# Morality v reality



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Much is said about terrorist organizations and violent regimes being "of the people" and that the "people" should remove such regimes and disarm/resist terrorist organizations. However, the ability for an unarmed law abiding populace to do that is extremely limited, given that ALL terrorist organizations are criminals and funded by crime, and all violent regimes maintain their own inhouse terror organzations, be they real groups of terrorists or paramilitary pseudo-security forces.

The torture and violence and threats of same on a populace by terror organizations and corrupt violent regimes is widespread and very effective in creating mass fear and a docile population, so an unarmed, law abiding Joe Bloggs can do nothing in the face of such activity. That is a job for the UN, the AU, the EU and Nato.

For example, it is all very well to "morally" blame the Joe Bloggs of Palestine because they have not done anything about the various Palestinian terror/crime groups in operation. But in reality they have absolutely no ability or chance of preventing or countering the actions of armed terrorist/freedom fighter criminals.

In exactly the same way that the Joe Bloggs of Northern Ireland during The Troubles had zero ability for preventing Republican and Loyalist crime and terrorism, so it is extremely unfair and totally incorrect to blame the law abiding majority of a population for the terrorism and associated crime commited in its name.

It's all very well for westerners to say "well, there are millions of them, they could arm themselves and rise up and topple that regime"

It isn't that easy, and *weight of numbers means nothing in conflict and combat situations*, it if did the French forces of between 20 to 30 thousand would have won Agincourt hands down in the face of under 7,000 English troops...but they didn't, they lost! Speed, skill and creating fear and terrror mean everything in combat, and most law abiding civilians of any populace do not possess those attributes.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Much is said about terrorist organizations and violent reigmes being "of the people" and that the "people" should remove such regimes and disarm/resist terrorist organizations. However, the ability for an unarmed law abiding populace to do that is extremely limited, given that ALL terrorist organizations are criminals and funded by crime, and all violent regimes maintain their own inhouse terror organzations, be they real groups of terrorists or paramilitary pseudo-security forces.
> 
> The torture and violence and threats of same on a populace by terror organizations and corrupt violent regimes is widespread and very effective in creating mass fear and a docile population, so an unarmed, law abiding Joe Bloggs can do nothing in the face of such activity. That is a job for the UN, the AU, the EU and Nato.
> 
> ...


Very good point that seems to have been lost on some members.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

You make some good points. The issue that then follows is what responsibility falls on neighbouring states (and also those that are more distant) to combat terrorist groups and terrorist regimes that have the freedom to act with utter ruthlessness and impunity in their own country?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

The American Mafia and KKK were terror organizations which existed here as long as the population allowed it and organized government and law enforcement denied their existence.

It took decades of struggle to change the law, change the attitude of the powers that be and the population at large, to get rid of them. 

In the mean time, it was extremely fair and totally correct to blame the law abiding majority of a population for the terrorism and associated crime commited.

So based on my experience, I don't expect change rapidly, but I expect progress and I expect resistance to be thorough.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> That is a job for the UN, the AU, the EU and Nato.


...and when they do nothing, then what??


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

The reason they don't put up a struggle is because they feel empathy and in at least some fundamental level in agreement with them. It's the culture that breeds it. 

Terrorist organizations don't just come forth out of the blue. In reference to the KKK and ethnic mafias, look at where they thrive. Was the KKK big in Vermont? Was the Italian mob big in Minneapolis?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> The reason they don't put up a struggle is because they feel empathy and in at least some fundamental level in agreement with them. It's the culture that breeds it.
> 
> Terrorist organizations don't just come forth out of the blue. In reference to the KKK and ethnic mafias, look at where they thrive. Was the KKK big in Vermont? Was the Italian mob big in Minneapolis?


Some very good points that seem to have been lost on some members.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> The reason they don't put up a struggle is because they feel empathy and in at least some fundamental level in agreement with them. It's the culture that breeds it.


Really? Tell that to countless Christian and Animist villages in Africa being massacred daily by Muslim militias!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

We have this fantasy, at least some do, in the West that, 

a) AQ, ISIS and other terrorist organizations are somehow "perverting" Islam or defiling it and, 

b) the vast majority of Muslims do not agree with them

The fact is that if this were the case then they would cease to exist in rather quick order. If the vast majority of Muslims didn't agree with it, then the recruiting pool would quickly dry up and local populations would become incredibly hostile and antagonistic toward them. But this does not seem to be happening. 

It's the same argument in post WWII Germany when many claimed "not to know" anything. However footage clearly shows what the Nazi party had in mind, or at least thought of Jews. The greater population may not have agreed with the tactics, but they gave tacit approval through empathy and inaction. The same thing is happening in the Islamic world. 

We like to think that they don't approve. We like to think that they are helpless in the face of armed terrorists, but the fact is that they are actually ok with it. Revolutions happen all the time against undesirable elements within a culture. The French were beaten in Algeria and in Viet Nam. The British were beaten in North America by a bunch of farmers and wood workers. I think it's safe to say that in those cases indigenous populations rose up and took up arms against oppressors who were for all intents and purposes better trained, equipped and were professional killers.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Really? Tell that to countless Christian and Animist villages in Africa being massacred daily by Muslim militias!


I'm not referring to the Christians living in these lands. I'm certain that they don't approve nor do they want this element anywhere near them.

I'm referring to the vast number of Muslims who are the majorities in these countries who give aid and succor to groups like Boko Haram, Hamas, Hezbollah, AQ, ISIS and the list goes on.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> I'm not referring to the Christians living in these lands. I'm certain that they don't approve nor do they want this element anywhere near them.
> 
> I'm referring to the vast number of Muslims who are the majorities in these countries who give aid and succor to groups like Boko Haram, Hamas, Hezbollah, AQ, ISIS and the list goes on.


In which case I agree....mostly...BUT with one important qualification, in that a LOT of that support is because of fear and by coercion..the alternative to not helping usually being torture, rape and death. So my point stands, in that the average Joe on the street is in a hopeless, vulnerable situation, for the most part powerless to change anything.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Some very good points that seem to have been lost on some members.


Indeed.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> The reason they don't put up a struggle is because they feel empathy and in at least some fundamental level in agreement with them. It's the culture that breeds it.
> 
> Terrorist organizations don't just come forth out of the blue. In reference to the KKK and ethnic mafias, look at where they thrive. Was the KKK big in Vermont? Was the Italian mob big in Minneapolis?


It was a culture of ignorance and deprivation, and a sense of persecution, that led to the KKK and the Mafia thriving in the US, as the Mafia, Camorra etc. did in Italy and Sicily. Once people became educated sufficiently the KKK at least lost a lot of its appeal. Remove the grievances and the deprivation and the ignorance and improve education and movements like the KKK will decline and fail, as will Arab terrorist organisations.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> We like to think that they don't approve. We like to think that they are helpless in the face of armed terrorists, but the fact is that they are actually ok with it. Revolutions happen all the time against undesirable elements within a culture. The French were beaten in Algeria and in Viet Nam. The British were beaten in North America by a bunch of farmers and wood workers. I think it's safe to say that in those cases indigenous populations rose up and took up arms against oppressors who were for all intensive purposes better trained, equipped and were professional killers.


No, they weren't. They were beaten by an organised and disciplined army of men who might once have been farmers and woodworkers, and by the French. Their Army helped to train and equip the Continental Army, as well as aid directly with French soldiers, and, especially, the French Navy, who were able to prevent Britain from resupplying and reinforcing their forces in N.America. It appears to be a popular myth that the Brits were defeated by militia and minutemen.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> We have this fantasy, at least some do, in the West that,
> 
> a) AQ, ISIS and other terrorist organizations are somehow "perverting" Islam or defiling it and,
> 
> ...


It isn't happening because the basic grievances of the Islamic world, as they perceive them, are persistently ignored.



SG_67 said:


> It's the same argument in post WWII Germany when many claimed "not to know" anything. However footage clearly shows what the Nazi party had in mind, or at least thought of Jews. The greater population may not have agreed with the tactics, but they gave tacit approval through empathy and inaction. The same thing is happening in the Islamic world.


The same thing is happening in the US especially with regard to the Israeli government's behaviour towards the Palestinians.



SG_67 said:


> We like to think that they don't approve. We like to think that they are helpless in the face of armed terrorists, but the fact is that they are actually ok with it. Revolutions happen all the time against undesirable elements within a culture. The French were beaten in Algeria and in Viet Nam.


Actually, they weren't. The French were beaten in Indo-China by a large Chinese backed, armed, supplied and trained conventional army, which fought in the open as soldiers, not as guerillas, supported by guerilla activity. French poverty following WW2 and war-weariness, and especially the unpopularity of the War in Indo-China, meant that the French, politically, were never going to be able to fight effectively. Ho Chi Min knew that, and knew that simply by fighting long enough the French would give up. France wasn't beaten by a popular movement, any more than Germany's army in France in 1944 was defeated by the Maquis. Similarly, the French lost in Algeria because they lacked the popular will in France to continue fighting, not because they were beaten by a popular movement. The French easily defeated a popular movement in Madagascar in the same era.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> It was a culture of ignorance and deprivation, and a sense of persecution, that led to the KKK and the Mafia thriving in the US, as the Mafia, Camorra etc. did in Italy and Sicily. Once people became educated sufficiently the KKK at least lost a lot of its appeal. Remove the grievances and the deprivation and the ignorance and improve education and movements like the KKK will decline and fail, as will Arab terrorist organisations.


Yes, the KKK and Mafia were defeated in part because the rest of us relented to it's perceived grievences and capitulated to their demands.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> In which case I agree....mostly...BUT with one important qualification, in that a LOT of that support is because of fear and by coercion..the alternative to not helping usually being torture, rape and death. So my point stands, in that the average Joe on the street is in a hopeless, vulnerable situation, for the most part powerless to change anything.


Only partially.

The victgims of torture, rape and death are powerless to change anything.

Bystanders, excuse makers and do-nothings are not powerless to change anything


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> It was a culture of ignorance and deprivation, and a sense of persecution, that led to the KKK and the Mafia thriving in the US, as the Mafia, Camorra etc. did in Italy and Sicily. Once people became educated sufficiently the KKK at least lost a lot of its appeal. Remove the grievances and the deprivation and the ignorance and improve education and movements like the KKK will decline and fail, as will Arab terrorist organisations.


I couldn't agree more. Now do you see just how little Israel has to do with all of this?

The grievances are manufactured. The deprivation, lack of education and ignorance, unfortunately are real and imposed.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> The deprivation, lack of education and ignorance, unfortunately are real and imposed.


More often than not in the US, self imposed.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Chouan said:


> No, they weren't. They were beaten by an organised and disciplined army of men who might once have been farmers and woodworkers, and by the French. Their Army helped to train and equip the Continental Army, as well as aid directly with French soldiers, and, especially, the French Navy, who were able to prevent Britain from resupplying and reinforcing their forces in N.America. It appears to be a popular myth that the Brits were defeated by militia and minutemen.


Chouan, it's nice to be in agreement with you.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> No, they weren't. They were beaten by an organised and disciplined army of men who might once have been farmers and woodworkers, and by the French. Their Army helped to train and equip the Continental Army, as well as aid directly with French soldiers, and, especially, the French Navy, who were able to prevent Britain from resupplying and reinforcing their forces in N.America. It appears to be a popular myth that the Brits were defeated by militia and minutemen.


Without going into the specifics of the war for independence, it still took an indigenous population with the will and it was ultimately their effort. I doubt the French would have made the investment in prestige and money if they didn't think it could be done.

By the way, it's not as though there aren't countries and organizations that won't help some of these people. We see the Kurds fighting it out with ISIS with US help of course. It still stands to reason, as long as the indigenous population is accepting of terrorists, there is little that foreign intervention or money can do to stop it.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> ... the French lost in Algeria because they lacked the popular will in France to continue fighting, not because they were beaten by a popular movement. The French easily defeated a popular movement in Madagascar in the same era.


It was really the slippery and untrustworthy de Gaulle, whose short-lived Fifth Republic lost Algeria. I doubt whether popular will in France had that much to do with it. My father happened to be studying in Paris at that time and for a few years before, and witnessed some of the rather dreadful treatment that was meted out to Algerians who were unfortunate enough to find themselves living in Paris at that time. Quite a few - possibly hundreds - were rounded up by gendarmes and never seen alive again. Apparently it was all right, even on the left bank, provided you had a white face.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> I couldn't agree more. Now do you see just how little Israel has to do with all of this?
> 
> The grievances are manufactured. The deprivation, lack of education and ignorance, unfortunately are real and imposed.


The grievances are real. If you and people in power continue to dismiss them the problem will continue. The deprivation, economic and cultural is, of course real, as is the ignorance and lack of education. These are also problems and causes. However, ignoring them, all of them, won't solve the problem. The military solution, the one advocated most, still hasn't worked, and won't work.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Yes, the KKK and Mafia were defeated in part because the rest of us relented to it's perceived grievences and capitulated to their demands.


The KKK declined through the effects of education. If the US response to the KKK was a military one, the perceived grievance, even if erroneous, that led to the formation of the KKK would simply have been exacerbated and reinforced, and the struggle would have become far worse and support for the KKK would have grown.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

tocqueville said:


> Chouan, it's nice to be in agreement with you.


Thank you.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Without going into the specifics of the war for independence, it still took an indigenous population with the will and it was ultimately their effort. I doubt the French would have made the investment in prestige and money if they didn't think it could be done.
> 
> By the way, it's not as though there aren't countries and organizations that won't help some of these people. We see the Kurds fighting it out with ISIS with US help of course. It still stands to reason, as long as the indigenous population is accepting of terrorists, there is little that foreign intervention or money can do to stop it.


But the Kurdish organisation that runs the Kurdish militia is regarded officially as a terrorist organisation in Europe and the US. The Kurds are as backward culturally as any Muslim people, yet seem to have our support.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> It was really the slippery and untrustworthy de Gaulle, whose short-lived Fifth Republic lost Algeria. I doubt whether popular will in France had that much to do with it. My father happened to be studying in Paris at that time and for a few years before, and witnessed some of the rather dreadful treatment that was meted out to Algerians who were unfortunate enough to find themselves living in Paris at that time. Quite a few - possibly hundreds - were rounded up by gendarmes and never seen alive again. Apparently it was all right, even on the left bank, provided you had a white face.


It was indeed. However, the French politicians of all complexions were firmly opposed to the War, which they saw as a massive drain on France, and prevented the use of metropolitan French conscripts there.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> The Kurds are as backward culturally as any Muslim people, yet seem to have our support.


As backward culturally and violently as AQ or ISIS??


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> The KKK declined through the effects of education. If the US response to the KKK was a military one, the perceived grievance, even if erroneous, that led to the formation of the KKK would simply have been exacerbated and reinforced, and the struggle would have become far worse and support for the KKK would have grown.


The effects of education that helped defeat the KKK and institutionalized racism in general was in part to expose how hateful and invalid any perceived grievance the racists and KKK had.

The law enforcement/military solution included federalizing state militias and occupying towns and cities to enforce desegregation.

This action did not make them stronger, the struggle did not become far worse and support for the KKK and institutional racism was defeated.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> It was indeed. However, the French politicians of all complexions were firmly opposed to the War, which they saw as a massive drain on France, and prevented the use of metropolitan French conscripts there.


I will admit am not fully informed on French politics of that period, beyond what my father passed on to me some years ago - he was quite well connected there at one time. However, everything I have learned of the period suggests there was a degree of popular support (beyond the mutinous officer corps) for maintaining a French colonial presence in North Africa. De Gaulle was returned to power in 1958 on the apparent promise that Algeria would remain French.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> But the Kurdish organisation that runs the Kurdish militia is regarded officially as a terrorist organisation in Europe and the US. The Kurds are as backward culturally as any Muslim people, yet seem to have our support.


The Peshmerga of Iraqi Kurdistan and the PKK are two separate entities so which Kurds are you referring to?

If the Iraqi Kurds, you surely jest! They have, under quite harsh conditions, developed a rather advanced and open society with elections and relative political stability. By all measures, they are a functioning state which is more than I can say for many of the countries existing in that region.

I'm really not sure where the cultural backwardness comes from. If anything, I think they are a model of how Islam can exist and work in the framework of an open society.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Just a reminder to everyone. The rules DO matter in the interchange. I just had to close another thread, delete three posts and issue two infractions. 

These will start turning into suspensions if people don't behave civilly. Please take heed.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> I will admit am not fully informed on French politics of that period, beyond what my father passed on to me some years ago - he was quite well connected there at one time. However, everything I have learned of the period suggests there was a degree of popular support (beyond the mutinous officer corps) for maintaining a French colonial presence in North Africa. De Gaulle was returned to power in 1958 on the apparent promise that Algeria would remain French.


He was indeed, then did exactly the opposite! There was popular support for the war, but, importantly, the politicians thought that the war wasn't viable financially and was being fought for the benefit of the Pieds Noirs, many of whom were of Spanish origin, not for the benefit of France.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> The Peshmerga of Iraqi Kurdistan and the PKK are two separate entities so which Kurds are you referring to?


The PKK is related to the Peshmurga in the same way as Sinn Fein is related to the PIRA.



SG_67 said:


> If the Iraqi Kurds, you surely jest! They have, under quite harsh conditions, developed a rather advanced and open society with elections and relative political stability. By all measures, they are a functioning state which is more than I can say for many of the countries existing in that region.
> 
> I'm really not sure where the cultural backwardness comes from. If anything, I think they are a model of how Islam can exist and work in the framework of an open society.


I suggest that you look at the status of women in Kurdish society. Another of the Islamic states that we support openly is at least as brutal as ISIS, and your President has just been there for a funeral; Saudi Arabia.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> The PKK is related to the Peshmurga in the same way as Sinn Fein is related to the PIRA.
> 
> I suggest that you look at the status of women in Kurdish society. Another of the Islamic states that we support openly is at least as brutal as ISIS, and your President has just been there for a funeral; Saudi Arabia.


https://www.kdp.se/?do=women

https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/The-Kurdish-womens-revolution-344927

While not perfect and certainly with some way to go, they are at least making strides.

The question is not whether these societies are ad liberal as the west. Every society and culture is different. The question is, is there room and space for growth? The problem with some of these Arab societies is that they are in a cultural stasis.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> https://www.kdp.se/?do=women
> 
> https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/The-Kurdish-womens-revolution-344927
> 
> ...


They are indeed. However, we can't say that *this* barbaric Arab state is bad whilst *this* barbaric Arab state is good, simply on the basis of our political relationship with them. They're either both good or both bad. The West quite liked Saddam Hussein's Iraq for a while, and the West helped the people who became the Taliban after all.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ I'm not suggesting that. What I am suggesting is that the Kurds are progressing forward, even if in fits and spurts, toward a more modern and open society.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> ^ I'm not suggesting that. What I am suggesting is that the Kurds are progressing forward, even if in fits and spurts, toward a more modern and open society.


Yes....but with the help of several terrorist groups or home defence groups depending on your stance. Just because PKK are fighting IS with US help doesn't mean they cease to be terrorists.

All of the following have accepted responsibility for terrorist attacks, and all are linked to PKK.
HPG (Peoples Defence Force) which is the armed wing of the PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party)
TAK (Kurdistan Freedom Falcons a.k.a. Kurdistan Freedom Hawks)
Kongra-Gel (KGK) (Kurdistan's People's Congress) a.k.a. KADEK, KHK, PKK.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> They're either both good or both bad.


Suddenly, it's a Black and White world again.

I suspect, when convenient, it will all return to only shades of gray nuance!!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> They are indeed. However, we can't say that *this* barbaric Arab state is bad whilst *this* barbaric Arab state is good, simply on the basis of our political relationship with them. They're either both good or both bad. The West quite liked Saddam Hussein's Iraq for a while, and the West helped the people who became the Taliban after all.





SG_67 said:


> ^ I'm not suggesting that. What I am suggesting is that the Kurds are progressing forward, even if in fits and spurts, toward a more modern and open society.


Weren't you accused recently by someone we may know of saying "all Arab states are barbaric" or some such??


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I actually am not one to label groups as terrorist organizations based solely on what some government or international agency chooses to define as terrorism. 

To paraphrase Justice Potter Stewart, I can't define what terrorism is exactly but I know it when I see it. These designations are made sometimes for political purposes (and lifted as well) as much as they are on any objective grounds.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Suddenly, it's a Black and White world again.
> 
> I suspect, when convenient, it will all return to only shades of gray nuance!!


With respect, it wasn't me condemning the Arab/Muslim world as barbaric. But, if beheading those viewed as enemies, and flogging dissidents is regarded as barbaric, then it shouldn't matter which group are doing it, it is still barbaric.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

AH!! 

But flogging a heretic is a marked improvement over beheading one!!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

WouldaShoulda said:


> AH!!
> 
> But flogging a heretic is a marked improvement over beheading one!!


I think this is a good point. I'm certainly not in favor of flogging or any other punishment, let alone the idea that heresy should be a criminal act, but compared to beheading?

I'm sure there are those who would point to the Salem witch trials as well as certain community imposed punishments that still occur in the U.S. but putting that aside, the question to really ask is do these cultures/societies show any inclination toward modernity? Do they have a structural framework in place where the time and space is afforded to reformers.

Europe owes much to it's post Medieval renaissance but there does not appear to be much in the Arab/Islamic world pointing to this. I suppose Turkey is one example, but look at what had to be done there in order to modernize. Ataturk pretty much had to ban the religion! Turkey was dragged into modernity and though they have some problems, they are for the most part a secular democracy.

Lebanon was very similar until the last 30 years. Ironically, Syria and Iraq were as well but it was imposed on them by dictators. Do these societies have the capacity to modernize and develop secular institutions? Do they have the capacity to respect individual rights, property rights and the rights of women?


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> the politicians thought that the war ...was being fought for the benefit of the Pieds Noirs, many of whom were of Spanish origin, not for the benefit of France.


Strange, I haven't heard that before. The politicians perhaps overlooked the consequence that all the piers noirs, not to mention the poor Algerian harkis (even now, apparently forbidden to return to their native country), would be ejected to France. Quite possibly some of the ongoing problems the French now have with muslim fanatics arise from this failure to impose order then. Anyone who has seen _The Battle for Algiers_ will understand that the French were not usually known for their restraint when dealing with trouble.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> Strange, I haven't heard that before. The politicians perhaps overlooked the consequence that all the piers noirs, not to mention the poor Algerian harkis (even now, apparently forbidden to return to their native country), would be ejected to France. Quite possibly some of the ongoing problems the French now have with muslim fanatics arise from this failure to impose order then. Anyone who has seen _The Battle for Algiers_ will understand that the French were not usually known for their restraint when dealing with trouble.


Indeed, hence the "repression" in Paris by the police. The French government became resigned to the fact that the Pieds Noirs would abandon Algeria on independence, but initially assumed that they would stay there. The treatment of the Harkis is one of the most shameful episodes of modern French History. Only some were allowed into metropolitan France, usually being assisted by their officers, as De Gaulle's giovernment didn't want France to be contaminated by people of colour and Muslims. Most Harkis were disarmed and then left to the tender mercies of the FLN, who regarded them as traitors and killed tens of thousands of them.
There was certainly a popular reaction against the extreme measures being used by people like Massu and Bugeard, who were seen, especially by the French Left as behaving the same as the SS.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

^ You clearly have an acute grasp of the situation as it was at that time, Chouan. France seems always to have had an undercurrent of violent political turmoil, fortunately the Channel separates us.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> ^ You clearly have an acute grasp of the situation as it was at that time, Chouan.


Thank you for saying so.



Langham said:


> France seems always to have had an undercurrent of violent political turmoil, fortunately the Channel separates us.


Indeed! Look at the recent (2007-) campaign against McDonalds in France 




and the actions of people like Jose Bove, as well as their sheep burning antics!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)




----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

^ Well of course there the French have my support - that sort of junk food needs to be stamped out, manufactured as it is from diseased organs.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

SG_67 said:


> I actually am not one to label groups as terrorist organizations based solely on what some government or international agency chooses to define as terrorism.


I posted this earlier today, and this afternoon I'm watching the news and I see this:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...surgency_not_a_terrorist_group_like_isil.html

It appears and though the terms "insurgency" and "terrorism" are somewhat fluid.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

> "*The administration has lapsed into unselfconscious ridiculousness. *Asked why the administration won't say [after the Paris attacks] we are at war with radical Islam, Earnest on Tuesday explained the administration's first concern 'is accuracy. We want to describe exactly what happened. These are individuals who carried out an act of terrorism, and they later tried to justify that act of terrorism by invoking the religion of Islam and their own deviant view of it.'


Quote deserves repeating in this circumstance.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> I posted this earlier today, and this afternoon I'm watching the news and I see this:
> 
> https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...surgency_not_a_terrorist_group_like_isil.html
> 
> It appears and though the terms "insurgency" and "terrorism" are somewhat fluid.


Quite. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

^ Terrorist is merely a term used by a large army to refer to a small army......


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Quite. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.


Yes, and it wasn't that long ago when the Taliban were listed as terrorists:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/white-house-taliban-terrorist-organization/story?id=23981888

"But Tuesday White House National Security Council spokesperson Caitlin Hayden noted that the Taliban was added to the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGT) by executive order in July 2002, even if it is not listed as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) by the State Department. Either designation triggers asset freezes, according to the State Department, though they can differ on other restrictions imposed on the target organization. The Treasury Department told ABC News the Taliban is still on their SDGT list." - _Quoted from the provided link._

As I indicated, these labels are often meaningless and change with whatever may be politically expedient at the moment; _We don't deal with terrorists, so we'll just stop calling this organization a terrorist organization so we can deal with them._


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Quote deserves repeating in this circumstance.


It's hard to believe that the people manning the public relations and foreign policy desks at the White House and State Department actually went to college and studied anything.

So an act of terrorism occurs in a vacuum with no purpose or motivation, and only after the fact is the justification sought?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

In Norn Iron it was convention to refer to terrorists on one's own side as paramilitaries.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> It's hard to believe that the people manning the public relations and foreign policy desks at the White House and State Department actually went to college and studied anything.
> 
> So an act of terrorism occurs in a vacuum with no purpose or motivation, and only after the fact is the justification sought?


Poor terrorists are themselves victims!!



> Speaking yesterday at the Vatican, Secretary of State John Kerry let slip a comment so ludicrous that one has to wonder how much wider the gap between reality and Kerry's worldview can yet grow. Following his meeting with Vatican Secretary of State Pietro Parolin, in which the two discussed the violence in Syria and prospects for Middle East peace, Kerry delivered a public in which he remarked, "And so we have a huge common interest in dealing with this issue of poverty, which in many cases is the root cause of terrorism or even the root cause of the disenfranchisement of millions of people on this planet."
> In making such a claim, America's Secretary of State commits a terrible moral inversion, one in which the terrorists are cast as the victims, driven to such desperate acts by poverty, while the people they murder, particularly when Westerners, are really the ones who are guilty-guilty of having allowed the great injustice of poverty in the first place.
> Had a comment of similar thoughtlessness come from a Republican politician it would have instantly been set upon as a credibility-terminating gaffe. Yet, in this instance Kerry's thinking is entirely in step with the line pushed by much of the liberal media.


I have always hated that phony.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

*".... this issue of poverty, which in many cases is the root cause of terrorism ...."*

Well, it seems to be a reasonable enough suggestion to me!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> *".... this issue of poverty, which in many cases is the root cause of terrorism ...."*
> 
> Well, it seems to be a reasonable enough suggestion to me!


Except that it's complete nonsense. Sorry but I just don't buy it. There are a lot of poor people in this world but I only see those from one particular religious group as making up the bulk of terrorists and committing the bulk of terrorist acts globally.

Poverty is not the root cause, it's the religion itself. Poverty is a marginal issue but many of these recruits and converts who engage in these acts appear to come from middle class families.

This is not uncommon however. Looking back on most populist and charismatic movements, it's always middle class intellectuals that seem to be at the forefront and in the leadership positions.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Quite. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.


While this is so, it is important not to make the common, misguided and foolish mistake of considering them moral equals.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

WouldaShoulda said:


> While this is so, it is important not to make the common, misguided and foolish mistake of considering them moral equals.


No moral equivalence, eh?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Shaver said:


> No moral equivalence, eh?


Few, certainly.

Commonality does not necessarily make equals.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Few, certainly.
> 
> Commonality does not necessarily make equals.


If certain acts are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whoever does them (with apologies to Justice Jackson)


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

https://www.dnaindia.com/world/repo...rs-in-pakistan-storm-christian-school-2056112

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01...o-protests-erupt-across-southern-asia/6044018

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...bdo-publishing-cartoons-Prophet-Mohammed.html

Outraged? Perhaps.

Let's see this type of passion against terrorists, terrorism and Islamic extremism.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Shaver said:


> If certain acts are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whoever does them (with apologies to Justice Jackson)


When the US kidnaps some Japanese tourists and holds them for ransom else their heads be chopped, I'll climb right on the Moral Equivalency bus!!

And when our President excoriates Japan and Jordan for bargaining with ISIS while he denies that his own dealings with a hostage holding Taliban faction is not bargaining with terrorists, he will be called on it.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

WouldaShoulda said:


> When the US kidnaps some Japanese tourists and holds them for ransom else their heads be chopped, I'll climb right on the Moral Equivalency bus!!
> 
> And when our President excoriates Japan and Jordan for bargaining with ISIS while he denies that his own dealings with a hostage holding Taliban faction is not bargaining with terrorists, he will be called on it.


Because the U.S have always been so utterly generous towards Japan. Remember the gifts bestowed August 6 & 9 1945? :rolleyes2:


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Shaver said:


> ^ Terrorist is merely a term used by a large army to refer to a small army......


Indeed. At least that's how the British used the term in 1916 and again in 1919 when faced with small Irish armies.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Shaver said:


> Because the U.S have always been so utterly generous towards Japan. Remember the gifts bestowed August 6 & 9 1945? :rolleyes2:


We thought they'd like something big back after that Day of Infamy thing.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Pentheos said:


> We thought they'd like something big back after that Day of Infamy thing.


Were the projections of Japanese lives saved by dropping the bombs real projections i.e. did the US truly believe that the Japanese would carry on fighting to the very last person. OR was that all a load of hoohah as an excuse to test atom bombs on real people? We now know that the WMD scandal was all an excuse to put boots on the ground in Iraq.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Were the projections of Japanese lives saved by dropping the bombs real projections i.e. did the US truly believe that the Japanese would carry on fighting to the very last person. OR was that all a load of hoohah as an excuse to test atom bombs on real people? We now know that the WMD scandal was all an excuse to put boots on the ground in Iraq.


Earl, I don't know if there was any concern about Japanese lives, but there was real concern about American lives. The casualty projections were huge (I can't remember the number, but it was staggering). The battles waged primarily by the US to seize islands from the Japanese were easily among the most intense of the entire war, and certainly the worst any Americans have ever been involved in. Horrific casualty rates. Mostly due to the Japanese refusal to give up until everyone was dead, and in most cases, long after the battle was over, surviving Japanese would emerge from the jungle or some hole in the ground and kill someone. This went on for months and in some cases years&#8230;there was one soldier who didn't surrender until the 1970s. So if you read accounts of the fighting at places like Peleliu, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, etc., you can see why US commanders, when sizing up invading the main land, dithered.

Oh, here's Wiki's take on it: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall )casualties estimated in the millions. And indeed, whether or not the allies cared, the Japanese casualties would have been catastrophic judging by past battles as well as the behavior of Japanese civilians at Okinawa who committed mass suicide rather than surrender. It would have been sort of a self-genocide.

I recommend watching the HBO tv series "The Pacific," which is a dramatization of two memoires of the Pacific War. Watch it, and you'll get it why the US welcomed an alternative to invading the homeland. The fighting was truly, truly awful. Much smaller in scale than some of the Eastern Front (USSR-Germany) battles, but horrific nonetheless.

I think it's undeniably true that the dropping of the atomic bombs saved a lot of lives.

Oh, and I don't think they needed to test on live people. The actual desert tests left no doubts as to what the weapons would do.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Japan was no longer in a position to wage war, irrespective of their refusal to surrender, their military capability was utterly obliterated cf. miserably desperate strategies such as Divine Wind or the final voyage of the Yamato.

A few men hiding in holes in the jungle would not have slaughtered millions of American soldiers.

.
.
.
.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

No, actually, they might have. It wasnt a few, it was millions of men still under arms, and lots of crazy civilians. Much depended on whether or not they had prepared their positions properly. Defense in depth, as it's called, and as they practiced at Peleliu and Okinawa, after they gave up on trying to defend the beaches. Let the Americans come inland, and then attack.

They had no capacity to win or to mount an offensive operation, but they had the capacity to cause a lot of pain. At least that was the thinking at the time. Perhaps someone with really good intel might have been able to take the measure of the extent of Japanese preparations, but I don't know if the allies had that. Also, the Japanese considered Okinawa their home turf, and their resistance there was particularly fierce. The logic was that if they were that fierce on Okinawa, they would have been even more fierce on the mainland.

To be honest, I'm not sure the second bomb was necessary. That's more debatable than the first.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Some would argue that the Japanese of that time richly deserved their fate, which was not in any case materially different to the fate suffered by civilians in other parts of the world. They proved themselves capable of great cruelty, on many occasions and over a very long period of time. An emphatic display of Allied military superiority was exactly what was needed and was in fact a very good thing for the Japanese, in the long term. Bringing the war to a swift end also saved the lives of many of the Allied PoWs who were being slowly starved to death in Japan and elsewhere in the Far East.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Perhaps I am simply caught up in the mood of the day (50th anniversary of Winnie's state funeral) and awash with admiration for the notion of fighting to the last man. As I believe we English would have done if Fritz had invaded our sceptred isle.

"*We shall go on to the end..... we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender".

*


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

The US attitude towards Japanese combatants and non combatants was pretty much the same. Actions which would have been dealt with as War Crimes had the Axis forces won were regularly carried out by US forces, towards seafaring people, whether fishermen and their families on fishing boats, or merchant seamen in the water having survived the sinking of their ships; all were killed.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Chouan said:


> The US attitude towards Japanese combatants and non combatants was pretty much the same. Actions which would have been dealt with as War Crimes had the Axis forces won were regularly carried out by US forces, towards seafaring people, whether fishermen and their families on fishing boats, or merchant seamen in the water having survived the sinking of their ships; all were killed.


This is undeniably true. The US was exceptionally cruel in its destruction of the Japanese.

It's hard to assess the relative morality of the Rape of Nanjing compared to the firebombing of nearly all of Japan's cities. (Actually, I can do that: Japan was acting out of aggression as the US was responding to an act of agression. I think that's an important difference).

Perhaps sometimes there's no objective standard of morality by which one can judge one side or another; sometimes one has to pick sides, and frankly I'm in favor of the US over Imperial Japan. I also have a hard time believing that anyone in Asia except for Japan itself regretted the Allied victory. Say what you want about the horrors of the allied war campaign, the world is better off because they won.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

^The world was (for a while) better off because *England* won. We may, the best of us at least, be prepared to decimate an opponent in a fair fight but we are disinclined to kick a man when he is down.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Shaver said:


> ^The world was (for a while) better off because *England* won. We may, the best of us at least, be prepared to decimate an opponent in a fair fight but we are disinclined to kick a man when he is down.


Not like those Turkish swine, eh?


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Shaver said:


> ^The world was (for a while) better off because *England* won. We may, the best of us at least, be prepared to decimate an opponent in a fair fight but we are disinclined to kick a man when he is down.


Very well stated.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Shaver said:


> ^The world was (for a while) better off because *England* won. We may, the best of us at least, be prepared to decimate an opponent in a fair fight but we are disinclined to kick a man when he is down.


Are you comparing Japan to a man "down"?

I think in most cases it's wrong to kick a man when he is down, but sometimes, in some situations, the best thing to do might be to provide a coup de grâce. Finish the job. But I'm not talking about a pub fight.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

tocqueville said:


> Are you comparing Japan to a man "down"?
> 
> I think in most cases it's wrong to kick a man when he is down, but sometimes, in some situations, the best thing to do might be to provide a coup de grâce...


As in the treatment of Germany following WW I?

Gurdon


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Gurdon said:


> As in the treatment of Germany following WW I?
> 
> Gurdon


Contrast and compare, the Treaty of Versailles with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.
Having looked at both, prove to me that the Allies were unreasonable in comparison with Imperial Germany.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

The Treaty of Versailles was truly oppressive and would have been more effective had the Germans actually been defeated and demoralized at the end of WWI rather than allowed to return home with an army relatively intact.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

If battling with monsters ultimately makes us monstrous then we must consider the possibility that we might have lost the battle.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Shaver said:


> If battling with monsters ultimately makes us monstrous then we must consider the possibility that we might have lost the battle.


This is sort of how I feel about the execrable and ironically-named "PATRIOT Act," in which, in order to "protect our freedoms" against attack by Muslim terrorists, we eliminated many of those very freedoms.

We just have no clue how much we've given away in order to gain minimal additional reduction in risk. Very sad IMO.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> The Treaty of Versailles was truly oppressive and would have been more effective had the Germans actually been defeated and demoralized at the end of WWI rather than allowed to return home with an army relatively intact.


Strange that you're quoting the Nazi myth to us as if it were true!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I have no problem with the vanquished being treated as the vanquished by the victors, but the reparations Germany was made to pay at the of the war was completely beyond its capability to do so. 

It wasn't so much the reparations, but the fact that the German army was not wholly defeated on the battlefield that gave rise to the Nazi mantra that the government had betrayed "die volk".


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> I have no problem with the vanquished being treated as the vanquished by the victors, but the reparations Germany was made to pay at the of the war was completely beyond its capability to do so.
> 
> It wasn't so much the reparations, but the fact that the German army was not wholly defeated on the battlefield that gave rise to the Nazi mantra that the government had betrayed "die volk".


But the German army had been defeated on the battlefield, completely. Those divisions in Russia were in a state of near mutiny and revolution, those in the West were in full retreat and desertion had become unstoppable. The reason that Hindenburg and Ludendorff handed power back to a civilian government which then called for an armistice was because they knew that the German army had been defeated beyond recall. The imperial Navy was already in a state of mutiny and was forming soviets. That the German army hadn't been defeated but had been "betrayed" was a key stone of Nazi mythology. The reality was that it was in full disorganised retreat, where the soldiers weren't surrendering en masse.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> But the German army had been defeated on the battlefield, completely. Those divisions in Russia were in a state of near mutiny and revolution, those in the West were in full retreat and desertion had become unstoppable. The reason that Hindenburg and Ludendorff handed power back to a civilian government which then called for an armistice was because they knew that the German army had been defeated beyond recall. The imperial Navy was already in a state of mutiny and was forming soviets. That the German army hadn't been defeated but had been "betrayed" was a key stone of Nazi mythology. The reality was that it was in full disorganised retreat, where the soldiers weren't surrendering en masse.


Defeat may certainly have been on the cards, but the Germans were still in occupied France at the Armistice. It was the blockade that really defeated the Germans, in the end.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> Defeat may certainly have been on the cards, but the Germans were still in occupied France at the Armistice. It was the blockade that really defeated the Germans, in the end.


They were indeed, but once the Hindenburg Line had been broken the German army was beaten. The blockade had pushed the Central Powers close to starvation, which would have meant defeat in any case, but the Allied Autumn Offensive broke the German army in the West. Although there were German troops in Belgium and France they, effectively, wouldn't fight; as the Allies approached they retreated or surrendered. Ludendorff referred to this as "The Black Day of the German Army", knowing that it meant the end of the War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Amiens_(1918). As a contemporary said 
_"They no longer have even a dim hope of victory on this western front. All they hope for now is to defend themselves long enough to gain peace by negotiation."_


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Shaver said:


> If battling with monsters ultimately makes us monstrous then we must consider the possibility that we might have lost the battle.


Gone soft??

Just because a bully/instigator winds up losing, does not make the intended victim as bad as he!!

Such a possibility is not worthy of consideration.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> They were indeed, but once the Hindenburg Line had been broken the German army was beaten. The blockade had pushed the Central Powers close to starvation, which would have meant defeat in any case, but the Allied Autumn Offensive broke the German army in the West. Although there were German troops in Belgium and France they, effectively, wouldn't fight; as the Allies approached they retreated or surrendered. Ludendorff referred to this as "The Black Day of the German Army", knowing that it meant the end of the War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Amiens_(1918). As a contemporary said
> _"They no longer have even a dim hope of victory on this western front. All they hope for now is to defend themselves long enough to gain peace by negotiation."_


The German army was allowed to return to Germany after the armistice. The Allies never occupied Germany or the German capitol as they did after WWII.

Many historians point to the unwillingness or the inability of the Allies to fully decimate and occupy Germany, basically stomping their boots on German soil at will and without any resistance, as one of the reasons why the mythology of the betrayal of the Fatherland by the Kaiser and his generals came about.

This was a mistake that was not repeated in WWII.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> The German army was allowed to return to Germany after the armistice. The Allies never occupied Germany or the German capitol as they did after WWII.
> 
> Many historians point to the unwillingness or the inability of the Allies to fully decimate and occupy Germany, basically stomping their boots on German soil at will and without any resistance, as one of the reasons why the mythology of the betrayal of the Fatherland by the Kaiser and his generals came about.
> 
> This was a mistake that was not repeated in WWII.


They were unwilling to do so in 1918, even though they could have done, because WW1 was the last of the conventional european wars, fought for limited objectives. Britain and France weren't fighting for their existence or their independence. By 1918 they were fighting to make Germany leave allied territory and accept defeat. Their aim was achieved, Germany, acknowledging defeat with it's request for an armistice, effectively surrendered. In WW2, however, the allied aim was the eradication of Nazi Germany, which couldn't be achieved without complete occupation.
In WW1 the Allies allowed the German army to return in order to ensure that Bolshevik inspired revolution could be defeated. Indeed, without the returning German Army the Spartacist rising under Liebknecht and Luxemburg may well have led to a Left Wing Socialist Republic in Germany by 1919.
The "stab in the back" myth wasn't that Germany was betrayed by the Kaiser and the Generals, but that an undefeated Army was betrayed by liberal civilian politicians. The necessary story to support the myth was that the German Army was undefeated, but it wasn't.


----------

