not to rather than actually caring about causalities.
If you start killing people you risk that the population may respond aggressively and encourage the government to harsher methods in response.
Targeting infrastructure and making life inconvenient but not actually killing people is less likely to trigger that response.
> (In reply to Rampikino)
>
> I don't think you are correct. I don't think they deliberately aimed to kill civilians. They saw army, police, politicians etc as fair game and also economic interests but I don't think they deliberately tried to kill civilians.
>
> I don't think you are correct. I don't think they deliberately aimed to kill civilians. They saw army, police, politicians etc as fair game and also economic interests but I don't think they deliberately tried to kill civilians.
Guildford bombing, Hyde Park, dont think the Baltic Exchange bombing was phoned in either.
Using whether they target civilians or not doesnt really work as a distinction in any case. Since it can be a pragmatic decision not to rather than actually caring about causalities.
If you start killing people you risk that the population may respond aggressively and encourage the government to harsher methods in response.
Targeting infrastructure and making life inconvenient but not actually killing people is less likely to trigger that response.
In reply to MG:
There were an awful lot of failed warnings, enough to judge them cavalier or perhaps even just propaganda so that they could try to blame the authorities for not acting on the warnings?
> A (ineffectual maybe) warning was given. The aim was economic loss and disruption, not murder. The same is true for most if not all the bombings etc on your list. As above, they were reckless and cavalier on occasion with people's lives but I don't think they aimed to kill civilians.
There were an awful lot of failed warnings, enough to judge them cavalier or perhaps even just propaganda so that they could try to blame the authorities for not acting on the warnings?
In reply to dissonance:
I know, that's why they did it and why I am fairly certain mass murder wasn't their aim. In fact if they were aiming to kill people, they were spectacularly inept.
> Targeting infrastructure and making life inconvenient but not actually killing people is less likely to trigger that response.
I know, that's why they did it and why I am fairly certain mass murder wasn't their aim. In fact if they were aiming to kill people, they were spectacularly inept.
Post edited at 13:40
In reply to MG:
Not for all and in many the warnings were too late..
The remembrance parade bombing.. I don't think there was a warning.
Not for all and in many the warnings were too late..
The remembrance parade bombing.. I don't think there was a warning.
In reply to MG:
No, they just caused terror.. and some loss of life was unavoidable to get that message across. Had they targeted say football games, and killed 1000's then we'd have seen huge responses and thats not what they wanted to do.
No, they just caused terror.. and some loss of life was unavoidable to get that message across. Had they targeted say football games, and killed 1000's then we'd have seen huge responses and thats not what they wanted to do.
In reply to MG:
They did do so on occasion though and on others showed complete disregard for them to the point of they might as well directly targeted people. So saying they didnt target civilians is incorrect, just that overall it was avoided.
So getting back to the OP.
Freedom Fighter: a cause I agree with and a level of violence I find acceptable.
Terrorist: Either a cause I dont agree with (regardless of level of violence) or a level of violence I dont find acceptable.
> I know, that's why they did it and why I am fairly certain mass murder wasn't their aim. In fact if they were aiming to kill people, they were spectacularly inept.
They did do so on occasion though and on others showed complete disregard for them to the point of they might as well directly targeted people. So saying they didnt target civilians is incorrect, just that overall it was avoided.
So getting back to the OP.
Freedom Fighter: a cause I agree with and a level of violence I find acceptable.
Terrorist: Either a cause I dont agree with (regardless of level of violence) or a level of violence I dont find acceptable.
Post edited at 13:48
In reply to csw:
Black and Tans were certainly war addled thugs, but were they not there on Churchill's orders? Terrorist volunteer, surely? Yes, Internment was and it just rallied support. It is complicated, probably will be for many years.
So, in which case the original IRA are freedom fighters, fighting for independence against the Black and Tans? Must be!
Either way people would be hard pushed to say Mandela was a terrorist IMO. Activist yes, tough yes, willing to fight and die yes, but what a terrible infringement of human rights he fought.
> , but then, I'd call the Black and Tans a terrorist organisation too - and Internment was something of a Human rights violation, don't you think?
Black and Tans were certainly war addled thugs, but were they not there on Churchill's orders? Terrorist volunteer, surely? Yes, Internment was and it just rallied support. It is complicated, probably will be for many years.
So, in which case the original IRA are freedom fighters, fighting for independence against the Black and Tans? Must be!
Either way people would be hard pushed to say Mandela was a terrorist IMO. Activist yes, tough yes, willing to fight and die yes, but what a terrible infringement of human rights he fought.
In reply to Removed User:
Perspective.
jk
> The difference between a terrorist and a freedomfighter?
Perspective.
jk
In reply to dissonance:
So saying they didnt target civilians is incorrect, just that overall it was avoided.
Well that's the line pretty much any army takes. What are we discussing again?
So saying they didnt target civilians is incorrect, just that overall it was avoided.
Well that's the line pretty much any army takes. What are we discussing again?
In reply to csw:
Simple really. It would be terror, perhaps under the banner of fighting for freedom but terrorism all the same. A deliberate targeting of civilians.
"Shock and awe" was also terrorism. While it didn't deliberately target civilians, any time we launch explosives in to an urban area, even with pinpoint accuracy, we can be sure civilians will be killed. Not only can we be sure of that but we must expect and accept it. In that respect I find little difference between this and blowing up a bus intentionally.
Frankly, in war I think everything is pretty much fair game. It is total and utter abandonment of norms and civilised behaviour, with each individual pushing their limits as far as they are comfortable with.
> How do you think it compares?
Simple really. It would be terror, perhaps under the banner of fighting for freedom but terrorism all the same. A deliberate targeting of civilians.
"Shock and awe" was also terrorism. While it didn't deliberately target civilians, any time we launch explosives in to an urban area, even with pinpoint accuracy, we can be sure civilians will be killed. Not only can we be sure of that but we must expect and accept it. In that respect I find little difference between this and blowing up a bus intentionally.
Frankly, in war I think everything is pretty much fair game. It is total and utter abandonment of norms and civilised behaviour, with each individual pushing their limits as far as they are comfortable with.
In reply to Lukeva:
Even if Mandela was a terrorist, you have to accept a willingness to change. Holding against him actions from decades ago, against subsequent actions of profound dignity, would be poorly placed.
It is as misguided as how some continue to condemn the Japanese or the Germans as a result of WWII, despite both countries having arguably followed more peaceful and benign trajectories than the countries they fought against and who continue to condemn them. You actions in the present and recent history are surely more important than ancient history.
> Either way people would be hard pushed to say Mandela was a terrorist IMO. Activist yes, tough yes, willing to fight and die yes, but what a terrible infringement of human rights he fought.
Even if Mandela was a terrorist, you have to accept a willingness to change. Holding against him actions from decades ago, against subsequent actions of profound dignity, would be poorly placed.
It is as misguided as how some continue to condemn the Japanese or the Germans as a result of WWII, despite both countries having arguably followed more peaceful and benign trajectories than the countries they fought against and who continue to condemn them. You actions in the present and recent history are surely more important than ancient history.
In reply to David Martin:
What; rape, torture and murder are fair game? I don't think they are, they may happen but they are not fair game
> Frankly, in war I think everything is pretty much fair game. It is total and utter abandonment of norms and civilised behaviour, with each individual pushing their limits as far as they are comfortable with.
What; rape, torture and murder are fair game? I don't think they are, they may happen but they are not fair game
In reply to David Martin:
Exactly.. its basically semantics.. the main thing is the path taken after that.
> Even if Mandela was a terrorist, you have to accept a willingness to change. Holding against him actions from decades ago, against subsequent actions of profound dignity, would be poorly placed.
Exactly.. its basically semantics.. the main thing is the path taken after that.
In reply to David Martin:
It's unrealistic to expect generations that experienced what was done by those you mention to forgive and forget and I would not therefore class those events as "ancient" history.
It's unrealistic to expect generations that experienced what was done by those you mention to forgive and forget and I would not therefore class those events as "ancient" history.
In reply to GridNorth:
The ones that remember are practically all dead!
> It's unrealistic to expect generations that experienced what was done by those you mention to forgive and forget
The ones that remember are practically all dead!
In reply to David Martin:
Hmmm agree in part, his imprisonment was the best thing that could have happened, it didn't silence him politically, quite the opposite, probably prevented further bloodshed.
Disagree with the Nazi sentiment- Josef Mengele stopped removing children's eye's but no amount of good deeds would secure him a Nobel Peace Prize. Ok, being a little facetious but modern Germany has very little connection to the third reich. Mandela did form the MK, but the sheer lack of violence or civil war... he has to take a lot of credit?
> Even if Mandela was a terrorist, you have to accept a willingness to change. Holding against him actions from decades ago, against subsequent actions of profound dignity, would be poorly placed.
> It is as misguided as how some continue to condemn the Japanese or the Germans as a result of WWII, despite both countries having arguably followed more peaceful and benign trajectories than the countries they fought against and who continue to condemn them. You actions in the present and recent history are surely more important than ancient history.
Hmmm agree in part, his imprisonment was the best thing that could have happened, it didn't silence him politically, quite the opposite, probably prevented further bloodshed.
Disagree with the Nazi sentiment- Josef Mengele stopped removing children's eye's but no amount of good deeds would secure him a Nobel Peace Prize. Ok, being a little facetious but modern Germany has very little connection to the third reich. Mandela did form the MK, but the sheer lack of violence or civil war... he has to take a lot of credit?
In reply to IainRUK:
Jerry Adams is still an arse!
> Exactly.. its basically semantics.. the main thing is the path taken after that.
Jerry Adams is still an arse!
In reply to aln:
Agreed.
> In reply to csw:
> > Freedom fighter: Access to PR apparatus
> > Freedom fighter: Access to PR apparatus
> > Terrorist: No access to PR apparatus
> > Guardians of democracy: Owns PR apparatus
> That sums it up
Agreed.
In reply to Lukeva:
Perhaps an unfortunate choice of words considering the controversial family history.
He has carefully steered clear of high public office and forms of international recognition that others of similar background in revolutionary politics and armed conflict have reached. We will never know what turmoil the man has carried with him during the same period that he made a substantial contribution to the advancement of human rights in the north of Ireland.
> Jerry Adams is still an arse!
Perhaps an unfortunate choice of words considering the controversial family history.
He has carefully steered clear of high public office and forms of international recognition that others of similar background in revolutionary politics and armed conflict have reached. We will never know what turmoil the man has carried with him during the same period that he made a substantial contribution to the advancement of human rights in the north of Ireland.
In reply to Jim Fraser:
Family history aside. If there is turmoil he hides it incredibly well. He is cold, callus and calculated. He has a bloody good poker face in interviews.
Family history aside. If there is turmoil he hides it incredibly well. He is cold, callus and calculated. He has a bloody good poker face in interviews.
In reply to Lukeva:
I had him in my sights once - not that that puts me in a particularly exclusive club
I remember cutting his face out of an election flyer and pasting on to Auntie Jayne from Club International, and distributing copies around Turf Lodge - It didn't help - He still won the seat
He always struck me as sincere. I wouldn't call myself a fan, but I certainly rated him higher than Thatch, for instance. For anyone with backbone and a set of principles in that time and place, staying uninvolved would have been very hard indeed. Let's not forget that the troops went over there in 1969 to stop the loyalists from burning the Catholics out of their homes, under the approving eyes of the RUC
> Jerry Adams is still an arse!
I had him in my sights once - not that that puts me in a particularly exclusive club
I remember cutting his face out of an election flyer and pasting on to Auntie Jayne from Club International, and distributing copies around Turf Lodge - It didn't help - He still won the seat
He always struck me as sincere. I wouldn't call myself a fan, but I certainly rated him higher than Thatch, for instance. For anyone with backbone and a set of principles in that time and place, staying uninvolved would have been very hard indeed. Let's not forget that the troops went over there in 1969 to stop the loyalists from burning the Catholics out of their homes, under the approving eyes of the RUC
In reply to Lukeva:
> He is cold, callus and calculated.
Not when you meet him, he has always been incredibly warm to our lass and me.> He has a bloody good poker face in interviews.
He's still much better than a voice over In reply to csw:
He must have been on many organisations' lists! It's amazing how quickly the British Army went from hero to villain there in Ireland. Badly managed, yes just because Thatcher didn't negotiate with them she could have given a damn. Reading about it and watching tv documentaries she seemed apathetic to the troubles. I've seen Adams and Mandela compared.
He must have been on many organisations' lists! It's amazing how quickly the British Army went from hero to villain there in Ireland. Badly managed, yes just because Thatcher didn't negotiate with them she could have given a damn. Reading about it and watching tv documentaries she seemed apathetic to the troubles. I've seen Adams and Mandela compared.
In reply to Tony the Blade: I would very much like to meet him. He seems fine until questioned about the more sinister side of the troubles and he seems to go into lobotomised mode.
Haha the accent is great!
He would split a lot more opinions re terrorist or freedom fighter than Mandela, in the UK at least. I have been pondering that question for 3 years, still no closer to figuring it out (philosophically not Adams in particular)
Haha the accent is great!
He would split a lot more opinions re terrorist or freedom fighter than Mandela, in the UK at least. I have been pondering that question for 3 years, still no closer to figuring it out (philosophically not Adams in particular)
In reply to Removed User:
I'm wondering if blowing things up where people aren't present, as opposed to blowing things up where people may be or definitely are, makes a difference to whether somebody is a freedom fighter rather than a terrorist?
Pehaps 'disrupting' things under an oppressive regime in that way is still on the right side of the moral line?
I'm wondering if blowing things up where people aren't present, as opposed to blowing things up where people may be or definitely are, makes a difference to whether somebody is a freedom fighter rather than a terrorist?
Pehaps 'disrupting' things under an oppressive regime in that way is still on the right side of the moral line?
In reply to Timmd:
Attacking the infrastructure is one thing - attacking the population is another, but seriously, the distinction between freedom fighter and Terrorist is an entirely artificial one.
Attacking the infrastructure is one thing - attacking the population is another, but seriously, the distinction between freedom fighter and Terrorist is an entirely artificial one.
In reply to Lukeva:
Correct. Dave is implying that some later attacks were APLA based, outside
ANC/MK control.
> I know little about this but did he not form the MK, that is the ANC militia and didn't he call for guerrilla tactics? This was before his incarceration as I understand.
Correct. Dave is implying that some later attacks were APLA based, outside
ANC/MK control.
In reply to Badly managed, yes just because Thatcher didn't negotiate with them she could have given a damn.
Are you American?
Are you American?
In reply to Removed User:
A terrorist is someone who fights for a cause you don't believe in or agree with.
A freedom fighter is someone who fights for a cause you do believe in and is both true and just.
Americans are terrorists to some, and freedom fighters to others.
A terrorist is someone who fights for a cause you don't believe in or agree with.
A freedom fighter is someone who fights for a cause you do believe in and is both true and just.
Americans are terrorists to some, and freedom fighters to others.
In reply to Removed User:
Yes I've come to assert that the only difference is perception. I just thought they may be more too it. Perhaps not
Yes I've come to assert that the only difference is perception. I just thought they may be more too it. Perhaps not
In reply to Removed User:
Someone who sets off bombs in markets, buses or trains in order to kill as many people as possible, particularly civilians is a murderer and not a freedom fighter.
(Or religiously aggrevated murder if Allahu Akhbar is shouted moments before)
Someone who sets off bombs in markets, buses or trains in order to kill as many people as possible, particularly civilians is a murderer and not a freedom fighter.
(Or religiously aggrevated murder if Allahu Akhbar is shouted moments before)
In reply to Cardi:
I'd modify this slightly to read:
Someone who sets off bombs in public places and in doing so, knowingly kills non combatants, is a murderer and not a freedom fighter.
I'd also add that I don't see any ethical difference between walking into these places with the device on your body, and sitting in a swivel chair and launching it remotely.
> Someone who sets off bombs in markets, buses or trains in order to kill as many people as possible, particularly civilians is a murderer and not a freedom fighter.
I'd modify this slightly to read:
Someone who sets off bombs in public places and in doing so, knowingly kills non combatants, is a murderer and not a freedom fighter.
I'd also add that I don't see any ethical difference between walking into these places with the device on your body, and sitting in a swivel chair and launching it remotely.
Post edited at 10:45
In reply to Cardi:
So that makes our mass destrucion of German cities, shooting unarmed Irishmen, the MauMau and so on as terrorist crimes
So that makes our mass destrucion of German cities, shooting unarmed Irishmen, the MauMau and so on as terrorist crimes
In reply to Dave Perry:
The bombing of cities during WW2, yes definitely following the terrorist ideology
The bombing of cities during WW2, yes definitely following the terrorist ideology
In reply to Removed User:
Not a bad starting point for a definition but that's certainly not how the term is used in our propagandized media.
Usually a freedom fighter is someone fighting on your governments side and terrorist is someone on the other side.
By most sensible definitions of 'terrorist' many states would be classified as such and I remember reading a book, many years ago, called Western State Terrorism. It set out to show that western states like the US and Britain were not only terrorist in nature but the biggest, most active terrorists in the world, killing far more people than other terrorist organisations.
Of course in our Orwellian world of doublespeak, today even some pacifists are defined as terrorist which is plainly ridiculous.
Not a bad starting point for a definition but that's certainly not how the term is used in our propagandized media.
Usually a freedom fighter is someone fighting on your governments side and terrorist is someone on the other side.
By most sensible definitions of 'terrorist' many states would be classified as such and I remember reading a book, many years ago, called Western State Terrorism. It set out to show that western states like the US and Britain were not only terrorist in nature but the biggest, most active terrorists in the world, killing far more people than other terrorist organisations.
Of course in our Orwellian world of doublespeak, today even some pacifists are defined as terrorist which is plainly ridiculous.
In reply to stp:
The Allies aimed to neutralise the German War machine, but were of course limited by technology and opppsing force. Whether justified or not, the bombings in Baghdad for instance, were not aimed to flatten civillian areas, something that a 'terrorist' would do given the chance.
The Allies aimed to neutralise the German War machine, but were of course limited by technology and opppsing force. Whether justified or not, the bombings in Baghdad for instance, were not aimed to flatten civillian areas, something that a 'terrorist' would do given the chance.
In reply to Cardi:
Well yes, but the allies also bombed civilians homes, places of work and culture with the aim demoralising and terrorising the Germans. Plainly because hitler did it to London. That's why bomber command were decorated so late.
Well yes, but the allies also bombed civilians homes, places of work and culture with the aim demoralising and terrorising the Germans. Plainly because hitler did it to London. That's why bomber command were decorated so late.
In reply to Removed User:
Terrorism is a method, and a terrorist is someone who uses this method. The idea is not to inflict damage but to cause a violent reaction of your enemy which will create enough disgust in the population aimed at to score a political victory... It doesn't make any difference if the terrorist is morally right or wrong, they can still be technically terrorists.
For example the French resistance during WW2 used terrorist tactics - the assassination of a young German officer off duty in the Paris Metro was the first attack, in order to push the Germans to react by executing civilian French hostages taken at random by the dozen, 20 or 30 at a time IIRC, and this created a shock in the French population, shaking them out of their apathy and bringing home to them the reality of the Occupation and war in general. As such it was a highly successful method used by people that few today see as anything but heroes, heroes and terrorists, the two can go together.
The moral judgement of those concerned is independent of the judgement of the method. A very few people may judge all violence to be condemnable but the majority, I think, would consider that using violence, and terrorism, against the Nazis, for example, justifiable.
Terrorism is a method, and a terrorist is someone who uses this method. The idea is not to inflict damage but to cause a violent reaction of your enemy which will create enough disgust in the population aimed at to score a political victory... It doesn't make any difference if the terrorist is morally right or wrong, they can still be technically terrorists.
For example the French resistance during WW2 used terrorist tactics - the assassination of a young German officer off duty in the Paris Metro was the first attack, in order to push the Germans to react by executing civilian French hostages taken at random by the dozen, 20 or 30 at a time IIRC, and this created a shock in the French population, shaking them out of their apathy and bringing home to them the reality of the Occupation and war in general. As such it was a highly successful method used by people that few today see as anything but heroes, heroes and terrorists, the two can go together.
The moral judgement of those concerned is independent of the judgement of the method. A very few people may judge all violence to be condemnable but the majority, I think, would consider that using violence, and terrorism, against the Nazis, for example, justifiable.
In reply to Lukeva:
I don't think this is true, the aim wasn't to terrorise German civilians it was to physically destroy them to damage the German war effort. Even Goebbels in his diaries rants about how effective destroying skilled workers was, to quote him (approximately), rebuilding factories and railway lines is comparatively easy, recreating skilled work forces to man the factories is far more difficult.
The Germans had thought that bombing civilians in the Blitz would demoralise the population and weaken Britain but in fact it had the opposite effect. This lesson wouldn't have escaped those who decided on the tactic of blitzing German cities, they knew that this would not "terrorise" the Germans any more than it had the British, it was to weaken the industrial power of Germany and their power of defence to bring the war to an end as quickly as possible, there was no terrorist motive involved IMO.
> The bombing of cities during WW2, yes definitely following the terrorist ideology
I don't think this is true, the aim wasn't to terrorise German civilians it was to physically destroy them to damage the German war effort. Even Goebbels in his diaries rants about how effective destroying skilled workers was, to quote him (approximately), rebuilding factories and railway lines is comparatively easy, recreating skilled work forces to man the factories is far more difficult.
The Germans had thought that bombing civilians in the Blitz would demoralise the population and weaken Britain but in fact it had the opposite effect. This lesson wouldn't have escaped those who decided on the tactic of blitzing German cities, they knew that this would not "terrorise" the Germans any more than it had the British, it was to weaken the industrial power of Germany and their power of defence to bring the war to an end as quickly as possible, there was no terrorist motive involved IMO.
In reply to Removed User:
Isn't the clue in the actual term "terrorist"? Terror = extreme fear. Acts of terrorism are designed to instil fear in civilian population in the hope, presumably, that it will result in a change of government policy. Feedom fighters, on the other hand, are directly fighting to overthrow a government.
Isn't the clue in the actual term "terrorist"? Terror = extreme fear. Acts of terrorism are designed to instil fear in civilian population in the hope, presumably, that it will result in a change of government policy. Feedom fighters, on the other hand, are directly fighting to overthrow a government.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Without any disrespect to the extraordinary courage of the crews of Bomber Command, I think you are being too charitable here.
Bomber Harris knew early on that bombing wasn't tactical; it was intended as an instrument of demoralisation, terror if you like, and he persisted with it - to the detriment of other war aims - even after experience at home and from Germany was that it was ineffective at destroying civilian morale.
There is the story of him speeding home and being stopped by a policeman who warned him that speeding in the blackout he could kill someone. 'Young man', Harris is alleged to have said, 'I kill thousands every night.'
Without any disrespect to the extraordinary courage of the crews of Bomber Command, I think you are being too charitable here.
Bomber Harris knew early on that bombing wasn't tactical; it was intended as an instrument of demoralisation, terror if you like, and he persisted with it - to the detriment of other war aims - even after experience at home and from Germany was that it was ineffective at destroying civilian morale.
There is the story of him speeding home and being stopped by a policeman who warned him that speeding in the blackout he could kill someone. 'Young man', Harris is alleged to have said, 'I kill thousands every night.'
In reply to Removed User:
It seems to me from the replies that we can sum it up as:
All armed conflict is terrorism and it is only perception that distinguishes it as anything else.
It seems to me from the replies that we can sum it up as:
All armed conflict is terrorism and it is only perception that distinguishes it as anything else.
In reply to MG:
I mean that if the cause it not righteous, then it's neither!
> I think it's quite clear. Assuming the cause is righteous,
> Those two sentences really do not go together
I mean that if the cause it not righteous, then it's neither!
In reply to David Martin:
Probably, in hindsight, it was close to terrorism. And again in hindsight, the bombing apparatus would have been better served (morally and practically) to destroy the German military machine directly.
> How does this definition square with the bombing of Dresden or Hiroshima for example?
Probably, in hindsight, it was close to terrorism. And again in hindsight, the bombing apparatus would have been better served (morally and practically) to destroy the German military machine directly.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Wow! We agree.
> Terrorism is a method, and a terrorist is someone who uses this method. The idea is not to inflict damage but to cause a violent reaction of your enemy which will create enough disgust in the population aimed at to score a political victory...
Wow! We agree.
In reply to Removed User:
Freedom fighters are the ones fighting on 'your' side for views you share.
Terrorists are fighters who oppose you and thus they belong to the 'other' side.
Freedom fighters are the ones fighting on 'your' side for views you share.
Terrorists are fighters who oppose you and thus they belong to the 'other' side.
In reply to MikeTS and Rob:
Not entirely as I don't call destroying the German industrial machine terrorism, it was actual destruction of enemy forces not aiming at a political effect - there was no need to demoralise German workers if you had killed them. The fire storms created in the industrial cities were so, strong that people walking nearby were sucked in, the effect was as powerful as an atomic bomb. By destroying German production units, ie. people, and those who supported them - their wives, the German production machine, which was entirely devoted to the war effort at the time, was seriously weakened. This was the aim of the carpet bombing, not any psychological effect, just sledge-hammer tactics.
Many have criticised this as immoral but given what the war cost the world, 60 million dead or thereabouts, and what the German people had done and were still doing in the gas chambers at the time, I think the method was entirely justified. It was debated at the time as some said the railway lines to the concentration camps should have been bombed instead, or even the camps themselves, but railways can be rebuilt, human population required to keep the industrial heart of Germany beating couldn't.
As I said Goebbels says this himself in his diaries and whatever we may think of him he was at the very centre of the German intelligence system, he knew what was going on more than anyone else. I realise it's fashionable to criticize those who pushed for the swiftest methods of defeating Germany by any methods but I don't think it is in line with the facts.
Not entirely as I don't call destroying the German industrial machine terrorism, it was actual destruction of enemy forces not aiming at a political effect - there was no need to demoralise German workers if you had killed them. The fire storms created in the industrial cities were so, strong that people walking nearby were sucked in, the effect was as powerful as an atomic bomb. By destroying German production units, ie. people, and those who supported them - their wives, the German production machine, which was entirely devoted to the war effort at the time, was seriously weakened. This was the aim of the carpet bombing, not any psychological effect, just sledge-hammer tactics.
Many have criticised this as immoral but given what the war cost the world, 60 million dead or thereabouts, and what the German people had done and were still doing in the gas chambers at the time, I think the method was entirely justified. It was debated at the time as some said the railway lines to the concentration camps should have been bombed instead, or even the camps themselves, but railways can be rebuilt, human population required to keep the industrial heart of Germany beating couldn't.
As I said Goebbels says this himself in his diaries and whatever we may think of him he was at the very centre of the German intelligence system, he knew what was going on more than anyone else. I realise it's fashionable to criticize those who pushed for the swiftest methods of defeating Germany by any methods but I don't think it is in line with the facts.
In reply to Removed User:
I'd disagree, it's only when you start intentionally targeting noncombatants that you start flirting with terror tactics. It's interesting though, that as warfare gets more technological, it seems to claim more civilian casualties.
People have spoken about the carpet bombing of German cities in WWII, and while the Germans used to refer to Bomber Command as "Terror fliers", [and there's no doubt that the people ordering the missions were aware of the inevitablilty of civilian casualties] there are extenuating circumstances. Strategic bombing was the only way Britain could take the fight to Germany in the early days of the war, and massed bomber formations, with no fighter escorts weren't going to survive the journey to the Ruhr and back in daylight. Precision bombing in those days, under those conditions, meant getting the bombs inside the city. British heavy bombers sacrificed defensive armament for bombload. One of the reasons the yanks could bomb in daylight, was that a B17 had about the same bombload as a Mosquito....
So. To hit a factory, necessarily meant plastering the town that the factory was in, and firestorm bombing delivered more destruction per ton of bombs than high explosive. When you know that even a successful raid is going to set you back a hundred or so trained aircrew, I daresay it altered the perception of what was acceptable. like it or not. we couldn't have survived without bombing Germany, and there was only one realistic way to go about it.
You can make an equivalent argument for the nuking of Japan, given that the alternative was an amphibious invasion which would have incurred massive US casualties. If I'm honest, I would bet that the opportunity to live test a new class of weaponry was a factor too. But regardless of the motivation for using the bomb, the justification was all of the soldiers who got to go home, from a war they didn't start, who'd otherwise have died on Japanese soil.
What I hate most about WWII was the fact that it's enabled so much else to be justified since. As a general rule the decision to engage in armed conflict is ethically murky at best, but WWII has given us an example of a war which pretty much [from the allies POV] had to be fought. Which means that now, any time a government wants to shoot at a leader they don't like, all they have to do is photoshop a toothbrush moustache on to him.
> It seems to me from the replies that we can sum it up as:
> All armed conflict is terrorism and it is only perception that distinguishes it as anything else.
I'd disagree, it's only when you start intentionally targeting noncombatants that you start flirting with terror tactics. It's interesting though, that as warfare gets more technological, it seems to claim more civilian casualties.
People have spoken about the carpet bombing of German cities in WWII, and while the Germans used to refer to Bomber Command as "Terror fliers", [and there's no doubt that the people ordering the missions were aware of the inevitablilty of civilian casualties] there are extenuating circumstances. Strategic bombing was the only way Britain could take the fight to Germany in the early days of the war, and massed bomber formations, with no fighter escorts weren't going to survive the journey to the Ruhr and back in daylight. Precision bombing in those days, under those conditions, meant getting the bombs inside the city. British heavy bombers sacrificed defensive armament for bombload. One of the reasons the yanks could bomb in daylight, was that a B17 had about the same bombload as a Mosquito....
So. To hit a factory, necessarily meant plastering the town that the factory was in, and firestorm bombing delivered more destruction per ton of bombs than high explosive. When you know that even a successful raid is going to set you back a hundred or so trained aircrew, I daresay it altered the perception of what was acceptable. like it or not. we couldn't have survived without bombing Germany, and there was only one realistic way to go about it.
You can make an equivalent argument for the nuking of Japan, given that the alternative was an amphibious invasion which would have incurred massive US casualties. If I'm honest, I would bet that the opportunity to live test a new class of weaponry was a factor too. But regardless of the motivation for using the bomb, the justification was all of the soldiers who got to go home, from a war they didn't start, who'd otherwise have died on Japanese soil.
What I hate most about WWII was the fact that it's enabled so much else to be justified since. As a general rule the decision to engage in armed conflict is ethically murky at best, but WWII has given us an example of a war which pretty much [from the allies POV] had to be fought. Which means that now, any time a government wants to shoot at a leader they don't like, all they have to do is photoshop a toothbrush moustache on to him.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
I've just checked wiki:
'the aim of the Combined Bomber Offensive...should be unambiguously stated [as] the destruction of German cities, the killing of German workers, and the disruption of civilised life throughout Germany... the destruction of houses, public utilities, transport and lives, the creation of a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale, and the breakdown of morale both at home and at the battle fronts by fear of extended and intensified bombing, are accepted and intended aims of our bombing policy. They are not by-products of attempts to hit factories.'
Pretty much a definition of state sponsored terrorism I should say. And the fact that the Nazis were doing even worse things is really no excuse.
I've just checked wiki:
'the aim of the Combined Bomber Offensive...should be unambiguously stated [as] the destruction of German cities, the killing of German workers, and the disruption of civilised life throughout Germany... the destruction of houses, public utilities, transport and lives, the creation of a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale, and the breakdown of morale both at home and at the battle fronts by fear of extended and intensified bombing, are accepted and intended aims of our bombing policy. They are not by-products of attempts to hit factories.'
Pretty much a definition of state sponsored terrorism I should say. And the fact that the Nazis were doing even worse things is really no excuse.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
I don't want to call it terrorism either, it somehow undermines the efforts of those flight crews. However, they did aim to kill civilians in direct reaction to the Blitz. You bomb our cities we'll bomb yours. The Brits and Germans were terrorised, not demoralised. This follows an certain ideology. Notwithstanding that, it was total war.
I don't want to call it terrorism either, it somehow undermines the efforts of those flight crews. However, they did aim to kill civilians in direct reaction to the Blitz. You bomb our cities we'll bomb yours. The Brits and Germans were terrorised, not demoralised. This follows an certain ideology. Notwithstanding that, it was total war.
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
>
And the fact that the Nazis were doing even worse things is really no excuse.
So should we have played 'by the rules' and risked losing to the Nazi menace?
>
And the fact that the Nazis were doing even worse things is really no excuse.
So should we have played 'by the rules' and risked losing to the Nazi menace?
In reply to Lukeva and Rob:
I think you'll find the massive bombing of industrial cities came later on in the war, it was not a direct reaction to the Blitz. I don't think it's terrorism though as I stick to the definition of terrorism as violence, often extreme violence, used to create a political effect. The bombing of the industrial cities and the deliberate bombing of their workers is simply standard warfare in which each side attempts to destroy enemy forces, including the industrial ones.
WW2 was a situation of total war, two industrial production complexes slugging it out and if the Allies won it's basically because the Allied production system was more powerful - thanks to a great extent to the US productive capacity, then at the end of the war that of the USSR added to this. In such a situation of total war the notion of civilian and combatant is lost to a great extent as it's the productive capacity that fights the war as much as the man holding a rifle.
This situation is further simplified by it being known by now what the German people and their allies were doing in the concentration camps, every day wasted was tens of thousands of more humans being burnt, it was hard to have the slightest sympathy for those who had to be killed to end the war as quickly as possible.
I think you'll find the massive bombing of industrial cities came later on in the war, it was not a direct reaction to the Blitz. I don't think it's terrorism though as I stick to the definition of terrorism as violence, often extreme violence, used to create a political effect. The bombing of the industrial cities and the deliberate bombing of their workers is simply standard warfare in which each side attempts to destroy enemy forces, including the industrial ones.
WW2 was a situation of total war, two industrial production complexes slugging it out and if the Allies won it's basically because the Allied production system was more powerful - thanks to a great extent to the US productive capacity, then at the end of the war that of the USSR added to this. In such a situation of total war the notion of civilian and combatant is lost to a great extent as it's the productive capacity that fights the war as much as the man holding a rifle.
This situation is further simplified by it being known by now what the German people and their allies were doing in the concentration camps, every day wasted was tens of thousands of more humans being burnt, it was hard to have the slightest sympathy for those who had to be killed to end the war as quickly as possible.
In reply to Removed User:
a freedom fighter is someone who fights for a cause aligned to the guardian of democracies strategic objectives and has the approval of its PR department
d
a freedom fighter is someone who fights for a cause aligned to the guardian of democracies strategic objectives and has the approval of its PR department
d
In reply to Dauphin:
Not very far if you look at these pictures....
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=231655
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=231653
Not very far if you look at these pictures....
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=231655
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=231653
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Definitely not. The sponsored part means that you pay or enable someone else to do it on your behalf, like Libya and the IRA or other groups.
It's not State Terrorism either becaue it doesn't employ terrorist tactics, it's a huge war machine. Carpet bombing sums it up nicely, why confuse the issue with more complex terms that don't explain anything?
> Pretty much a definition of state sponsored terrorism I should say.
Definitely not. The sponsored part means that you pay or enable someone else to do it on your behalf, like Libya and the IRA or other groups.
It's not State Terrorism either becaue it doesn't employ terrorist tactics, it's a huge war machine. Carpet bombing sums it up nicely, why confuse the issue with more complex terms that don't explain anything?
In reply to auld al:
Odd, isn't it? I realise this was the work of a breakaway group but the Irish republican cause seems to be winning the battle for hearts and minds now that they simply couldn't when they were busy killing people.
I find the comments of someone like MG further up the thread bizarre. I'm thinking its his age.
Odd, isn't it? I realise this was the work of a breakaway group but the Irish republican cause seems to be winning the battle for hearts and minds now that they simply couldn't when they were busy killing people.
I find the comments of someone like MG further up the thread bizarre. I'm thinking its his age.
In reply to Removed User:
But there are no longer human rights issues for Catholics. The republican movement can only be for a united Ireland these days?
But there are no longer human rights issues for Catholics. The republican movement can only be for a united Ireland these days?
In reply to Removed User:
It is really easy: If we like them they are freedom fighters, if we don't like them they are terrorists.
It is really easy: If we like them they are freedom fighters, if we don't like them they are terrorists.
In reply to Lukeva:
So that's why they have more support now? If yoou were replying to my observation then I'm not sure what point you are making?
> But there are no longer human rights issues for Catholics. The republican movement can only be for a united Ireland these days?
So that's why they have more support now? If yoou were replying to my observation then I'm not sure what point you are making?
In reply to csw:
There's something in both definitions I think. Some causes require less PR effort than others. The ANC were never going to have much trouble justifying their cause to much of the world, but Al Qaida would struggle even with an army of Lynton Crossbys on their side (what a thought).
I think if governments had any integrity whatsoever they would cease using the term 'terrorist' as it is always used to condemn, to disqualify engagement, to halt progress. An atrocity is an atrocity, some are committed by states with armies, others by violent political movements. Much is made of the distinction between killing innocent civilians as collateral damage rather than targeting them deliberately, but I'm not sure the gulf is so wide. When armies kill civilians, did they really attempt to be as precise as possible in targeting fighters, or did they consider the civilians' lives to be worth much less than those of their own people?
Using the term 'terrorist' to introduce moral distance between them is a dishonest tactic, yet it seems to be a very effective one. And how the American people stomached being at war with an ill-defined concept I will never understand.
> Freedom fighter: Fighting on a budget - we want them to win.
> Terrorist: fighting on a budget - we want them to lose.
> - revised definition:
> Freedom fighter: Access to PR apparatus
> Terrorist: No access to PR apparatus
> Guardians of democracy: Owns PR apparatus
There's something in both definitions I think. Some causes require less PR effort than others. The ANC were never going to have much trouble justifying their cause to much of the world, but Al Qaida would struggle even with an army of Lynton Crossbys on their side (what a thought).
I think if governments had any integrity whatsoever they would cease using the term 'terrorist' as it is always used to condemn, to disqualify engagement, to halt progress. An atrocity is an atrocity, some are committed by states with armies, others by violent political movements. Much is made of the distinction between killing innocent civilians as collateral damage rather than targeting them deliberately, but I'm not sure the gulf is so wide. When armies kill civilians, did they really attempt to be as precise as possible in targeting fighters, or did they consider the civilians' lives to be worth much less than those of their own people?
Using the term 'terrorist' to introduce moral distance between them is a dishonest tactic, yet it seems to be a very effective one. And how the American people stomached being at war with an ill-defined concept I will never understand.
In reply to Removed User:
And the one of the things I've discovered over my life, is eventually we have to end up talking to sort things out. The problem most people have is they don't want to talk to 'terrorists'.
And the one of the things I've discovered over my life, is eventually we have to end up talking to sort things out. The problem most people have is they don't want to talk to 'terrorists'.
In reply to Removed User:
I don't think I get your point regarding the republican movement. It was fiercely supported by many during the early part of the C20 and through the troubles to start with, your point about hearts and minds, who are winning them? MM ran for president, but he lost. The civil rights issues have been resolved, an agreement was made with Westminster, granted not for a untitled Ireland but it's better than it was. Maybe I misunderstood.
I don't think I get your point regarding the republican movement. It was fiercely supported by many during the early part of the C20 and through the troubles to start with, your point about hearts and minds, who are winning them? MM ran for president, but he lost. The civil rights issues have been resolved, an agreement was made with Westminster, granted not for a untitled Ireland but it's better than it was. Maybe I misunderstood.
In reply to Lukeva:
They were supported by some Irish republicans (and not as many as you'd have thought) during the troubles. I don't recal much, if any, support for them from the general British public (Scots catholics excepted)during that period but see far more support for them now from that quarter.
My point is that there is a much greater "rose tinted glasses" view of them now than there was in the 70's, 80's and 90's
They were supported by some Irish republicans (and not as many as you'd have thought) during the troubles. I don't recal much, if any, support for them from the general British public (Scots catholics excepted)during that period but see far more support for them now from that quarter.
My point is that there is a much greater "rose tinted glasses" view of them now than there was in the 70's, 80's and 90's
In reply to Lukeva:
This article from an Irish news paper gives a little more insight on how the Republican movement was perceived then and is still considered now:
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/fionnan-sheahan-cultlike-sinn-fein-not...
This article from an Irish news paper gives a little more insight on how the Republican movement was perceived then and is still considered now:
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/fionnan-sheahan-cultlike-sinn-fein-not...
In reply to Lukeva:
This from an Irish politician:
"For most people in the south, the Troubles meant the IRA killing children in shopping centres in England and blowing people up while they were at prayer," he said
But I do feel that, on this site at least, there is a greater amount of symapthy for their actions now than was present at the time of those actions.
This from an Irish politician:
"For most people in the south, the Troubles meant the IRA killing children in shopping centres in England and blowing people up while they were at prayer," he said
But I do feel that, on this site at least, there is a greater amount of symapthy for their actions now than was present at the time of those actions.
Post edited at 02:56
In reply to Removed User:
He missed out the pub bombings and murdering anyone with even tenuous links to the security forces.
To be fair, since the Good Friday agreement, the stance of the media seems to have been that the troubles consisted of the British Army killing puppies whilst Gerry and Marty sat round singing Kum By Ya.
> This from an Irish politician:
> "For most people in the south, the Troubles meant the IRA killing children in shopping centres in England and blowing people up while they were at prayer," he said
He missed out the pub bombings and murdering anyone with even tenuous links to the security forces.
> But I do feel that, on this site at least, there is a greater amount of symapthy for their actions now than was present at the time of those actions.
To be fair, since the Good Friday agreement, the stance of the media seems to have been that the troubles consisted of the British Army killing puppies whilst Gerry and Marty sat round singing Kum By Ya.
In reply to Ridge:
I strongly disagree with your points. You think the PIRA are supported by the British public now, no they are not. The PIRA have an almost zero public profile these days, they disintegrated after McGuiness and Adams ‘sold them out’ in the Good Friday Agreement. For most people in the south the troubles meant bombs in England?? No chance! It meant Ulster torn apart and a troubled Ireland. The campaign on the mainland did not happen until much later on, it was centred in Ulster and that’s where the majority of deaths occurred. If Sinn Fein is so popular in the Republic why are they not better represented by the voters? The article you linked seems only to say that Sinn Fein are still just parliamentarian terrorists, no?
With respect, I thought you may have some interesting views, but to be honest if you think the PIRA are supported in Britain and the majority of Irish people saw the troubles as mainly bombings in England; I was mistaken.
I strongly disagree with your points. You think the PIRA are supported by the British public now, no they are not. The PIRA have an almost zero public profile these days, they disintegrated after McGuiness and Adams ‘sold them out’ in the Good Friday Agreement. For most people in the south the troubles meant bombs in England?? No chance! It meant Ulster torn apart and a troubled Ireland. The campaign on the mainland did not happen until much later on, it was centred in Ulster and that’s where the majority of deaths occurred. If Sinn Fein is so popular in the Republic why are they not better represented by the voters? The article you linked seems only to say that Sinn Fein are still just parliamentarian terrorists, no?
With respect, I thought you may have some interesting views, but to be honest if you think the PIRA are supported in Britain and the majority of Irish people saw the troubles as mainly bombings in England; I was mistaken.
In reply to Ridge:
The Troubles were and still are viewed as a fight for a united Ireland and to remove the British Army, by people in the Republic - that's not to say the bombings are condoned. These are purely my observations and I am careful not to represent my views.
I have seen several documentaries recently regarding the IRA and it was very forthright in condemning the way they ran there affairs; the Panorama show on 'The Disappeared' for example. And a very interesting recent BBC R4 program on contemporary republican youth groups.
> He missed out the pub bombings and murdering anyone with even tenuous links to the security forces.
> To be fair, since the Good Friday agreement, the stance of the media seems to have been that the troubles consisted of the British Army killing puppies whilst Gerry and Marty sat round singing Kum By Ya.
The Troubles were and still are viewed as a fight for a united Ireland and to remove the British Army, by people in the Republic - that's not to say the bombings are condoned. These are purely my observations and I am careful not to represent my views.
I have seen several documentaries recently regarding the IRA and it was very forthright in condemning the way they ran there affairs; the Panorama show on 'The Disappeared' for example. And a very interesting recent BBC R4 program on contemporary republican youth groups.
In reply to Lukeva:
I think I said there is a greater level of sympathy. That doesn't equate to outright support. And I didn't write the piece about the southern Irish view, someone from the south did.
I think I said there is a greater level of sympathy. That doesn't equate to outright support. And I didn't write the piece about the southern Irish view, someone from the south did.
In reply to Removed User:
'But I do feel that, on this site at least, there is a greater amount of symapthy for their actions now than was present at the time of those actions.'
There's a huge difference between sympathising with a group's political standpoint and condoning their (or an element within's) murderous actions. For example, I could say that I agreed with the IRA's goal of a united Ireland, but that does not extend to agreeing with their methods one bit.
Most of the IRA's methods in England would be defined as terrorism by any rational human being. Likewise the massacre of Irish civilians at Croke Park by British soldiers in 1916.
'But I do feel that, on this site at least, there is a greater amount of symapthy for their actions now than was present at the time of those actions.'
There's a huge difference between sympathising with a group's political standpoint and condoning their (or an element within's) murderous actions. For example, I could say that I agreed with the IRA's goal of a united Ireland, but that does not extend to agreeing with their methods one bit.
Most of the IRA's methods in England would be defined as terrorism by any rational human being. Likewise the massacre of Irish civilians at Croke Park by British soldiers in 1916.
In reply to Removed User:
I don't think I would agree with either of your definitions. I think the access to political process is irrelevant to your question.
A freedom fighter is someone fighting for freedom. This is open to interpretation depending on the views of the interpretor.
A terrorist is someone who uses terrorism as a tool to terrorise people. This is not open to interpretation, though terrorists may claim otherwise!
Terrorism is an act and terrorist is a term used to describe someone who uses/abuses it.
I don't think I would agree with either of your definitions. I think the access to political process is irrelevant to your question.
A freedom fighter is someone fighting for freedom. This is open to interpretation depending on the views of the interpretor.
A terrorist is someone who uses terrorism as a tool to terrorise people. This is not open to interpretation, though terrorists may claim otherwise!
Terrorism is an act and terrorist is a term used to describe someone who uses/abuses it.
In reply to ciaran1999:
What if that freedom fighter has to terrorise his oppressors to gain said freedom? Should they just give up their struggle?
What if that freedom fighter has to terrorise his oppressors to gain said freedom? Should they just give up their struggle?
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...