Justice is served!

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » May 20, 2004, 5:50 pm

Also trying to label "terrorism" as some new threat/danger is just retoric. "Terrorism" has been used numberous times during the last half century (Algeria, Zimbabwe, South Africa and Vietnam for example), and although we now call many of these individuals freedom fighters at the time they were also labeled terrorists.

Oppression creates "terrorism". Ask yourselves which is the more likely motivation for someone willing to blow themselves up for a cause 1) Desperation or 2) "They hate freedom"?

The single greatest thing the US government can do to prevent terrorism and safeguard its populace is force Israel to respect international law rather than assisting Israel to disregard international law as it is currently doing. Without the US government blocking measures the international community would be able to force this issue to resolution the same way it did in South Africa (after the US government stopped dragging it's heels with "constructive engagement" bullshit).

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » May 20, 2004, 7:56 pm

Krimson Klaw wrote:When the French were defeated by Germany, they continued to fight through an underground network. They were called Freedom Fighters, or resistance fighters. Why are we calling these Iraquis that are doing the same thing "terrorists"?

See, that's just the type of lateral thinking I was trying to encourage, and usually you and I couldn't agree that the sky is blue..

I think the "line" for terrorists seems to come when you don't just kill the guys hanging around your home, but travel to theirs and kill them there too.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » May 20, 2004, 9:21 pm

No, terrorism is using tactics designed to terrorize your enemy.

But I think the difference between resistance and terrorism is more a question of legitimacy.

If your country has been overrun, then you can fight to the death against military targets of the enemy in order to hasten their eventual withdrawal or at least make occupying your homeland as difficult as possible.

If your country was given away by the Brits for example, you should be considered partisans for killing Brits, and killing those they placed over you should also be considered partisan activity, but that is attacking MILITARY TARGETS, and dance clubs and market squares are NOT military targets.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » May 20, 2004, 9:29 pm

Eh once again, during WWII collateral damage happened. They blew up important buildings, railroad tracks, vehicles, pipelines... Granted not intentionally targetting civilians, but that was because the majority of the civilians were on your side. It's noe like that in for example Israel.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » May 20, 2004, 10:20 pm

Germany was a terrorist state, as was Japan. The used unrestricted bombing of civilian populations as a terror tool and the world responded in kind.

There is a big difference between unplanned unintentional attacks on civilians and intentionally planned ones. Manslaughter and Murder to start with.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » May 20, 2004, 10:37 pm

History is written by the victors.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » May 20, 2004, 10:46 pm

Kylere wrote:Germany was a terrorist state, as was Japan. The used unrestricted bombing of civilian populations as a terror tool and the world responded in kind.

Churchhill started the carpet fire bombing of German cities before Hitler. As far as the US goes, I don't think Japan ever struck a civilian target before the US bombed Tokyo harbor and then Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » May 20, 2004, 11:06 pm

Actually if I recall, Germany bombed London (was it London?) first by mistake. Allies then responded on German cities, and they started bombing eachother cities into oblivion. Which was actually a good thing for the Brits since their industry and airfield got a chance to rebuild some.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » May 20, 2004, 11:16 pm

churchill started the deliberate bombing of cities specifically to take pressure off his airfields and factories by goading the nazis into retailiating. he gambled that ze germans were running out of bombs and bombers while the uk was getting a constant resupply of raw materials from the americas and other european countries.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » May 20, 2004, 11:23 pm

Uh I just said he started the intentional bombing, but it was in retaliation for the accidental bombing. He had no way of knowing that Hitler would be stupid enough to take the preassure off of the airfields and factories.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » May 20, 2004, 11:28 pm

kyoukan wrote:
Kylere wrote:Germany was a terrorist state, as was Japan. The used unrestricted bombing of civilian populations as a terror tool and the world responded in kind.
Churchhill started the carpet fire bombing of German cities before Hitler. As far as the US goes, I don't think Japan ever struck a civilian target before the US bombed Tokyo harbor and then Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Tell that to china.

Bojangels · Post by **Bojangels** » May 21, 2004, 2:10 am

Krimson Klaw wrote:When the French were defeated by Germany, they continued to fight through an underground network. They were called Freedom Fighters, or resistance fighters. Why are we calling these Iraquis that are doing the same thing "terrorists"?

I'm pretty sure we refer to them as insurgents. The guys from other countries that are car bombing police stations and red cross centers and kidnapping missionaries from various countries though, I could live with labeling them terrorists.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » May 21, 2004, 9:01 am

Germany attacked civilian targets first, no amount of rewriting of history will change that

Japan was rapaciously evil from the get go, they thought they were the amster race just as the Germans did.

Glad they were both wrong.

Arilain · Post by **Arilain** » May 21, 2004, 9:02 am

Ever heard of the "Rape of Nanking?" Look it up. Japanese killed millions of Chinese before they bombed the US in Pearl Harbor. As for dropping the A bomb....well as much as I hate to say it; that act saved untold numbers of lives on both sides. Oh....and Germany had no problem killing civilians as well
don't be fooled. Look up your history books it's in there. Even the ones that are not written by the US.

Don't give in to propaganda!

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » May 21, 2004, 6:51 pm

Yes I'm aware of Japanese atrocities to many asian countries including China, Korea and Burma. I was talking specifically about the conflict between the axis powers and the allied nations.

Relating to the conflicts of these specific nations, the US escalated the conflict by attacking civilian targets long before Japan would have. They also went nuclear. Germany did bomb civilian targets in the UK, but it wasn't intentional. In fact Goebbels wrote in his diary that he went to great lengths to make sure the German population wouldn't hear about it because he knew that they would be aghast at the prospect of cities being bombed. Churchill intentionally ordered the bombing of Berlin in order to get the nazis to retaliate on british civilian targets instead of his military assets.

What I want to say is that the war wasn't neccesarily a war of good against evil (although in this case it was), but I can pretty much guarantee you that historically in every major war ever fought, the winning side is always the good guys and losers were always the bad guys, because the side that won gets to write the history. If Hitler managed to conquer the majority of the world, do you think that he would have gone down in history as a tyrranical mad man?

oh hell, what was the argument again?

Arilain · Post by **Arilain** » May 21, 2004, 8:03 pm

Lol I have no idea what the argument was...But I think the thread was about the dumb ass reservists that did some things that go beyond atrocities to prisoners.

War isn't right period; it is only there as a last resort. I do support why we went over there but as a Marine I am ashamed of what those soldiers did even though I might add that they were Amry reservists. Still I wish that instead of going "OMFG!!!" when we see the pics on TV, why the hell don't we as a people help those victims out? Atleast let them spend a day whipping those MP's asses.

There are two types of people...The leaders and the sheep.

nobody · Post by **nobody** » May 22, 2004, 11:26 am

Arilain wrote: I do support why we went over there but as a Marine I am ashamed of what those soldiers did even though I might add that they were Amry reservists.

/sigh why do you hafta talk shit on 'Amry' reservists? that's like saying Marines are dumbass brainwashed bullet sponge jarheads. it's a generalization and accurate in some cases but not all. i could say you guys are fucking things up out there by trying to fight a conventional war against an insurgency. blowing up Fallujah (sp) is not gonna work, rebuilding it is.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » May 22, 2004, 12:33 pm

Nobody,

If reservists want a better rep, they need to earn it. They have not.

nobody · Post by **nobody** » May 23, 2004, 12:12 am

the reservists out here HAVE earned a damn good rep. but does anybody hear about them? once somebody fucks up, suddenly a whole group sucks. granted there are reservists who are lazy and joined just to get money for school and are not willing to put their ass on the line. they make me sick. but i am in the National Guard and belong to a respected unit i am damn proud of and have friends in other units who are, and deserve to be, proud of their units.

btw, how do they expect us to fight a war out here without mountain dew!