Not quite donga, the reason for the IRA's existence was down to centuries of slaughter of Irish people and the theft of land and denying them basic civil and human rights within their own nation, as with the ANC they tried to do it politically and through strikes, they were. originally called the Irish Citizens Army but when an attempted peaceful solution was met with more British violence and executions for treachery to a crown they never recognised as their own they turned to armed struggle and the IRA came into being. If the Irish people hadn't risen up they would have still been second class citizens in their own country without the vote and subject to having their homes and farms etc taken from them by a foreign power. So the self governing 26 counties of the Republic of Ireland wouldn't exist if the IRA didn't.
Your not right there donga, read the part about the attack and about the congested timber medieval buildings, ok its only wiki but that's the first thing I could find. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II
All true. But the bombings of civilians without warning in Warrington, Omagh and countless other places was the product of terrorism. Then again, this isn't about whether terrorism is justified, it's about what constitutes terrorism. Arguably all countries have used 'terrorism' in the pursuit of their interests. I still maintain that the unrestricted use of drones in Pakistan and Afghanistan is terrorism - but to me it's preferable than sending our 18yr olds there to be mutilated. Better still would be ****ing off out of there altogether.
But the troubles in the north of Ireland that led up to the Warrington bombing were started by the denial of civil rights etc in the 6 counties of Ulstser still under British rule, I not condoning the slaughter of innocents in any way but the slaughter happened for hundreds of years without any TV pictures or videos etc, I'm just glad there are both traditions sharing power now and that the killing has stopped. RIP the victims of violence in both countries.
I believe the responses from Swarbs are based upon inaccuracies in your statements. What lead me to comment was this: "mandela was NEVER a terrorist, per se (not in the sense of the IRA, Al Qaida, the Luftwaffe, Bomber Command or the US 8th Air Force, anyway)" In that statement you have said that whilst Mandela was not a terrorist the Luftwaffe, Bomber Command and the 8th Air Force are. I cannot and will not accept that accusation. It is that simple.
Anyway hopefully changing the subject slightly, was the order to sink the Belgrano by Thatcher an act of terror given that its now public knowledge she knew the consequences and knew that there was still time to stop its progress through the American intermediary?
"The attack was to be centred on the Ostragehege sports stadium, next to the city's medieval Altstadt (old town), with its congested, and highly combustible, timbered buildings.[44]" Yeah, apologies, but I don't wish to split hairs, but that refers to the pathfinders marking the target, and the tactic on focussing the pathfinders on the wooden part of the towns was well established by 45. The difference with Hamburg and Lubeck is that the whole cities were primarily made of wood, and, in the case of hamburg, there were 200mph winds blasting through the streets, and people suffocated a quarter of a mile away from the inferno, so intense was the conflagration. Terror indeed, in all cases including Dresden.
Well I'll state my contention again, for clarification rather than a futile attempt at consensus. Mandela was a saboteur and the strategy of the ANC in '63 was sabotage. The strategy of 'area' bombing by the three air forces cited was terror. I refer back to post 43 that this was never intended as slight on the aircrew (even the Germans) involved.
If you want to equate terror attacks with firestorms then you really should start looking at Coventry!
It's not really a question of bombing causing terror in civilian populations during a declared international war that is the problem here. It is your insistence of using your own 21st Century definition of terrorism to condemn the actions of the leaders of military units using 20th Century morals and philosophy.
Come on, guys. The acts are concrete and verifiable (at least the well-documented ones are), but the descriptions of them and their perpetrators are subjective semantics. Ruling regimes will always label anyone resisting them as terrorists, it demonises their enemy and allows them to justify violent counter measures. Acts of barbarity are perpetrated by all sides- whether or not history labels them terrorism is dependent on the prevailing political viewpoint, and as we know, history is written by the victors. Many prominent Israeli political figures, including two PM's that I'm aware of, were engaged in active "terrorism" against the British before, during and after WWII but were legitimised after the establishment of their homeland. They, in turn, would cite atrocities against their own as validation for their actions. The fact is, these things will continue to happen, and accusation and counter accusation will follow, until such time as we learn to settle our differences without resort to violence. Sadly, that time seems a long, long way away.
No, in that she didn't target civilians. But, as said, that is my conception of terrorism. Dave thinks otherwise; he may be right? Bill Clinton said tonight that America was founded upon armed resistance against King George and his supporters (presumably including civilians that wanted to remain loyal to the crown) when asked about Mandela's 'terrorism'. Semantics indeed, as saint points out.
I agree with your viewpoint. However, I still contend that it is wrong to condemn organisations and individuals using philosophies that were not common currency at the time when those individuals and organisations were taking the actions that they are now being attacked for.
There were many people who were loyal to the Crown in America. When the War of Independence was lost, some returned to England, some took the pragmatic course and stayed and others moved to Canada. It would have been interesting, had it been possible, to see what the outcome of a referendum would have been!
Hmmm. My (understandably) unapologetic dad always used to say that if he'd have gone to Germany in an unmarked plane, out of uniform and without his tags and placed a bomb in a city centre, and been caught he'd have been immediately executed. I still think targeting civilians in a war is terrorism though, albeit sometimes justified.
