Terrorism under Clinton/GWB/Obama

[JVides]

^^^ other than the fact that the USS Cole was on our side, what is the difference between the Cole and the French resistance in WW2?

We like to label anything done by US forces as justifiable acts of war and anything done to US forces as terrorism.  That is just BS.  IIEDs aimed at soldiers or attacks on warships is not the same thing as blowing up an office building or a women's health clinic. 

One: the Germans had occupied France by force.  The USS Cole was crossing the Suez Canal.
Two: Germany was at war with France and the rest of the Western world.  The Cole bombing happened during a time of "peace".  No active wars were being fought.

On your second point, you must realize I'm not disagreeing with you.  I'm pointing out that what you call an act of guerrilla warfare will be called an act of terrorism by your opponent, and vice versa.  I can tell you with certainty that German propaganda painted the French freedom fighters as terrorists.  As for me, I'm conflicted on what to call attackes on military units, and have said as much.

[Spider-Dan]

Two: Germany was at war with France and the rest of the Western world.

Germany was not at war with France.  France had surrendered.

This is a rather important detail.

[bsmooth]

Please show me any treaty that forbids the attacking of non-military property in time of war.

I'm not talking about gunning down people in a subway station.  I'm talking about destroying subway stations; if there are people in the station, then they are unfortunate casualties.

To the best of my knowledge, in a time of war, any piece of property (save maybe a hospital?  not sure) is a legitimate target (or, more precisely, is not an illegitimate target) according to international law.  I am certainly open to correction.

When you carpet bomb an entire city with firebombs with multiple waves of bombers for hours, you are not targeting military and/or civilians buildings that may be used. You are trying to burn every living thing into ash.
Even military experts have said that what we did to Dresden would be considered a war crime by the standards of the 1947 Geneva Conventions. Thar raid gained nothing militarily for the Allies, and due to secrecy it was never widely shown to the civilians of either side to either   increase or decrease morale. It did nothing to speed the end of the war.
Also this was not a spur of the moment decision while engaged in heated combat. This was a precise and meticuliously planned air operation from the higher levels based on current intellegence and weather conditions.
even for you, you are having to dig to try and justify the horrors the Allies inflicted on the civilian populace of Dresden.

[JVides]

Germany was not at war with France.  France had surrendered.

This is a rather important detail.

Point taken, though I don't consider the detail important in the context of whether the French Resistance should be defined as a terrorist unit or a guerrilla unit / fighting force.  Though you may draw parallells between Nazi Germany and the U.S. being "occupying forces" and French and Iraqi fighters trying to fight off the occupiers (if that's what you're thinking), I think (quite strongly) that history will view the U.S. occupation differently (critically, but differently) than the German occupation of Europe.

[JVides]

When you carpet bomb an entire city with firebombs with multiple waves of bombers for hours, you are not targeting military and/or civilians buildings that may be used. You are trying to burn every living thing into ash.
Even military experts have said that what we did to Dresden would be considered a war crime by the standards of the 1947 Geneva Conventions. Thar raid gained nothing militarily for the Allies, and due to secrecy it was never widely shown to the civilians of either side to either   increase or decrease morale. It did nothing to speed the end of the war.
Also this was not a spur of the moment decision while engaged in heated combat. This was a precise and meticuliously planned air operation from the higher levels based on current intellegence and weather conditions.
even for you, you are having to dig to try and justify the horrors the Allies inflicted on the civilian populace of Dresden.

I'd justify it just as I've justified Hiroshima and Nagasaki:  it was necessary to bring the war to a halt sooner and avoid a long, drawn-out urban battle in the heart of the enemy's land.  Germany had engaged in a war that had consumed most of Europe, all the while remaining largely untouched.  Nazi propaganda told the populace that all was going swimmingly even as Hitler's forces were beaten back from the Soviet Union and Africa.  Once the Allies had a foothold in Europe, it was necessary to show the people of Germany that they were, indeed, going to lose this war.  What better way than to inflict upon them the same pain that German forces had inflicted on, say, London?  It is told that people could see the glow in the night sky (Dresden burning) from hundreds of miles away.  No amount of propaganda could hide that.  Then and there, Germans knew it wasn't going as well as Hitler would tell them.  There is definite strategic value to that.

Now, would that be a war crime today?  Abso-friggin'-lute-ly.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Point taken, though I don't consider the detail important in the context of whether the French Resistance should be defined as a terrorist unit or a guerrilla unit / fighting force.  Though you may draw parallells between Nazi Germany and the U.S. being "occupying forces" and French and Iraqi fighters trying to fight off the occupiers (if that's what you're thinking), I think (quite strongly) that history will view the U.S. occupation differently (critically, but differently) than the German occupation of Europe.

There are some southerns who feel that the Confederacy is being occupied by Union forces, even though the confederacy surrendered.  If one of those nut jobs blows up a building is it terrorism or the same as the french resistance? 

What is terrorism and what is not can not be defined simply by if you agree with the person's political agenda or not.

[JVides]

There are some southerns who feel that the Confederacy is being occupied by Union forces, even though the confederacy surrendered.  If one of those nut jobs blows up a building is it terrorism or the same as the french resistance? 

Me?  I say terrorism.  The confederacy was never a recognized nation-state under rule by another nation-state.  France was.  The resistance was carrying on the fight that the French government refused to continue. 

What is terrorism and what is not can not be defined simply by if you agree with the person's political agenda or not.

By me?  Or in the dictionary?  We get called terrorists because we use planes and guided missiles to attack targets rather than using people with guns.  I'm sure that you disagree with that.  That makes it an eye-of-the-beholder thing, right?  Just between you, me, Spider-Dan, and BSmooth, we seem to have 4 different views (some more aligned than others) on what falls or does not fall in the "terrorist" bucket.  "Terrorist" is a catch-all term, like "conservative" and "liberal" and "religious" and "righteous", and "evil", and "good", and...well, you get the point.  Its meaning changes depending on who uses it and for what purposes.  It's a word misused to afflict the target with a particular stench - "don't deal with him, he's a terrorist" - a label that immediately strikes at your gut and invokes a particularly loathsome feeling.  It's a charged word, which is why I keep sayin' it's in the eyes of the beholder.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Me?  I say terrorism.  The confederacy was never a recognized nation-state under rule by another nation-state.  France was. 

I am pretty sure England had diplomatic relations with the Confederacy. 

[JVides]

I am pretty sure England had diplomatic relations with the Confederacy. 

Yeah, I deleted the part that said "maybe England did, to piss off the North" because I didn't fact check it and I know Spider could be lurking...then I added a bunch more crap...

[Phishfan]

No onefrom Europe  recognized the Confedreacy as a nation. They did have unofficial meetings though.

[bsmooth]

I'd justify it just as I've justified Hiroshima and Nagasaki:  it was necessary to bring the war to a halt sooner and avoid a long, drawn-out urban battle in the heart of the enemy's land.  Germany had engaged in a war that had consumed most of Europe, all the while remaining largely untouched.  Nazi propaganda told the populace that all was going swimmingly even as Hitler's forces were beaten back from the Soviet Union and Africa.  Once the Allies had a foothold in Europe, it was necessary to show the people of Germany that they were, indeed, going to lose this war.  What better way than to inflict upon them the same pain that German forces had inflicted on, say, London?  It is told that people could see the glow in the night sky (Dresden burning) from hundreds of miles away.  No amount of propaganda could hide that.  Then and there, Germand knew it wasn't going as well as Hitler would tell them.  There is definite strategic value to that.

Now, would that be a war crime today?  Abso-friggin'-lute-ly.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were different as Truman had a choice between dropping this horrific new weapon and hoping the Japanese would capitulate, or go ahead with the massive invasion of Japan that was conservatively estimated to possibly cause one million US casualties.
We had already succesfully landed on the mainland and were pushing the Germans back and had air supremacy when they decision to bomb a city that was not a major military industrial complex.The reports of the glow from the fires was reported by the succesive waves of bombers as at their altitudes they could see it from a great distance and did not need to use navigation to find it. The majority of the German people did not discover about the attack and its results until after the war when there was more open communication.
So all in all these two have nothing in common except for the staggering amount of deaths inflicted upon the civilan populace.
But here is a question to ponder. We had no problem firebombing Tokyo, but when presented with the same opportunity to do it to Germany we did not. I am curious as to why it was okay to do it to one and not the other?

[JVides]

^^^I'd have to read up to comment on what you've stated (world history was a long time ago).  I did quickly find this, though:

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/bombing_of_dresden.htm

Which includes the following from an RAF memo:

“Dresden, the seventh largest city in Germany and not much smaller than Manchester, is also far the largest unbombed built-up the enemy has got. In the midst of winter with refugees pouring westwards and troops to be rested, roofs are at a premium. The intentions of the attack are to hit the enemy where he will feel it most, behind an already partially collapsed front, to prevent the use of the city in the way of further advance, and incidentally to show the Russians when they arrive what Bomber Command can do.”

RAF January 1945

Take it as you may.  Apparently, part of the deal was a show of force to the Russians, as we were, um, uneasy allies.  (Patton even stated that his preference would be to continue East and take down the Russians, too).

As for nuking (yes, I know they were atomic bombs, not thermonuclear bombs!) Japan and not Germany, I always thought it was because we were already marching on Germany, nearing the end. 
I'm also not sure that atomic bombs were ready for deployment by then.  Germany surrendered on May 7, 1945, and the first atomic bomb explosion was July 16. (Information provided by Wikipedia - yell at them if there's an error here)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Manhattan_Project

With Japan, all we had accomplished was to push them back; there was still an invasion to mount.  As badly as Europe was decimated, the United States would've fought that battle alone.  Though a racial motive would never shock me, I don't think there was one in this case, just because of the timeline.

[Spider-Dan]

But here is a question to ponder. We had no problem firebombing Tokyo, but when presented with the same opportunity to do it to Germany we did not. I am curious as to why it was okay to do it to one and not the other?

...aren't you, at this very moment, complaining about the firebombing of Dresden?  I'm not sure I understand the question.

As for Japan, we would not have had to invade them alone.  The Soviets were already starting to mount an offensive from the west; the a-bombs ended the war before Japan's two-front war really got underway.  Without the a-bombs, there likely would have been a resolution in Japan that looked more like the resolution in Germany, with the East and the West having separate zones.  Instead, the U.S. pretty much took over Japan straight up.

[JVides]

As for Japan, we would not have had to invade them alone.  The Soviets were already starting to mount an offensive from the west; the a-bombs ended the war before Japan's two-front war really got underway. 

I'm surprised to read that, given that (I believe) the USSR didn't really develop into a naval power until the 50's, at the earliest.

[dolphantom]

Wow, I'm disappointed.  You throw out all these supposed facts and statistics, but with the tiniest pushback you immediately retreat to single line responses devoid of content.  I thought you'd have a little more substance to your argument, or I wouldn't have bothered making this thread.

edit: Oh, I guess there is this:
So we've went from "Obama has been worse in one year than Bush was in 8" and "Clinton caused 9/11 and two wars" to "left vs. right doesn't matter, Clinton/Bush/Obama are all the same animal" that quickly?

I had such high hopes for you.

you know what spider, debating people like you, is a waste of time, because no matter how many facts are thrown at you , its never enough. you'll never turn me, i'll never turn you. lets leave it at that. its pointless to revolve around the same argument spoken in different words. at some point, the argument becomes stale. like now. time to move on.  besides who really gives a shit. this political nonsense is good for a  short conversation , but arguing back and forth over this with anyone (with nothing at stake , no less) is not worth my effort. this is entertainment to me. why get so riled up over this nonsense . its fun to see the reactions out of some of you. you get so serious.