Was the french resistence a terrorist org?

[detch01]

Originally posted by xrtoronto
doesnt' suite your agenda does it?

thankyou for proving my point

It sounds to me that you're the one stretching to reach an agenda. To the nazi's the French resistance, as all other resistance organizations in occupied countries, were "terrorists". If you want to jump on the now defunct nazi bandwagon, by all means, call them terrorists.




asw

[Bluedog]

To a '40s Wermacht trooper, or Nazi officer trying to enforce their control, probably yes, and quite understandably.
To the citizens of France living under the Nazi jackboot, undoubtably no, also quite understandably.

As has been said here many times, one man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist.

The question "Did they target civilians?" has been raised, I would say they did, several times.
What do you think the Resistance did to people who were found to be actively helping the nazi occupation?  Why, they killed them.
Were those people civilians?  The vast majority of them, yes.
Were they delliberately targeted?  You can safely bet your last dollar they were.

In my opinion, the big differance between that and Iraq today is that the French werent fighting among themselves over religeous and cultural differances for a few thousand years before the Nazi occupation.
There were no definate groups in France that found the occupation gave them ample opportunity to attack their age old, fellow French, enemies.
There was never any danger of France errupting into civil war in 1943, the French were French.....not Shiia french and Sunni French

[Yeager]

son, have you never heard the old adage,

"One mans wine is another mans poison."

You seem like a smart kid.......

[Nilsen]

A guy from America  that blows up invading soldiers in America = freedomfighter.

A guy from America that blows up folks that helps the invading soldiers in America = freedomfighter.

A guy from America or werever that blows up civilians in America for whatever reason (unless the target is aiding the invaders)= terrorist






You can replace America with Iraq or whatever if you please...

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Donzo
Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

No, the resistence was not a terrorist group.  It was a resistence group that resisted the German occupation of France.

By these definitions Germany's V1 and V2 attacks of Britain apply as do the U.S. firebombing of Tokyo... to name just a couple.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Gunslinger

That's a far cry from suicide bombing and the intentional murder of civilians.

Welcome to the days of asymetric warfare. If you can't stand toe to toe with your enemy, you hit him where he's soft and unprotected. As the world's only remaining superpower, I don't expect us to see many toe to toe fights. Our enemies will use terror to test our resolve.

[Fishu]

Originally posted by xrtoronto
then why did the rest of the western world join them to help defeat the germans? (even eventually the US)?

wouldn't that make them all terrorists or at least support terrorism?

I bet you that the middle east countries would join to help the libanese and palestinian terrorists if they'd have the power to oppose Israelis and their allies.

In WWII the brits didn't have much of a choice than to liberate France and continue to Germany. When Japan attacked Americans at Pearl Harbour and Hitler declared an alliance between Japan and Germany, it left little choice for the Americans. Russians didn't even have a choice. Italy on the other hand tried to fend off the nations supporting terrorists, with lacklustering results.

Meanwhile germans were trying to root out the terrorists from the occupied France.

Allied forces weren't wiped out like the middle eastern armies when they tried to help the terrorists. Unlike Nazi-Germany, Israel persisted.

[Yeager]

fishu, what are you saying?  be simple like.

[lukster]

If the point of this thread is to compare the US occupation of Iraq with the occupation of France by the Nazis then you need to consider the events leading up to both. Was France invading it's neighbors and oppressing it's own citizens even murdering many? You can't isolate the insurgents from the events which led to their occupation.

[Furious]

heheh.  xrtoronto pulled a "nuke".  

got totally worked over in an arguement, then claimed victory.

[nirvana]

Why did anyone just say "yes"?  This whole shindig could have been over in 3 seconds.



"Yes xrtoronto, the French resistance during WWII was a terrorist organization"

[Vudak]

The difference between the FR and the "Iraqi" Resistance (to use a very broad term), is that the FR could be reasoned with.  When the peace treaty was concluded ending WW2 in Europe, they stopped blowing up Germans and their material.  If they had a problem with other Frenchmen, they took it to court* (or, shaved their heads - not SO bad).

Now, if a peace treaty ends "Gulf War II" in Iraq, can anyone honestly say that the "Iraqi" Resistance would act half as behaved as the FR did after WW2?

Of course not.  Those guys blowing themselves up over in Iraq really are, well, subhuman**.  I hate to call them that, but they've proven that they  just can't think/reason/compromise on a human level.  

* I'm sure there were exceptions to this, but as a whole.

** Very specifically referring to said "Iraqi" Resistance members.  I have nothing against Muslims as a whole.  (You kinda gotta have these disclaimers when you post in here  )

[Nilsen]

Originally posted by Vudak
The difference between the FR and the "Iraqi" Resistance (to use a very broad term), is that the FR could be reasoned with.  When the peace treaty was concluded ending WW2 in Europe, they stopped blowing up Germans and their material.  If they had a problem with other Frenchmen, they took it to court* (or, shaved their heads - not SO bad).

Now, if a peace treaty ends "Gulf War II" in Iraq, can anyone honestly say that the "Iraqi" Resistance would act half as behaved as the FR did after WW2?

Of course not.  Those guys blowing themselves up over in Iraq really are, well, subhuman**.  I hate to call them that, but they've proven that they  just can't think/reason/compromise on a human level.  

* I'm sure there were exceptions to this, but as a whole.

** Very specifically referring to said "Iraqi" Resistance members.  I have nothing against Muslims as a whole.  (You kinda gotta have these disclaimers when you post in here  )

That is true... as soon as the foreign troops leave Iraq there will be mahem and a civil war.
There is no way that the current regime can stay in power even if the US would sell them plenty of advanced weapons. You can prepare the government as good as posible, but you will only be delaying the inevetable carnage. If they are not policed then they will make thier own country, by their own set of "rules".

Change must come from within.

Who knows what will eventually rise from the rubble, and if its going to be any better than when saddam ruled.

[Vudak]

Originally posted by Nilsen

Who knows what will eventually rise from the rubble, and if its going to be any better than when saddam ruled. [/B]

All I can say is I certainly hope whatever does emerge is better then Saddam.  If that turns out to be the case, I think history will judge this adventure as "worth it."  (I mean, what if he died a natural death only to be replaced by his sons or cronies?  They sounded much worse).

If it doesn't and someone on par or worse comes in, well, big black eye for America for as long as records are kept.

[Fishu]

Originally posted by Yeager
fishu, what are you saying?  be simple like.

It shouldn't be simplier, it should be more comprehensive. I was too tired to write more sensible stuff. It's simply a comparison to the middle east situation around Israel - Why the French resistance fighters aka terrorists were supported by other nations, but why palestinians and hezbollah doesn't have the luxury of having multiple nations warring for them.