|
Post by wdmundt on May 17, 2008 13:14:33 GMT -4
It doesn't help very much to say that we are going to determine the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter by whether they were previously determined to be terrorists. Would you say that the Beirut barracks bombing in 1983, which killed 241 American personnel, was an act of terror? Would you say that Menachem Begin was a terrorist for blowing up the King David Hotel in 1946, killing 91 people, in his quest to get Israel back?
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on May 17, 2008 14:22:47 GMT -4
With some of the deeply nasty* things that Begin and his contemporaries got up to, his later claims that "terrorism does not work" were horribly ironic.
*Booby-trapping the hanged bodies of kidnapped British soldiers for example: if you'd ever wondered why some Brits aren't exactly the keenest supporters of Israel ...
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on May 17, 2008 14:44:47 GMT -4
Let me preface the following statement -- and say that I am not anti-semitic. I am anti-religion in general.
And with that, let me say that hitching our horse to Israel was not a good idea. It often seems to me, when one takes the long view, that we are on the wrong side.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on May 17, 2008 17:49:45 GMT -4
Let me preface the following statement -- and say that I am not anti-semitic. I am anti- religion in general. And with that, let me say that hitching our horse to Israel was not a good idea. It often seems to me, when one takes the long view, that we are on the wrong side. Funny how we have to be so politically correct in this area. That being said, I sort of agree with you. Most of the Arab states were carved out of the Ottoman Empire, which had ruled in the area for hundreds of years. Around the turn of the century, only about 80,000 Jews were left in Palestine. The Balfour Declaration of 1917 basically declared Britains support for a Palestinian Jewish homeland. But it stipulated that any settlement of Jewish immigrants should not prejudice the rights of the Palestinian Arabs. By 1947 there were 600,000 Jews in Palestine, and 1,000,000 Arabs. The Brits had a mess on their hands. The Palestinian Arabs reacted with distrust and fear over the influx of Jewish settlers. The attempts of the British to meet the wishes of both Jews and Arabs were hopeless, but they wanted most of Palestine to go to the Arabs. So they created Transjordan in 1922. They hoped that Transjordan would satisfy the Arabs, a new Jewish state would be created for the Jews and Jerusalem would remain under British mandate. Unfortuneately the Arabs rejected this so the Brits had to use force to implement it. To protect themselves against armed Arabs, the Jews formed home guards: Haganah (formed strictly for self defense) and the IZL (Irgun Zvai Leumi, led by Menachem Begin). The IZL was founded by Jews who found Haganah not militant enough, and it was anti-British as well as anti-Arab. They stopped attacking the Brits in 1939, I guess sensing that Hitler was worse than the British. But they started murdering Brits again in Palestine in 1944 when Hitler seemed beaten. Anyways, everything got worse. After the events of WWII, who could stop the Jews from going to Palestine. They tried for a while, but it was a neverending struggle - 10,000 British troops stationed there to keep the peace and no end in sight. After the U.N. was formed the States put pressure on Britain to be more 'pro-Jewish' or perhaps less 'anti-Jewish', whichever way you want to look at it. The British finally handed the problem over to the U.N. in 1947. In the last year of the mandate, as wdmundt mentioned earlier, the IZL blew up th King David Hotel which was the British HQ. The British executed members of the IZL and the Stern Gang (who then started kidnapping and hanging British soldiers). The British looked bad when they intercepted the illegal immigrant ship Exodus and returned its passengers to Germany. The Brits were in 'the wrong place at the wrong time' and were glad to leave. Through this whole mess, it's hard to tell who's right and who's wrong. It is surely one of the biggest messes of the the 20th century. Should Israel have not been created? I can't make a judgement on that, but wouldn't the world be a more peaceful place if Israel didn't exist? I don't even know how true this would be - the Arabs do fight against Arabs also, just take a look at the world right now. Were the Arabs terrorists in their attempts to prevent Jews from settling in Palestine? I don't think so at all. They had been living there for thousands of years. Were the IZL and the Stern Gang terrorists? Sure seems like it. The British certainly thought so. www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPjhf71MGOcYitzhak Shamir, one of the trio of leaders of Lehi (Stern Gang): "There are those who say that to kill Martin (a British sergeant) is terrorism, but to attack an army camp is guerrilla warfare and to bomb civilians is professional warfare. But I think it is the same from the moral point of view. Is it better to drop an atomic bomb on a city than to kill a handful of persons? I don’t think so. But nobody says that President Truman was a terrorist. All the men we went for individually — Wilkin, Martin, MacMichael and others — were personally interested in succeeding in the fight against us. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_(group).
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 17, 2008 21:50:00 GMT -4
It doesn't help very much to say that we are going to determine the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter by whether they were previously determined to be terrorists. As I've said before, you can't completely divorce the motivations and past actions of a person from the results of those actions or their present affiliations when determining if they are acting morally.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on May 18, 2008 18:36:05 GMT -4
There is no doubt that the USAAF daylight bombing was not nearly as effective as was hoped, but the intent was clear: pinpoint enemy manufacturing facilities and knock them out. The intent was not to demoralize the population by killing millions of civilians. Bomber Command started the war effort by trying to attack strategic targets, but it just wasn't possible at night -- and tactics switched to "area bombing." And -- as I noted above -- toward the end of the war, the USAAF was no longer going after strictly military targets and began attacking anything and everything. My overall point is that attacking civilian populations in a war, (in my humble opinion) is no different than any other attack on civilian populations. Scuse me, nipping in. Bombers over Europe and Japan is a very emotive subject. But I believe that once the Nazi's blitzkrieg rolled and Japan bombed a harbor the die was cast. Both were out for domination. Both already had a history that would show future intent should they be allowed to continue. The moment the tanks rolled, civilians became a target. They rolled through Europe only to be stopped by the English channel then tried an invasion. Admittedly a half hearted one compared to D Day but the intent was there but to achieve that they strove to destroy the RAF and got diverted to city attacks for various reasons. They tried to level the UK through bombing the population and industry. At that point we were on our own, but with great material help from the US I know but they were to be struck back. Good job they never developed the heavy bomber. Regarding the civilians. They have moral and manufacturing capability and at some point at this time in history they will be on the list when the nazi tanks rolled. At that point the Navy and RAF the only weapons that could get at the enemy in or around Europe. Hitler had already shown he did not want to risk capitol ships in a direct confrontation with the RN but rather attack the life blood of the nation, convoys. With invasion still a worry and the future of a nazi dominated Europe, you fight back. They would be less likely to be good machinists. They will tell stories to the towns they are relocated to. They will be a burden to the places they relocate to. Production for the enemy war effort is affected. And it makes it easier for when your troops have to pass through after the landings. The factories, with the capability of bombing in those days, often meant larger area's were hit. A lot of effort went into better bombing but from the point of not wasting crews and weapons by missing and ineffectual bombing. Sights were not the main reason but part of an overall strategy resulting in many methods including oboe and pathfinders. Very few units achieved pin point accuracy that 617 did. Japan, another huge area of examination in its own right, demonstrated what they would do through all those years should a mainland invasion happen. For the A bomb I would cite Iwo Jima and Kamikazi among many others. Another topic maybe. On the whole I thing it was terrible but in context I do not think there was a choice. This is my detached view and cut down version and probably an error or two. 1942 rings a bell and I cannot be bothered to dig out the books. Long day.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on May 18, 2008 18:55:41 GMT -4
Navigation was always the major problem in bombing, particularly at night: the "Blitz" on London was started more or less by accident; a crew jettisoned its bombs when they weren't where they thought they were.
Under Curtis Le May there was never any pretence of precision bombing against Japan: the B-29s were largely laden with incendiaries, dropping them from relatively low levels.
And to think that the Air Minister objected to bombing German factories in 1939 on the grounds that they were "private property"...
|
|
|
Post by tedward on May 18, 2008 19:17:59 GMT -4
Yeah, understood the accidental bombing. In a way the whole thing became tit for tat. Then it ramped up after Harris came in. 1942 I referred to? I understand Curtis turned around the effectiveness of the bombing and was also using his experience from Europe.
Re Air minster. I think lot of people were caught out. The signs were there but experience was probably stuck in the trenches and idea's that the big map, all pink, will protect? I have a book somewhere with a picture of Hitler (sure it is he without checking) reviewing the RAF. It's odd but think that he was probably thinking "no match".
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on May 19, 2008 1:02:49 GMT -4
Same fish, different sea. If you are truing to eliminate this threat to the wellbeing of your society, then why, they are terrorists of course. If you are struggling under the shackles of meddling external influence, why, they are freedom fighters. Some may have this romantic view of freedom fighters not killing woman and children, but thats just bull. Freedom fighters have killed throughout history, and it is only legends and fables that give them Arthur-esc chivalric qualities. No one wants to remember that the founding fathers of their great nation were murderous slaughter hounds.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on May 19, 2008 5:38:29 GMT -4
I have a book somewhere with a picture of Hitler (sure it is he without checking) reviewing the RAF. It's odd but think that he was probably thinking "no match". I don't recall if Hitler ever reviewed the RAF, but certainly Erhard Milch, Ernst Udet and other Luftwaffe high-ups did review a squadron in the late thirties that was still equipped with biplanes (their first monoplanes arrived a few weeks later).
|
|
|
Post by tedward on May 19, 2008 7:00:30 GMT -4
I have a book somewhere with a picture of Hitler (sure it is he without checking) reviewing the RAF. It's odd but think that he was probably thinking "no match". I don't recall if Hitler ever reviewed the RAF, but certainly Erhard Milch, Ernst Udet and other Luftwaffe high-ups did review a squadron in the late thirties that was still equipped with biplanes (their first monoplanes arrived a few weeks later). You are indeed correct. Dug out the book. Apologies for the mis info. Looks like he is waving or saluting the rear gunner in what appears to be a whitley.
|
|
|
Post by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on May 21, 2008 19:31:32 GMT -4
Terrorist refers to method. Freedom fighter refers to objective.
A person can be both.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on May 21, 2008 20:57:06 GMT -4
Terrorist refers to method. Freedom fighter refers to objective. A person can be both. Touché...
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 22, 2008 10:49:54 GMT -4
So you can be an evil freedom fighter?
|
|
|
Post by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on May 22, 2008 11:56:39 GMT -4
So you can be an evil freedom fighter? Sure. You can even have noble terrorists. The Nazis executed a lot of 'terrorists' in their day. Words are malleable. Don't trust them.
|
|