Some people are jerkfaces.

[Deacon]

So you're not even bothering to read my posts anymore?

[Skuzzo]

[quote="Deacon";p="519585"]The purpose of ALL war is to cause the other to surrender out of fear of destruction. But was it "with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature" after all? No.[/quote]

That's the purpose, it's rarely the goal. World War 2 was a war of politics and ideologies. I admit, a lot of it was about money, and the financial ruin that Germany was left in during the 1920's.

But at its heart, it was a war of facism (Hitler, Mussolini, Pavelic, Pétain, Franco etc) versus democracy (Roosevelt, Churchill etc).

[Deacon]

SDLKFJDSKLJSDLFKSJD l;kshg adl;g

Forget it. If you're not going to be serious, we can't discuss this.

[Skuzzo]

Maybe we were just taught history differently

[Arc Orion]

[quote="Skuzzo";p="519597"]But at its heart, it was a war of facism (Hitler, Mussolini, Pavelic, Pétain, Franco etc) versus democracy (Roosevelt, Churchill etc).[/quote]I believe the name you want here is Stalin. Funny, I don't remember him being a hero of democracy....

[Skuzzo]

Stalin hardly leapt into the battle with open arms...got the spoils, mind you

Stalin signed a non-aggression pact with Japan in April of '41, only to be invaded by Germany 3 months later. Germany and Japan had already signed a pact saying that one countries enemy, was their enemy too. Stalin tried, but Germany was determined.

[Arc Orion]

Skuzzo, I know fully well the events of World War II. In fact, you fail to mention that German and the Soviet Union had made an agreement to leave each other alone as well. However, when Germany attacked the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union became one of the Allies' chief supporters. To say that it was opposing ideologies ignores the fact that were it not for a country with a leadership arguably as cruel as Germany's, we likely would have either lost the war, or would have spent many more months, and possibly, more years fighting in Europe.

Furthermore, you fail to mention that France, Britain, and the USA didn't make any significant entrance into the war either, until they were threatened by outside force. Though the French and Britain made some semblance of effort to enter the war, they shuffled their feet. Before too long, France was being overwhelmed and the British finally had to start getting their act together. The USA, though producing supplies primarily for the Allies, didn't enter the war at all until we were attacked by Japan.

Not only that, but to try to define World War II as a war of ideologies is complete and utter bullshit. World War II began because three major powers attempted to gain more power by beginning invasions of other countries.

This WILL start a war.

It doesn't matter if there is a socio-political difference between the invading countries or any others. This is a serious threat to the livelihood of any country which is within range of the invading country, and they will react. And during a time when many countries are still trying to find their way out of an economic depression, the perceived threat is even greater. One would have to be a complete idiot to fail at seeing this.

[Skuzzo]

Sounds like you've made up your mind then...

I personally feel that the rise across Europe of Facism during the 1920's and 1930's - and the unity this created with Europe - was the driving force. Politics and ideologies shaped and defined this war - especially in regards to where the alliance borders were drawn.

Conquering Europe had never been so easy.

[Deacon]

Politics and ideologies of course "shaped and defined" WWII. So? Can you find a war that wasn't shaped by politics and ideologies? It doesn't mean that every war was fought by terrorists. Countries waging war against each other, sending their military to meet the others' military is not terrorism.

[Arc Orion]

Skuzzo, it's not a matter of "feel". It's what happened. If it were defined entirely by ideology, countries like Britain and the USA wouldn't even consider working with the Soviet Union. If it were defined by ideology, Spain would have entered the war on the Axis' side. China would likely have not been considered as one of the Allies, as despite the democratic robes worn by its government, it acted in many ways like a fascist state during that period.

Face it, your reasoning is falling apart, and all you're doing is hanging there, clutching your sinking ship.

[Skuzzo]

Deacon - I absolutely agree! 100%

War does not equal terrorism. I think my point...and I admit to losing my train of thought a little...was that actions taken during a war can be classed as acts of terrorism if they are designed primarily - primarily mind you - to cause terror or fear among a population.

As opposed to just killing people, taking ground, gaining military advantage etc

Which takes me all the way back to the example of Hiroshima. Which, I still contend, was designed as a bringer of fear more than as a weapon of destruction. It was the fear of the weapon that the US hoped to put into the minds of the Japanese.

So... my point is... the war in the Pacific was not terrorism, but Hiroshima can be classed as an act of terrorism - and as a perfectly acceptable military tactic.

Disagree at your leisure

Posted Wed Jul 13, 2005 5:11 pm:

Arc - exceptions don't prove a point. I never said 'entirely'. I actually stated the opposite. To suggest WWII was defined entirely by ideology is farcical.

I stand by my viewpoint.

[Arc Orion]

I personally feel that the rise across Europe of Facism during the 1920's and 1930's - and the unity this created with Europe - was the driving force. Politics and ideologies shaped and defined this war - especially in regards to where the alliance borders were drawn.

Sounds fairly absolute there.

[Phong]

[quote="Skuzzo";p="519586"]What is your basis for how "Terrorist" should be properly used... CNN? BBC? Al-Jazeera?

History speaks of terrorism being used as a tactic over the last few thousand years. It is a vital, and important, instrument of virtually any war in history - and virtually every nation has used it. It's not some new cool word which describes modern-day Muslims extremists in the pursuit of their cause.

As a recent example, 20 years ago, nobody gave a monkeys about Muslims. Self-described communists like Carlos the Jackal (who, for the record, was a South American) ruled the terrorist roost.[/quote]

You make me want to cry with frustration.

My basis is common sense. My basis is how I hear it being used on a day to day basis, and how I've heard it being used since I learned to speak the english language. Did that not come quite across in my last post? I post about not having to have a source for everything, not dissecting everything to make it suit your own needs and you come back with "But where are you getting that, CNN?" Are you that dense, or do you just not listen to anything that's being said? That would certainly explain your lack of ability to grasp common usage.

And let me simply add that nothing you just SAID actually refuted my conceit that terrorist isn't a word that applies to nations. It also isn't a word that has been applied historically, unless you're reading completely different military histories than I've been. It may not be a NEW word but it IS a current BUZZ word, which some have begun apply to past military actions.

Sorry to bust your bubble but no one was standing around going "Woah boy, Genghis Khan burned another village! I hate those fucking terrorists."

Or "General Sherman has burned Atlanta!"
"Oh my God, Terrorism!"

[Arc Orion]

[quote="Skuzzo";p="519705"]Arc - exceptions don't prove a point. I never said 'entirely'. I actually stated the opposite. To suggest WWII was defined entirely by ideology is farcical.[/quote]Also, those weren't merely exceptions. An exception might be a small country giving token support. When a major part of the war effort is made up of countries that have ideologies very similar to the collective enemy's, such ideologies cannot the defining basis of how the lines are drawn.

The Soviet Union essentially made up the entire eastern front for Germany. Were it not for their support, we could not have defeated Germany as quickly as we did. The same applies to China with Japan. Were it not for Chinese support, essential bombing runs would not be feasible.

[Skuzzo]

Arc: I quote the following, from yesterdays news, not as any form of proof, but just as an example of a government level view, from a US standpoint:


Sydney Morning Herald
"Today in the Middle East freedom is once again contending with an ideology that seeks to sow anger and hatred and despair," Mr Bush said.

A White House official said Mr Bush's speech was an effort "to define the stakes more clearly".

Mr Bush used the London bombings to draw a connection between the struggles of World War II, against a more defined enemy, and the battles today.

London's residents, Mr Bush said, "survived the Nazi blitz and will not yield in the face of thugs and assassins".

"And just as America and Great Britain stood together to defeat the totalitarian ideologies of the 20th century, we now stand together against the murderous ideologies of the 21st century."

Posted Thu Jul 14, 2005 8:31 am:

Phong: Silly. Soldier isn't a word that applies to nations either. Of course you can't call a nation a terrorist - it's a noun designed to apply to a individual. You can, however, call the actions of a nation terrorism.