Was the french resistence a terrorist org?

[FiLtH]

They were terrorists to the germans.  It all depends what side you are on. Todays terrorists are somebody's freedom fighters. Its that who, that is my enemy. What side are you on?

[lukster]

Originally posted by FiLtH
They were terrorists to the germans.  It all depends what side you are on. Todays terrorists are somebody's freedom fighters. Its that who, that is my enemy. What side are you on?

So what are today's terrorists fighting for? I suggest nothing less than complete submission to Islam. Is that something that anyone here can sympathize with?

[Goomba]

This is how I see it...

The problem is that we use the words terrorist and insurgent and guerilla interchangeably.  They are not interchangeable words.

Terrorism is meant to sow fear, disorder and discord (by virtue of bombs, traps, ambushes, etc...) amongst a civilian population in order to effect a specific shift in popular public opinion.  Directed at civilians.

Guerilla warfare is non-conventional warfare, conducted by uniformed or non-uniformed persons against a military force, intended to create an untenable atmosphere for continued military involvement...raising the 'blood price' on an enemy military.  Directed at military personnel.

Insurgency is guerilla warfare conducted by parties outside the conflict who choose to 'immigrate' into a region and conduct guerilla actions.

Our nightly talking heads fail to recognize the difference, and fail to realize that the current affairs in the Middle East are, in fact, a combination of all three, depending on the scenario.

For example...a roadside IED, detonated for a military target, is an guerilla/insurgent action...not terrorism.

The same IED, detonated for a civilian target ( a car full of She-ites {damned filter again}, blown up by Sunnis) is terrorism.

A hit-and-run ambush on a military convoy by irregulars is guerilla tactics.  A car bomb in a marketplace is terrorism.

So, no...the French Resistance was not a terrorist organization, as it's actions and purpose were specifically oriented around the German military.  To my knowledge, the FR also conducted actions against collaborators on an individual basis...not by blowing up schools to make a point.

Terrorists kidnap, maim, torture and behead civilians...it's not 'irregular war'...it's terror for terror's sake.

Lastly, I would contend that all of these comparison are actually extremely difficult to make for one very simple reason:  Another time and place.

We have to remember that social values and mores were significantly different back then, and not subject to exactly the same perspective as today's nannified societies.  At that time, for example, waging war against civilian populations was par for the course.  Routine.  Thousands upon thousands killed every day in city bombing, firestorms, dams down, etc...  

Today, if a US soldier farts in a diner it's a war crime.

Of course...this is all just opinion.  

[SFRT - Frenchy]

Originally posted by T0J0

Considering the fact that the french were better off and happier under a german occupation then thier fallen government ...

OMG:rofl

[moot]

That wasn't irony?

[GtoRA2]

Originally posted by moot
That wasn't irony?

No, ignorance is more like it.

[toon]

Anybody have plans to see talledega knights ..the legend of ricky bobby? i hear its going to be a swell moving picture show. im planning on some pre-picture show activities that will enhance will ferrell"s comic genius. oh gosh.. im sorry ..i got bored by the troll.  attempted hijack aborted.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Mini D
You forgot "among other things". 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".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.
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.

I think you and I would be better off agreeing to disagree.
Based on your responces. and the responces I would make.
There is no way you and I are ever going to see eye to eye on the issue.

but just for the record. I am indeed viewing it with an unbiast eye.
You just dont agree with my conclusions.
And I do not see how if it is viewed in an unbiast manner any other conclusion can be drawn

[moot]

The sarcasmeter..

[lazs2]

deselys... no, I would not agree with your statement that the iraqi terrorists were not terrorists except to American soldiers.

The people trying to go to market and watching their women and children targeted and blown to pieces in front of their eyes would also rightly see these scum as terrorists.

The families of the civilians whos heads were cut off on live TV in order to make some point would not agree with your statement either.

the islamofacists whole philosophy is one of terror... terror against both civilian and military targets with the overwhelming emphasis on killing and terrorizing fellow citizens based on their religion.

I do not see how anyone could condone that or even consider it a part of legitimate resistance.

lazs