Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: xrtoronto on July 27, 2006, 08:37:43 PM
-
Nazi's invade france...as a result the french underground is born; it was born out of the nazi occupation of france.
was the resistence a terrorist group?
-
Yes.
-
Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy
Yes.
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?
-
You're reaching. It won't work. There is no modern situation that compares with the French Resistance and the Nazi occupation force. Forget it.
-
doesnt' suite your agenda does it?
thankyou for proving my point
-
That depends... did the french underground target French civilians?
-
that the best you can come up with:rofl
-
Originally posted by Mini D
That depends... did the french underground target French civilians?
Or civilians for thta matter.
-
What's the matter xtoronto... that question doesn't fit your agenda? Thanks for proving my point.
-
did mommy help with the very clever answer mini?
you cant deflect attention away from the fact you havent answered my question..if you can't answer it..stfu and stay out of this (you'll look even more stupid if you continue)
-
History is written by the winners, one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter etc etc. Thatcher called Mandela a terrorist, Mandela later won the Nobel peace prize. Menachem Begin planted a bomb in a hotel which killed Brits, Jews and Arabs and became Israeli PM twice.
Guess it depends who you ask.
-
Terrorist Organization--No
Guerilla Fighters--Yes
-
Deleted. Rule #4.
-
What happened to that last post by xrtoronto?
-
Deleted. Rule #4.
-
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?
-
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?
toad, i know your question was rhetorical, but the answer is:
because it was the right thing to do.
-
Maybe the answer is because almost the entire world was resisting the nazis.
Because the nazis were truly BAD. One might even say evil without fear of reproach.
Which is what shoots your entire troll right in his little behind.
-
Deleted. Rule #4.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
You called the french resistance a terrorist group. How is that not a comparison. Why are you being so ignorant here? Is your point really so weak that you have to pretend it's everyone else that's failing to make a point?
Did the French Resistance target French civilians?
this is my first post in this thread:
Originally posted by xrtoronto
Nazi's invade france...as a result the french underground is born; it was born out of the nazi occupation of france.
was the resistence a terrorist group?
Where did I call the french underground terrorists?
I was the one who asked the question. Do you remember what I said a few posts ago to you about look more stupid if you continue? WELL... deja vu!
-
I gotta go play darts at the corner bar...
mini..if you want to get together to play 'snakes & ladders' or 'go fish' ...give me a call sometime.:lol
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
Nazi's invade france...as a result the french underground is born; it was born out of the nazi occupation of france.
was the resistence a terrorist group?
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.
-
Could've been an interesting discussion.
Instead it's a few replies from being locked.
-
Originally posted by moot
Could've been an interesting discussion.
Instead it's a few replies from being locked.
I agree, it could have been an interesting discussion except for the current events taking place.
Personally I think there's a big difference between today's terrorists and the FR of the 40s.
Specifically the FR did not target the German population to incite fear but more or less stuck to fighting the Nazis and the German Army. They also ran supplies, gathered intel, and hid downed airman from capture.
That's a far cry from suicide bombing and the intentional murder of civilians.
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
doesnt' suite your agenda does it?
thankyou for proving my point
Actually, it just shows that another weak attempt at moral equivalence is a failure.
The French Resistance made no attempt to terrorize the Wermacht. Any idea how an underground movement constantly on the verge of being wiped out was "terrorizing" a massive military machine? Of course not, they didn't. They spied on the Wermacht, they blew up supplies, they disrupted communication, they even assassinated some soldiers of one rank or another. However, Germany was at war with most every country save the rest of the Axis, and they were occupying France. To carry it a step further, the French Resistance was not targeting German civilians. So no, they were not a terrorist group. Nor is there ANY valid comparison between the French Resistance fighting the Wermacht, and any of the current events.
Thank you for exposing your extremely weak and baseless position.
-
Originally posted by moot
Could've been an interesting discussion.
Instead it's a few replies from being locked.
Do you REALLY think this thread was started to be an interesting and civil discussion?
-
Is it any wonder why Ann Coulter has such a hard on for liberals?
-
No, Capn, I was just being politely ambiguous.
It could still be turned into one, though.
-
Big difference between the French Resistance in WW2 and Terrorists.
First, the French were invaded, makeing them the defenders.
Second, a small group of them actually had the nads to try to defend
Third, they didn't use women, children and their churches and a shield when the Nazi's found them
Fourth, THey didnt try to blow up innocent peoople just for fun, or because they could.
I rate the modern Terrorists we have to deal with now as high on the human life form scale as the Jews rate Hitler.
I rate the French Resistance at a 8.2
-
*ahem*
They were freedom fighters.
:D
-
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
-
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
-
son, have you never heard the old adage,
"One mans wine is another mans poison."
You seem like a smart kid.......:rolleyes:
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
fishu, what are you saying? be simple like.
-
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.
-
heheh. xrtoronto pulled a "nuke".
got totally worked over in an arguement, then claimed victory.
-
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"
:rolleyes:
-
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 :D )
-
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 :D )
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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'...
-
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".
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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?
-
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
-
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... ?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
That wasn't irony?
-
Originally posted by moot
That wasn't irony?
No, ignorance is more like it.:lol
-
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.;)
-
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
-
The sarcasmeter..
-
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