Terrorism: Cause And Effect

[Rog]

So how would you class the British bombing of the likes of Dresden during WWII. Terrorism? Revenge? Legitimate military traget?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

By today’s standards, unquestionably wrong, but by the standards of the time as well as what had been taking place, principally revenge.

 

Justified revenge?

 

I don’t think that anyone who did not live through those times is entitled to be absolute in offering full support not full condemnation, but I lean towards condemnation, especially in the case of the Dresden raids.

 

Mind, I blame the allies for creating the circumstances in Germany that caused the inevitable rise to power of Hitler.

 

If it had not been him it would have been someone very much of the same nature and my bet is that it would have been Julious Streicher of Der Sturmer fame.

[The Old Git]

So it would seem that time, along with your perspective (based on nationality / race / religion / etc.) can have an effect on whether an act or a person can be seen a good or bad, terrorism or justifiable military action. The British, at the time, presumably saw it as the Germans getting a good kicking, a taste of their own medicine for the bombing of London, Coventry, etc. But applying your criteria now you'd call it terrorism.

 

I still see the terrorist or freedom fighter question as being two sides of the same coin. It depends on how you view that coin.

 

Didn't Mandella's lot used to murder their victims by tying their hands and putting a burning tyre around their neck. Necklacing they used to call it. It all seems to be forgotten now and he's feted as a heroic figure

[Rog]

In my opinion terrorism is where a civilian population is deliberately attacked as a strategy so yes, today I see it as being a case of both sides engaging in terrorism against each other in fact Churchill did say that together with ‘Bomber’ Harrid the intent was to demoralise the German population, presumably by terrorist action, and so disrupt the German manufacturing capability.

 

I would like to think that if I had been around during WW2 I would, like my old Mum, have been very critical of the unrestrained bombing of the Germans though my old Grandmother on the other hand who had been indoctrinated with the baby bayoneting nun-murdering woman-stampeding cattle-raping Hun image from WW1 saw things in a very different light.

 

Where they both agreed was in the case of the Japanese who they both hated with an intensity that had to be seen to be believed because of the atrocities the Japanese conducted against allied POW’s and captured civilians and especially in China.

 

 

And yes, 'necklacing' was a widespread means of political assasination within the Townships.

[The Old Git]

Where they both agreed was in the case of the Japanese who they both hated with an intensity that had to be seen to be believed

 

Two men in my parents' circle of friends were both POWs, one of the Germans and one of the Japanese. They both suffered, but the Japanese prisoner suffered far worse and never enjoyed good health for the rest of his life. Both died in the last year or so. I guess if you'd told them at the time that they'd survive and live for another 60 year they'd never have believed you

[mollag]

Terrorism is not the same as patriotism and one mans terrorist is NOT another mans freedom fighter.

 

Terrorism is not the same as irregular warfare against the armed forces of what is seen as being The Enemy.  Terrorism is conducting a campaign in which the civilian population are targeted in order to create a state of terror.

 

How many of them headed up organisations that deliberately attacked the civilian population of their opponents in order to create and instill terror as a means of bringing political pressure on the governments of their enemies?

 

 

Take that list.

 

Simon Bolivar

Menachim Begin

George Washington

Ho chi min

Thomas Jefferson

Ghandi

Bodecia

Eamon Devalera

Gerry Adams

Jomo Kenyata

 

 

Take Bolivar (dam fine cigars, by the way!)  Though civilians were injured and killed as they always will be in conflict his war was waged against the Spanish military forces of Spain.  Terrorist?  No.

 

Begin?  As leader of The Irgun he certainly led a campaign against the British but again, the British military were the target, not civilians.  Terrorist?  No.

 

Washintgton?  The same applies.  Not a terrorist.

 

Ho Chi Min? Not so easy that one.  The Viet Cong certainly led a war of terror on the South Vietnamese and so I personally would class him as a terrorist but with reservations as the Vietnam situation was far more about a civil war that was in fact a battle ground in the proxy cold war between the US and Comunism.

 

Thomas Jefferson?  See also Washington.

 

Ghandi?  The antithesis of terrorism.  A true freedom fighter but not one who used or condoned terror against the civilian population (or any other population come to that) though the riots that ensued during his campaign certainly led to much bloodshed.  Still no terrorist.

 

Eamon Devalera.  Much more in the terrorist mould.  The campaigns that he led certainly did involve attacks on civilian populations.  A terrorist.

 

Adams?  Should have been shot years ago.  A truly evil man.  Civilian populations became his primary target.

 

Kenyata?  As leader of the Mau Mau who systematically attacked white owned farms and white people he most certainly did fit the terrorist role.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Reiterating the devicive point that each side picks its own terrorists, and forgives them when it is politically expedient.

 

Bolivar his forces killed all captured civilians

 

Begin bragged that he invented urban terrorism see king david hotel

 

Washington/ Jefferson percieved in their time as a traitors by the force in power, england, we would have hanged them,defacto terrrorists, Somebody said civil war? no 100 years later.

 

Ho chi min Supported by the usa and uk when he fought the japanese and vichy french, a great man until we changed him to a terrorist

 

Ghandi jailed numerous times for treason/sedition. Whether we see him as terrorist or not, he was certainly treated as one.

 

Adams well he is an mp on a state salary, could he possibly be a terrorist?

 

And what of Thatcher?

 

Is anyone familiar with the good work of the School of the Americas, it trains terrorists and assasins for the world, financed by the good old USA.

 

I think my rambling point is that there is no innocence or moral high ground and we will suffer these terrible attacks as long as the people we elect lead us into these hazards, they are the last to suffer any of the terrible consequences of their actions.

[P.K.]

Is anyone familiar with the good work of the School of the Americas, it trains terrorists and assasins for the world, financed by the good old USA.

 

I think my rambling point is that there is no innocence or moral high ground and we will suffer these terrible attacks as long as the people we elect lead us into these hazards, they are the last to suffer any of the terrible consequences of their actions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Indira Ghandi and Anwar Sadat payed the ultimate price for their actions as have many others.

 

The reference to the appalling Mrs Thatcher was interesting though. I didn't know she was a terrorist.

 

I thought the School of the Americas was simply a military training facility in the USA where South American countries can send their troops to be trained by the American Military. Like lots of Commonwealth countries have their troops trained at Sandhurst.

[VinnieK]

Washington/ Jefferson percieved in their time as a traitors by the force in power, england, we would have hanged them,defacto terrrorists.

 

A traitor is not the same as a terrorist. The assertion that Washington or Jefferson could be described as a terrorist anywhere outside of mellodramatic propaganda of the time is ludicrous to say the least, not to mention self serving to a certain degree. Terrorists tend not to fight orderly pitched battles in what is recognised by both sides to be a war. A terrorist typically seeks to force politics in a certain direction by the use of terror, that is by concerted attacks on civilians and symbols of the state, whilst avoiding direct millitary contact. Essentially a terrorist holds all society hostage and issues a ransom in the form of a series of demands (one of the primary differences between terrorism and guerrila warfare). The American war of Independence was precisely that, a war of conquest between two military forces, involving diplomatic overtures, armies, navies, and occupations of territories and the siezure of strategic objectives.

 

 

 

Somebody said civil war? no 100 years later.

 

To regard the American War of Independence as distinct from a civil war is to betray a lack of knowledge of that conflict. Firstly, the population of America was divided between the rebel and the loyalist forces in roughly equal proportions. Secondly, the primary combatants on both sides (ignoring the role of mercenaries and allies) were, essentially, British. It's hard to have a war with the United States of America when at that time that country hasn't yet been brought into existence. Thirdly, independence was not initially the ultimate aim of the rebel armies and their supporters, but representation in parliament and a number of other political reforms whilst maintaining the relationship between the colonies and Britain. This conflict was a civil war, and one in which independence became an aim of the rebels, and in which independence was a consequence. It is referred to as the war of Independence because that was later one of the aims of those who went on to found the U.S., and because it is the most striking consequence of the war.

 

Had the American Civil War which you glibly refer to resulted in the permanent secession of the eleven southern states from the Union, that would make the conflict no less a civil war. The analogy should be obvious.

[mollag]

As far as i remember we ie the UK did not elect either sadat or ghandi nor kennedy for that matter,

 

Many think Margret was a terrorist, ask Gerry Adams but i was refering to her son Mark who recently admitted to financing an attack on a sovereign state

 

You are entirely mistaken about the school of the americas, the senate hearings were apalled at the work they were doing, so much so it is now "privatised "and relocated in Panama, a brief run on the net will enlighten you, Romour has it that Osama did a short course there when he was our pal and killing Russians

[P.K.]

As far as i remember we ie the UK did not elect either sadat or ghandi nor kennedy for that matter,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I quoted them as leaders who have been assassinated due to their policies. Or do you mean in isolation that the UK political leadership led to the recent bombings in London?

 

Many think Margret was a terrorist, ask Gerry Adams but i was refering to her son Mark who recently admitted to financing an attack on a sovereign state

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He admitted to financing a helicoptor and had no idea it may be used in a coup. That is what he said. But then he would, wouldn't he? The idea of a coup is to replace the political/military head of a country whilst avoiding it's defences. A bit different from terrorizing the civilian populace I would have said.

 

You are entirely mistaken about the school of the americas, the senate hearings were apalled at the work they were doing, so much so it is now "privatised "and relocated in Panama, a brief run on the net will enlighten you, Romour has it that Osama did a short course there when he was our pal and killing Russians

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't usually bother with rumours unless they are from crumlin. I did find this:

 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/soa.htm

 

There is also a lot of stuff about how so-and-so did this and he/she was trained there. So what? When you have been ordered to do something by your dodgy government where you received your training is something of an irrelevance to the orders.

[Survivor]

  New Zealand all made a peaceful transition into independence from the British Empire

 

This is not true - suggest you watch a film called UTU.

 

BOLLOCKS!! - READ THE QUOTE WRONG AGAIN! SORRY - DELETE THE ABOVE FROM YOUR MEMORIES

 

I give up on this intellictual lark - i'm going back to being a smart alec - sorry ans!

[mollag]

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I quoted them as leaders who have been assassinated due to their policies. Or do you mean in isolation that the UK political leadership led to the recent bombings in London?

Oh dear PK

Wow big leaps off assumptions, re read please----the people WEvote for, ie that we are responsible for electing and whilst you gather numbers, compare uk losses from 1966 of non combatent civilians to politicians, you may well find a disparity.

No im not being obtuse, your point is poorly made and shallow.

 

 

What did you think the helicopter gunship was for, crop spraying? Think oil think money think mercenaries employed to attack a sovereign state, do you think the population would not be terrorised by these actions a coup is generally executed by nationals within the country not by playboy millionaires

 

 

Re your terrorist training thing, dont bother with the rumours, read the facts

 

America trains terrorists.

 

Try an original input of your own and lets have a pick at that

[mollag]

A traitor is not the same as a terrorist. The assertion that Washington or Jefferson could be described as a terrorist anywhere outside of mellodramatic propaganda of the time is ludicrous to say the least

 

 

Which is the point i wished to make, what is the mellodramatic propoganda of today? read the red tops.

 

Its all about perception at the time, our time is now but can we learn from these past examples.

 

 

Your point of view re the war of independance is noted, dont agree with it and would remind you that it is your opinion only, at this point.

[VinnieK]

Which is the point i wished to make, what is the mellodramatic propoganda of today? read the red tops.

 

Marvellous example of a disingenuous argument there. You'll note that I included a definition of terrorism in my previous post, which was then used to distinguish Washington and Jefferson from terrorists. That the redtops call those who attacked London terrorists does not then imply that they're not, or that the situation is as subtle as you suggest. By the definition of terrorism, those people are terrorists, the redtops can go hang, as can any tacky inferrence based on what they say or don't.

 

Your point of view re the war of independance is noted, dont agree with it and would remind you that it is your opinion only, at this point.

 

Do me a favour, patronise me when you are in a position to do so, eh? Not every problem in this world can be argued with 'well, that's just an opinion', no matter how much you, and other people who may lack the wherewithall to construct a coherent argument based on fact and deduction may wish it could in order to make your lives easier. If you wish to counter my assertion, and, incidentally, that of a fair portion of academic literature on the subject, then by all means do so. If, however, you're just going to take subjectivity to an untenable extreme and masquerade as some kind of sage who justifies his/her views by nothing more substantial than "reminding" everyone who disagrees with you that their arguments are 'just opinions', in that case you might as well just do it in one post and let everyone else get on with it.

[mollag]

Marvellous example of a disingenuous argument there. You'll note that I included a definition of terrorism in my previous post,

 

Nope, you used your accepted definition of terrorism and presumed to suppose that that would be the base value for discussion to serve your point of view.

 

No again, dont agree, i was rather hoping that the difficulty in defining terrorists would be an interesting discussion, then came the nasties intent on their own rigid definitions

Yet again an interesting thread is sidetracked by the forum pedants whose only interest seems to be negativley disecting others posts and correcting spelling mistakes.

 

 

Do me a favour, patronise me when you are in a position to do so, eh? Not every problem in this world can be argued with 'well, that's just an opinion', no matter how much you, and other people who may lack the wherewithall to construct a coherent argument based on fact and deduction may wish it could in order to make your lives easier. If you wish to counter my assertion, and, incidentally, that of a fair portion of academic literature on the subject, then by all means do so. If, however, you're just going to take subjectivity to an untenable extreme and masquerade as some kind of sage who justifies his/her views by nothing more substantial than "reminding" everyone who disagrees with you that their arguments are 'just opinions', in that case you might as well just do it in one post and let everyone else get on with it.

 

Wow, such arrogance, from one so literate,and so nasty with it.

No i do not wish to chase your pedantic trivial assertions about strict definitions of American wars, your opinion on that is of no interest to me, it is a irritating distraction from what could have been an interesting topic, ie that people we now regard as noble and heroic were, in their own times, by SOME people, regarded as terrorists.

Now then is there any chance you could hold back your nastiness and let the thread run?

[Rog]

Begin bragged that he invented urban terrorism  see king david hotel

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You obviously do not know the story behind the bombing of the King David hotel and equally very obviously know little of Begin nor the Irgun.

 

Nor I suspect the antics of the British in the region from the point that they were given the mandate over the part of the destroyed Ottoman empire that they were until they were rightly kicked out during the restoration of the land of Israel.

 

I always have a problem with British history.

 

On the one hand I am a patriotic Britain (I class the Isle of Man as being a part of Great Britain by virtue of it being one of the British Isles), and yet I do recognise that GB has certainly undertaken some pretty dam awful and even some downright wrong things in the past.

 

The way that I feel on this is probably a bit like the way that I might feel watching my mother-in-law drive my new car over a high cliff.