Was the french resistence a terrorist org?

[deSelys]

French resistance was called terrorists by the nazis, who applied the same term to USAF and RAF for the bombing raids of german cities.


Being called a terrorist by your enemy doesn't automatically make you one. And this cuts both ways.


Just sayin'...

[VOR]

The FR were not terrorists because we were on the same side. It's that simple but somehow it's difficult for some to wrap their minds around the idea.

Our propaganda was better than their propaganda, so our cause was more just and noble than their cause.  As a result, the world rallied around the little man with the funny mustache, horizontal striped shirt and the saucepan on his head instead of Fritz.

This time around, *their* propaganda is better than ours. As a result, they're freedom fighters defending themselves from the armies of corporate oppression and Dubya's personal greed, right? Want the proof? Look at opinion polls (for what those are worth). Nevermind that mass graves are something these two wars have in common. That's just too taboo a discussion, and not nearly as practical as just pointing and saying "liar".

[T0J0]

A guy named Toronto needs help with the difference between terrorist and freedom fighter? What a shocker!!
Considering the fact that the french were better off and happier under a german occupation then thier fallen government I would say they were terrorists..
But comparing the attempted slaughter of an entire race of people based on religion with the current US admin is apples and lemons...  Crawford Texas has a tent for you waiting! take extra cans of "Off" the bugs are numerous...

TJ

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Toad
Ya, I gotta wonder why the world helped people actively resisting the Nazis.

What a conundrum. Why ever would the rest of the world do that?

Actually the "world" didnt.

 the allies did.

that being said.
and in responce to the original question.

It would depend on which side you ask

[Eagler]

Originally posted by lukster
If the point of this thread is to compare the US occupation of Iraq with the occupation of France by the Nazis....

that's the exact reason of his thread
it has already been posted before
it was way off base then and it is still a retarded comparison now

[lazs2]

I will answer..

The answer is no.. the french resistance were not terrorists... unless you were a german soldier.

France surrendered but... it was a "World war" and germany was still fighting the... well... world.

The war was not over.   Germany had not won the war yet.  

The only people who thought germany had a legitimate right to be in france were.... germany and their allies.

By any standards.. the germans themselves were terrorists as they were the ones doing the public executions of random civilians (for every german killed they would round up ten civilians and execute them publicly).

The resistance were not targeting german civilians...  They were not coming from other countries and targeting french civilians nor were they using french civilians for shields.

lazs

[Mini D]

Are people actually denying a comparison between the FR and the terrorism going on in Iraq right now?

Wow.

I'm going to quote something to show how "civil" of a discussion this was supposed to be:

from the mouth of babes:
doesnt' suite your agenda does it?

thankyou for proving my point

Fourth post of the thread, and telling of it's intent. "Agenda" rears it's ugly head again. Do you guys even think this stuff through or are you simply posting while stoned?

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Eagler
that's the exact reason of his thread
it has already been posted before
it was way off base then and it is still a retarded comparison now

Well if we are talking Iraq Vrs the Nazi occupation
Or terrorists in general.

The Insurgency in Iraq has alot more in common with the French resistance then say Al Qaeda as a whole

[Mini D]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
The Insurgency in Iraq has alot more in common with the French resistance then say Al Qaeda as a whole

You base this on... ?

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Mini D


You base this on... ?

the insurgancy in Iraq targets the military occupation and those supporting it.

Just as the French resistance did


Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups Just targets anyone with anything to do with the west.
As DMF said. Because they can. Or whatever is going to make the greatest headlines

Dont get me wrong I dont support the insurgancy.
But if you look at it with an unbiast eye (and I know its difficult)

The insurgancy has alot in common with the resistance.

Now to the Germans/Nazis
The Resistance were indeed terrorists.

Mostly the difference between the two is all a matter of perspective

but I'd have to say if the orioginal question was about Iraq and WWII France
The answer would be no,,or yes depending which side you asked.

[deSelys]

Originally posted by lazs2


The answer is no.. the french resistance were not terrorists... unless you were a german soldier.

Would you agree with:

The answer is no.. the iraqi freedom fighters are not terrorists... unless you are a US soldier.

[SirLoin]

Originally posted by 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.

Hitler invaded France because of it's huge military industrial complex.

GWB invaded Iraq because because of it's huge military industial complex.



All i see is history repeating itself(& a whole lot of civillians getting slaughtered)

[lukster]

Originally posted by SirLoin
Hitler invaded France because of it's huge military industrial complex.

GWB invaded Iraq because because of it's huge military industial complex.



All i see is history repeating itself(& a whole lot of civillians getting slaughtered)

All I see here is dishonesty.

[lukster]

Originally posted by SirLoin
Hitler invaded France because of it's huge military industrial complex.

GWB invaded Iraq because because of it's huge military industial complex.



All i see is history repeating itself(& a whole lot of civillians getting slaughtered)

It would be far more accurate to say:

America invaded Germany because it invaded it's neighbors and was looking to conquer the region. It was also slaughtering it's own citizens but the extent of that was unknown at the time of the invasion.

America invaded Iraq because it invaded it's neighbors and was looking to conquer the region. It was also slaughtering it's own citizens but the extent of that was unknown at the time of the invasion.

[Mini D]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
the insurgancy in Iraq targets the military occupation and those supporting it.

You forgot "among other things".

Just as the French resistance did

No. Not "just as the French resistance did". The french resistance did not place roadside bombs in towns, they did not blow up their own people. They did not round up scores of people and execute them. The "insurgency" in Iraq targets anyone and anything they view as a threat. That is not limited to the U.S. "occupation".

Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups Just targets anyone with anything to do with the west.
As DMF said. Because they can. Or whatever is going to make the greatest headlines.

Ah... so you're resorting to "different philosophy". Unfortunately, the actions are virtually identical to those of the Iraq "insurgency". The motivation may be different, the the actions are the same.

Dont get me wrong I dont support the insurgancy.
But if you look at it with an unbiast eye (and I know its difficult)

That's not an unbiased eye that you are using there. You're assessment is not based on the actions of the groups, rather the "reason for response". Even in that regard, comparing the U.S. presence in Iraq to the German presence in France is completely off the mark. This is not that complex.