Martin Sheen proud of uncle's IRA past

[IAN 2411]

Hollywood actor Martin Sheen has declared himself proud of his uncle's IRA past.

The star said he was also relieved to discover that his mother's brother, Michael Fieland, from Co Tipperary, had no part in the assassination of Irish revolutionary leader Michael Collins.

Sheen found out about his close family links to Ireland's War of Independence while taking part in the US version of the hit genealogy television series Who Do You Think You Are?. The 71-year-old visited Dublin's Kilmainham Gaol and spent time in the cell where it is believed his uncle was incarcerated.

"I'm enormously proud of him," he said. "I would like to hope that if I had been here in Ireland at the time, I would have followed him. And I would have been as committed as he was."

Best known for his roles in Apocalypse Now, Wall Street and the television series West Wing, he described his uncle as an Irish volunteer. The actor said Fieland went on to fight against the Free State side, who supported the Anglo-Irish treaty, during the resulting Civil War in the early 1920s.

Sheen was concerned about what the TV researchers would turn up. "When I was in Ireland and discovering the involvement of my uncle in the Rising and the Civil War, because he took an opposing side to (Eamon) de Valera, I was afraid he might have been in on the plan to assassinate Mick Collins," he said.

"But as it turned out he was in prison when Mick Collins was assassinated and I was deeply relieved
.................................................. ..........................

Martin Sheen.......= Ramon Antonio Gerard Esteves....Call me paddy O’Esteves. I am proud to be associated with the terrorist organisation the IRA.

Barrack Obama.....=President of the USA......I am proud of my ancestral past in Africa and Ireland, so call me paddy O’bama. His uncle and grandfather I believe were in the Mau-Mau, a terrorist organisation that rebelled against the government. The Mau-Mau killed no end of innocent civilians by beheading them, women, children and babies. They dismembered mothers in front of the children before raping and killing the children, and Obama is proud of them. I might add that although the British killed most of the Mau-Mau, it was an elected Kenyan government that employed the British. There’s that terrorist word again.

To admit to something like that, just shows me how much the American privileged; love to be associated with terrorists. It must give them a buzz knowing they are sticking their finger up to the rest of the world. Sticking their finger up to just about anyone that is not, terrorist related. They love sticking their finger up to all those innocent people that were killed in horrendous ways for a terrorist ideal.

Who is next I wonder to admit they are proud to be assosiated with terrorists? Would either Sheen or Obama be spouting off their mouth’s if they were related to El-Quada?

Be well IAN 2411

PS

By the way paddy O’Esteves, just because he was in prison does not mean he had nothing to do with the assassination, you stupid asshole.

[denuseri]

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

[Thorne]

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

LOL! I was just going to say the same thing! Only about 15 hours too late.

[IAN 2411]

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

LOL! I was just going to say the same thing! Only about 15 hours too late.

I find it strange that you find something so serious so amusing. I wonder if you would be saying the same remark if it were your mother being hacked to death in front of you by these “Freedom Fighters.”

Or other “Freedom Fighters” killed your mother, brother, sibling by blowing them to pieces while they peacefully shopped in Omagh. Are you changing the name so that you feel better? Or are you just burying your head in the sand like an Ostrich?

Be well IAN 2411

[lucy]

Or English troops killing your family, just because you happen to be Irish. Or, English settlers putting a price tag on your head, just because you're an aborigine living in Tasmania.

Look, Ian, the brits have fucked so many millions of people up their arse over the years, they shouldn't cry murder too loud when somebody shoots back.
I don't say it's right what the IRA did, but there are a lot of people could say the same about you when you say "I'm proud to be Brit."

[IAN 2411]

I

Or English troops killing your family, just because you happen to be Irish.

I am at a loss to understand that statement

Or, English settlers putting a price tag on your head, just because you're an aborigine living in Tasmania.
Look, Ian, the brits have fucked so many millions of people up their arse over the years, they shouldn't cry murder too loud when somebody shoots back.
I don't say it's right what the IRA did, but there are a lot of people could say the same about you when you say "I'm proud to be Brit."

There is a big difference when saying you’re proud to be American/English/Swiss/Any Country. To be related to a terrorist group and be proud? I would also like to point out if you haven’t been reading the papers, the IRA are still a terrorist group and are still active. They are over in foreign countries, and they are training Al Quada. They are training them to blow up anything that does not conform to their fanatical Muslim ideal. The IRA, only know how to kill and now there is an end to the violence in Province, they have decided to bring their war to the mainland. Teaching their disgusting trade of violence to people that don’t give a damn whether you are Brit, Swiss or American or any other European national. They can only see the infidel, and a person that will not bow down to Allah that has to be destroyed any, which-way.

I am proud to be a Brit, but I don’t have to be proud of the way things were done by the English a hundred or more years before I was born. I would like to point out as well that neither do I care because it stopped a long time before I was born. [The IRA, have not]

There is not a Kenyan that would hold his/her hand up and say they were proud to have ancestors fighting in the Mau-Mau.

I doubt either that you would find any Irish person say they were proud to be related to IRA scum, because the IRA were as wicked to their own, as much, if not more, than they were with the British soldier.

The difference is Barrack Obama and Martin Sheen, by saying such insulting things to Joe public, thinks it makes them look stronger than the small person they really are. They are with the privileged few that get where they are on the backs of others beliefs and money, and should show more respect.

However, lucy...I do understand what you are saying and your points are valid.

Be well IAN 2411

[Thorne]

I find it strange that you find something so serious so amusing. I wonder if you would be saying the same remark if it were your mother being hacked to death in front of you by these “Freedom Fighters.”

What I found amusing was the denuseri had the EXACT same thought that I had, to the exact words! While I can understand, sometimes, the need to kill to defend one's country/family, I don't find any kind of killing to be funny, regardless of who's doing it.

But the statement is nonetheless true, for the most part. Whether a group is termed Terrorist or Freedom Fighter can all-too-often depend on who's doing the naming. During WW2, the French Underground were considered patriots by the French, but criminals by the Germans. The American's who rebelled against England were, for the most part, considered criminals and even terrorists (though I doubt they used that term) by the British troops and the Loyalist civilians. Especially those "irregular" units that used guerrilla tactics, such as Francis Marion's group. Even those as nasty as the IRA and al-Qaeda are considered heroes by at least some of their own people.

For my part, when you start deliberately targeting civilians rather than military or infrastructure, you are crossing the line into terrorism. But even that line is blurred. Were the men who bombed German (or English) cities in WW2 acting as military units or as terrorists? When bombing factories, for example, there's little to question. But what about the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo, for example? Where they actually aiming at military targets, or terrorizing civilians?

Again, it's all a question of who's doing the defining.

[IAN 2411]

Noun 1. terrorist - a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities

act of terrorism, terrorism, terrorist act- the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

radical cell, terrorist cell - a cell of terrorists (usually 3 to 5 members); "to insure operational security the members of adjacent terrorist cells usually don't know each other or the identity of their leadership"

cyber-terrorist, cyberpunk, hacker - a programmer who breaks into computer systems in order to steal or change or destroy information as a form of cyber-terrorism

Jacobin - a member of the radical movement that instituted the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution

radical - a person who has radical ideas or opinions

sleeper - a spy or saboteur or terrorist planted in an enemy country who lives there as a law-abiding citizen until activated by a prearranged signal

suicide bomber - a terrorist who blows himself up in order to kill or injure other people



I had to check it out to answer your post Thorne.

But what about the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo, for example? Where they actually aiming at military targets, or terrorizing civilians?

I don’t think there is any doubt in my mind that the allies can say what they like, but in the end they were atrocities. If the Germans had won the war and so too the Japanese, then again there is no doubt in my mind that the British and American high command would have been on trial for war crimes. However, we all know that the winners of wars will never admit guilt.

Be well IAN 2411

[Thorne]

I don’t think there is any doubt in my mind that the allies can say what they like, but in the end they were atrocities.

I agree. Atrocities by anybody's standards. Acts of terror in fact, designed to achieve a political as well as a military goal.

If the Germans had won the war and so too the Japanese, then again there is no doubt in my mind that the British and American high command would have been on trial for war crimes.

Which goes right along with denuseri's and my statement that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, or patriot.

However, we all know that the winners of wars will never admit guilt.

History tends to be written by the winners. A fact of life. If the German's had won, the London blitz would have been portrayed in a much better light, much as Dresden was. A sad necessity of combat.

[denuseri]

I find it strange that you find something so serious so amusing. I wonder if you would be saying the same remark if it were your mother being hacked to death in front of you by these “Freedom Fighters.”

Or other “Freedom Fighters” killed your mother, brother, sibling by blowing them to pieces while they peacefully shopped in Omagh. Are you changing the name so that you feel better? Or are you just burying your head in the sand like an Ostrich?

Be well IAN 2411

Oh I wasn't joking around hon...and I have no clue as to why you would think so or try to make this personnel. Although you may claim to not know ...I'm of mixed American and Lebanese /Jewish heritage and it's no secret I was born in Beirut in 1979 and have lost several family members from all three sides to the war I was born into.

Personally I could care less if the Sheen's are proud of whatever they wish to be proud of. I was simply pointing out that there are indeed two or more sides to the topic you presented and that from their "respective" perspectives their point of view concerning themselves and the actions of what they consider to be their enemies is, are, and has been, equally valid in their own eyes.

[ksst]

If you want to end war and stuff you got to sing loud...

says Arlo Guthrie, and ksst, who is a dirty hippy at heart, even though slightly too young for it.

[js207]

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

So what freedom do you think Mohamed Atta was fighting for on 9/11?

[Thorne]

So what freedom do you think Mohamed Atta was fighting for on 9/11?

Just off the top of my head, perhaps freedom from American involvement in Middle East affairs? Or maybe just the freedom to determine his own fate. Doesn't matter, though. I'm sure HE had what he believed were valid reasons for what he did. And I'm sure there are a lot of people in the Muslim world who regard him as a Freedom Fighter and not a terrorist. That's the point.

[js207]

And I'm sure there are a lot of people in the Muslim world who regard him as a Freedom Fighter and not a terrorist. That's the point.

A false dichotomy at best. Terrorism is committing the war crime of targeting civilians to get your way - whether that goal is "freedom" or anything else. The guys in Libya fighting against Gaddaffi's regime? Not terrorists: they were fighting Gaddaffi's military. If they'd hidden and fired missiles into or planted bombs in the middle of Tripoli then they'd have been terrorists - as well as rather less popular, of course, and less likely to be seen as fighting against oppression.

As for 'freedom to determine his own fate', Atta had that from the outset: born in Egypt, studied in Germany then trained in Afghanistan. He could have killed himself any time he wanted, but he wanted to deprive thousands of other people of that right - the very antithesis of a "freedom fighter". Ironically, of course, by bringing about the fall of the Taleban it could be argued he did indirectly bring some freedom to Afghanistan, but I somehow doubt that was his intent!

[Thorne]

Terrorism is committing the war crime of targeting civilians to get your way - whether that goal is "freedom" or anything else.

Like firebombing entire cities to "reduce the enemy's resistance"? It's a matter of perspective. If you're in one of the planes dropping the bombs, it's a cruel but necessary strategy. If you're in the city it's a terrorist act.

The guys in Libya fighting against Gaddaffi's regime? Not terrorists: they were fighting Gaddaffi's military.

I'm sure the soldiers thought they were terrorists, or rebels, or whatever other name they might put on them.

If they'd hidden and fired missiles into or planted bombs in the middle of Tripoli then they'd have been terrorists - as well as rather less popular, of course, and less likely to be seen as fighting against oppression.

Naturally, the people who were being bombed wouldn't particularly like them. But if they were doing those things in, say, Chad or Tunisia, the Libyan people would consider them Freedom Fighters.

As for 'freedom to determine his own fate', Atta had that from the outset: born in Egypt, studied in Germany then trained in Afghanistan. He could have killed himself any time he wanted, but he wanted to deprive thousands of other people of that right - the very antithesis of a "freedom fighter".

It makes me think of the Egyptian Pharaohs, and other royalty, who killed dozens, if not hundreds, of their loyal subjects to have servants in the afterlife. It's a case of being afraid to face death alone, so they have to bring as many people along with them as possible. I suppose they figure that they can get lost in the crowd and their god won't realize they've slipped into heaven, or wherever.

But regardless of Atta's motives or methods, I can pretty much guarantee that there are those who felt he was justified, and died to set his people free from the Great Satan.

[denuseri]

Or if they dressed up as native Americans and sneaked on board a British ship and dumped all the tea in the bay?

According to some:

There are multiple, conflicting explanations for Atta's behavior and motivation. Political psychologist Jerrold Post has suggested that Atta and his fellow hijackers were just following orders from Al Qaeda leadership, "and whatever their destructive, charismatic leader, Osama bin Laden said was the right thing to do for the sake of the cause was what they would do." In turn, political scientist Robert Pape has claimed that Atta was motivated by his commitment to the political cause, that he was psychologically normal, and that he was “not readily characterized as depressed, not unable to enjoy life, not detached from friends and society.” By contrast, criminal justice professor Adam Lankford has found evidence that Atta was clinically suicidal, and that his struggles with social isolation, depression, guilt, shame, hopelessness, and rage were extraordinarily similar to the struggles of those who commit conventional suicide and murder-suicide. By this view, Atta’s political and religious beliefs affected the method of his suicide and his choice of target, but they were not the underlying causes of his behavior.

Keep in mind none of the above actually examined the man face to face in so far as I know.

I am sure he felt perfectly justified in his own mind for his actions and did not in the slightest way paint himself as the bad guy any more than Hitler or Stalin painted themselves in such light...or for that matter George Washington or Boudicca or Spartacus or any other number of people who resort to violence to solve their problems etc etc.

[js207]

I'm sure the soldiers thought they were terrorists, or rebels, or whatever other name they might put on them.

Rebels, yes - they were rebelling against Gaddaffi's regime - and as that conflict went on, quite a few of his troops decided the rebels were actually the lesser evil - but "terrorist" is not just a label: it has an actual meaning. Maybe some of Gaddaffi's troops did believe that label fitted the rebels, just as some of the Taleban mistakenly believed the Northern Alliance were Christian rather than Muslim, but neither makes it true or changes the actual meaning of the word being misused.

The bombing of Dresden was legally questionable, in part because the relevant law had last been updated in 1907 when the nearest equivalent would have been firing rather inaccurate artillery pieces in that direction, though there was certainly no clear-cut prohibition. This was a factor in the subsequent Geneva Conventions. Terrorism, though? No: it was direct destruction of enemy assets, rather than a psychological ploy.

But regardless of Atta's motives or methods, I can pretty much guarantee that there are those who felt he was justified, and died to set his people free from the Great Satan.

No, not to set anyone free - just to hurt their enemy. Never mind freedom, it's about hurting someone you hate. We all know there were those in the Middle East who literally cheered the massacre, but "set his people free"? Pull the other one.

[Thorne]

but "terrorist" is not just a label: it has an actual meaning.

I agree. But one of the problems of civilization is trying to get people to agree on those meanings. While we in the West might view the act of flying planes into buildings to be terrorism, can we be sure that all other cultures see it the same way? My observations, cynical though they may be, shows that if they do it to us, it's terrorism, but if we do it to them, it's patriotism.

Maybe some of Gaddaffi's troops did believe that label fitted the rebels, just as some of the Taleban mistakenly believed the Northern Alliance were Christian rather than Muslim, but neither makes it true or changes the actual meaning of the word being misused.

No: it was direct destruction of enemy assets, rather than a psychological ploy.

It was the indiscriminate destruction of assets along with men, women and children, without consideration of who would be harmed. Industry or military assets were not the target. The entire city was the target. And there was a psychological component as well. It was believed by some that such destruction would provide the impetus for the German people to rise up against their government. Of course, it did just the opposite.

No, not to set anyone free - just to hurt their enemy.

Which is the point of any war, is it not? Each individual action is designed not to win the war, but to hurt the enemy. It's the total accumulation of such actions which determine who wins or loses. Along with the enemy's ability, and determination, to absorb such hurt while causing as much hurt to you as possible.

[js207]

I agree. But one of the problems of civilization is trying to get people to agree on those meanings. While we in the West might view the act of flying planes into buildings to be terrorism, can we be sure that all other cultures see it the same way? My observations, cynical though they may be, shows that if they do it to us, it's terrorism, but if we do it to them, it's patriotism.

It's not about "civilisation", but a simple matter of linguistics: 'terrorism' is an English word used to describe a particular type of act, the instillation of terror. It isn't a moral judgement, it's a particular tactic. One most of us in the West, excluding Martin Sheen, consider wrong, but that's another issue. If you were to ask anyone in Al Qaeda and get a candid response, they would agree it is indeed terrorism, they are a terrorist group - they just believe their terrorism is morally right and that terror is an appropriate tactic for them to use.

(I did feel from the outset that 'war on terror' was a stupid name, analogous to 'war on pincer movements' or 'war on vertical envelopment' - though of course the more accurate 'war on Islamic extremists' would be politically problematic and 'war on Al Qaeda' raises the obvious but awkward question of 'so why are you fighting the Taleban then'.)

It was the indiscriminate destruction of assets along with men, women and children, without consideration of who would be harmed. Industry or military assets were not the target. The entire city was the target. And there was a psychological component as well. It was believed by some that such destruction would provide the impetus for the German people to rise up against their government. Of course, it did just the opposite.

I've italicised the key bit there: yes, 'the entire city' was targeted, and legally the city as a whole was a valid target. A target was prohibited only if completely free from military value.

Which is the point of any war, is it not? Each individual action is designed not to win the war, but to hurt the enemy. It's the total accumulation of such actions which determine who wins or loses. Along with the enemy's ability, and determination, to absorb such hurt while causing as much hurt to you as possible.

It's a bit more selective than that: not 'hurt the enemy' but 'hurt the enemy's military' - more recently, trying much harder to minimise damage to non-military aspects.

[Thorne]

It's not about "civilisation", but a simple matter of linguistics: 'terrorism' is an English word used to describe a particular type of act, the instillation of terror.

Linguistically speaking, you are right. An act of terror can be a legitimate military tactic. But I maintain that a terrorist is a label which may be applied differently by the perpetrators of the act and its victims.

yes, 'the entire city' was targeted, and legally the city as a whole was a valid target. A target was prohibited only if completely free from military value.

I imagine the citizens of Dresden would question the legality. As would the citizens of London, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What about Nanking, then? Would the atrocities performed there be considered a "legal" act? They were, after all, supporting the enemy.

It's a bit more selective than that: not 'hurt the enemy' but 'hurt the enemy's military'

Exactly! It's doubtful that the bombing of Dresden, for example, did anything to "hurt" the German military. They were already hurt badly, and the actual area of the city destroyed had little or no military significance. It can be argued that it was, indeed, an act of terror. And I will agree that the acts perpetrated on 9/11/01 were acts of terror as well, by anyone's definition. My only point is that those who committed the acts, whether in New York or Germany, were considered patriots by their own people.

[js207]

Linguistically speaking, you are right. An act of terror can be a legitimate military tactic. But I maintain that a terrorist is a label which may be applied differently by the perpetrators of the act and its victims.

It may be misused, yes - as is true of most words.

I imagine the citizens of Dresden would question the legality. As would the citizens of London, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What about Nanking, then? Would the atrocities performed there be considered a "legal" act? They were, after all, supporting the enemy.

Nanking, no, because civilians were targeted - which is and was a war crime. In a nutshell, if I shoot at you, a civilian, or drop a bomb aimed at your house, it's illegal; if I shoot at the enemy soldier next to you, or drop a bomb on the barracks next door to your house, that's fine, even if you die as a result.

Exactly! It's doubtful that the bombing of Dresden, for example, did anything to "hurt" the German military. They were already hurt badly, and the actual area of the city destroyed had little or no military significance. It can be argued that it was, indeed, an act of terror. And I will agree that the acts perpetrated on 9/11/01 were acts of terror as well, by anyone's definition. My only point is that those who committed the acts, whether in New York or Germany, were considered patriots by their own people.

Conflating "little or no military significance" misses the point, since the law protects only the latter situation. The general consensus seems to be that they had little military significance, which makes the attacks lawful. (In 1963, a Japanese judicial review disagreed, but the ruling rested in part on a piece of international law which had been drafted but never actually signed or accepted.)

You're getting caught in false dichotomies here, too. Most of the 9/11 hijackers, along with bin Laden himself, are arguably considered traitors not patriots, being Saudi nationals (at least until they revoked OBL's citizenship) - a country which was, at the time, partly defended by the US military from the hostile country next door - and of course whether their actions were considered patriotic or not by their own supporters, it doesn't stop them also being terrorism. McVeigh's antigovernment actions probably have a better claim to the "patriot" label from his supporters than Al Qaeda's, considering that group doesn't even have a home country or common nationality, but certainly qualify as terrorism, don't they?

[Thorne]

Nanking, no, because civilians were targeted - which is and was a war crime. In a nutshell, if I shoot at you, a civilian, or drop a bomb aimed at your house, it's illegal; if I shoot at the enemy soldier next to you, or drop a bomb on the barracks next door to your house, that's fine, even if you die as a result.

The problem is that the Allies did NOT bomb military targets, specifically. They bombed the entire city! Indiscriminately. They weren't aiming at the barracks next door, they were aiming at everything. Hospitals, churches, stores, homes, everything. Regardless of military significance.

whether their actions were considered patriotic or not by their own supporters, it doesn't stop them also being terrorism.

No, it does not. I'm not denying that fact at all. Only that there ARE supporters who consider them to be patriots. That's the point of the statement made by denuseri: "One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter."

And I make the same claim about those who orchestrated the fire-bombings of German cities, or Japanese cities, or the indiscriminate bombings of English cities, or the atomic bombings of Japanese cities. To some, the men who performed these acts are considered heroes and patriots. to others they are no different than terrorists. It's all a matter of your point of view.

[js207]

The problem is that the Allies did NOT bomb military targets, specifically. They bombed the entire city! Indiscriminately. They weren't aiming at the barracks next door, they were aiming at everything. Hospitals, churches, stores, homes, everything. Regardless of military significance.

Yes, as I said, 'the entire city' was a legitimate target. If Bomber Command had gone "hey, let's send the whole combined RAF-USAF strike force against Fritz's Bratwursts, that asshole short-changed me in 1935" it would be against the rules - but "let's destroy Dresden" was not, even though it happened to include said sausage vendor.

No, it does not. I'm not denying that fact at all. Only that there ARE supporters who consider them to be patriots. That's the point of the statement made by denuseri: "One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter."

Being a "patriot" in someone's mind doesn't stop you being a terrorist - nor does it make you a "freedom fighter". Yes, of course they have supporters, that doesn't stop them being contemptible. I find Sheen's position as disgusting as that of the Palestinians and other Middle Easterners who cheered the 9/11 attacks, don't you? The equivalency denseri implies is false: a 'freedom fighter' is not just terrorist you agree with. When you plant a car bomb in a row of shops, then phone in a bomb warning giving the wrong location so people get evacuated towards it to maximise casualties, that is not "freedom fighting" or a war, it's terrorism - whoever the civilians may be, whatever side you're on, whatever your aim.

In short: Denuseri's statement is wrong - terrorism and "freedom fighter" are not a question of which side you are on, but what that entity does. What Al Qaeda and the IRA do is terrorism, whether you support them or not; dumping tea in the sea in Boston and fighting off enemy troops is not.

And I make the same claim about those who orchestrated the fire-bombings of German cities, or Japanese cities, or the indiscriminate bombings of English cities, or the atomic bombings of Japanese cities. To some, the men who performed these acts are considered heroes and patriots. to others they are no different than terrorists. It's all a matter of your point of view.

No - there were and are rules, agreed to by both sides. The Blitz was not "terrorism" nor a war crime, but a war fought by uniformed troops bound by those laws.

[Thorne]

Yes, as I said, 'the entire city' was a legitimate target. If Bomber Command had gone "hey, let's send the whole combined RAF-USAF strike force against Fritz's Bratwursts, that asshole short-changed me in 1935" it would be against the rules - but "let's destroy Dresden" was not, even though it happened to include said sausage vendor.

I disagree, obviously. If they had said, "Let's bomb Ernst's Explosive Emporium" and it just so happened that Fritz's Bratwurst factory was right next door, then Fritz is out of luck, certainly. But targeting the center of the city and ignoring the rail yards and factories on the outskirts? That's terrorism.

I find Sheen's position as disgusting as that of the Palestinians and other Middle Easterners who cheered the 9/11 attacks, don't you?

Of course I do! But I also sympathize with the Irish desire to free themselves from British domination. If they had limited their attacks to only military and political targets, and avoided targeting civilians directly, they would be considered "freedom fighters" rather than terrorists. Right?

terrorism and "freedom fighter" are not a question of which side you are on, but what that entity does. What Al Qaeda and the IRA do is terrorism, whether you support them or not; dumping tea in the sea in Boston and fighting off enemy troops is not.

Again, linguistically you are correct. But in the minds and hearts of the people affected, you're wrong. Dumping tea into Boston harbor was economic terrorism, if you happened to own that tea, or were dependent upon the tax revenues that tea would have brought in. If you're benefiting from the freedom that the act helped to bring about, though, it was an act of patriotism.

No - there were and are rules, agreed to by both sides.

Not always. I don't believe the Japanese, for example, signed the Geneva Convention. Nor did the USSR.

The Blitz was not "terrorism" nor a war crime, but a war fought by uniformed troops bound by those laws.

It may not have been a war crime, but it was most certainly terrorism. It was intended to weaken civilian resolve for carrying on the war, to put political pressure on the British government. The target was not military or industrial sites, but civilians and their homes. What difference whether the bomber was wearing a uniform or a business suit? The intentions, and the effects, are the same.

[IAN 2411]

I will agree that the acts perpetrated on 9/11/01 were acts of terror as well, by anyone's definition.

I have to disagree, along with, Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the above were atrocities. They were destruction causing the slaughter of innocent lives to make a point. The 9/11 conspirators terrorised no one, because the world was already alert to Al Qaedas methods of wanton destruction. The only people that can be terrorised are those that know something painfully bad is imminently going to take place involving them personally.

Please explain to me your reason in saying, that Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki was terrorism? It was calculated civilian slaughter of an unequalled nature. They was also three of the biggest atrocities in WW2.

Be well IAN 2411

[Thorne]

I have to disagree, along with, Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the above were atrocities. They were destruction causing the slaughter of innocent lives to make a point.

Yes, they were atrocities. They were also acts of terrorism.

The 9/11 conspirators terrorised no one

No one? How many people are still afraid to fly? How many people get worked up by the very sight of a dark skinned man with a beard on a plane? If no one is terrified, why are so many people being inconvenienced by the TSA and Homeland Security?

The only people that can be terrorised are those that know something painfully bad is imminently going to take place involving them personally.

Or those who are afraid of something bad that might happen to them personally.

Please explain to me your reason in saying, that Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki was terrorism? It was calculated civilian slaughter of an unequalled nature. They was also three of the biggest atrocities in WW2.

They were all intended to get the surviving civilian populations to force their governments to end the war. In the case of Dresden, the area of the city which was bombed had virtually no military value, and so IMO had no military justification. Nagasaki and Hiroshima, on the other hand, were valid military targets, filled with war industry and military units. The fact that they also sufficed to bring the Japanese government to surrender, thereby potentially saving far more lives than they took, may provide some justification for them. That does not make them any less horrific, nor does it deny that they were ultimately acts of terrorism. Just that, as far as the Allied nations were concerned, they were "good" acts of terrorism.

[js207]

But targeting the center of the city and ignoring the rail yards and factories on the outskirts? That's terrorism.

It could conceivably have been a war crime, if the middle of the city contained no military assets: there's no requirement to go for the "best" or biggest target. Also bear in mind the original accounts were deliberately inflated for propaganda reasons, increasing the claimed death toll by almost an entire order of magnitude compared to subsequent German figures. It wasn't like modern guided missiles, which you can fly between buildings to reach a target - targeting was more "should we hit this city, or that one?" In Dresden's case, the target area was several miles wide!

Moreover, it seems the Germans were holding POWs in those rail yards, which may have made bombing them rather less appealing to the Allies.

Not always. I don't believe the Japanese, for example, signed the Geneva Convention. Nor did the USSR.

The four Geneva Conventions we know as 'the Geneva Convention' today was agreed in 1949, then ratified by Japan, the US, UK and USSR in 1953, 1955, 1957 and 1960 respectively. The laws of war in force during WWII were, as I think I mentioned earlier in this thread, older - including the First Geneva Convention of 1864, ratified by all those countries (except of course Russia wasn't the USSR in those days) back in the 19th century.

What difference whether the bomber was wearing a uniform or a business suit?

For one thing, it's the difference between war and war crime: wearing a uniform is a requirement of the laws of war. Remember all those movie scenes with captives being "shot as spies" if they're out of uniform?

[denuseri]

lol good gravy gertie, one little statement picked apart for no reason people...and everyone knows exactly what I meant by my statement

Who the good guys are and who the bad guys are all depends on which side if any you are on.

Now in the case of Mr Sheen I have no earthly idea how much or how little he knows about the actual facts concerning what his statements addressed, he may have been operating under completely false assumptions for all I know; its a moot point since it cant be determined outside of media public quotes taken perhaps out of context so shrugs.

I know in the USA considering how our country came into being that a certain degree of subjective interpretation is used in colloquial and unfortunately also in professional accounts of the history depending upon whose side one was on or with whom one's sympathies lay.

Also imho Americans in general (at least not those wholly sympathetic to England) due to our own country's past and social influence have a tendency to view the turbulent relationship of England and Ireland in favor of the Irish people as the underdog trying to do what we ourselves once did. Granted their methods are sometimes reprehensible. I know at lot of Americans hope that one day Ireland will be able to fully free themselves from their "English oppressors".

Ironic considering that Great Briton is our closest and best ally (not over the Irish issue obviously) but because of two world wars that affected all of us and the subsequent threats posed by the rise of Communism, Terrorism and perhaps not so far in the future: "China".

[IAN 2411]

Americans hope that one day Ireland will be able to fully free themselves from their "English oppressors".

If the Americans had read about Irelands history instead of sending millions of $ to help them kill the English soldier, the troubles in Northern Ireland would have been over a long time before they were. The Irish also sided with the Nazis’ during the war and that never helped either. The English were never the Oppressors they were invited to over lord Ireland, it was the IRA that made it an issue. The Irish Americans with their $ with blood on, are still a bad taste in the mouths of the British Soldier, but we have not yet stooped low enough to terrorise them.

Americans hope that one day Ireland will be able to fully free themselves from their "English oppressors".

And so to do the British, but the IRA will never allow it, because the IRA will then be redundant.

Be well IAN 2411

[IAN 2411]

Yes, they were atrocities. They were also acts of terrorism.

They were acts of war carried out not for defensive purposes but a show of strength, [God help us]. I know the British were involved in all three of those atrocities that I mentioned, but they were no better than the atrocities and inhumane killing of the Jews. There was the shock and awe tactics in Iraq at the beginning, another example of an atrocity, because there was no justification to that either. Once again this was carried out by the same two countries that are now leading the fight against terrorism. What is good for the goose is obviously not good for the gander.

How many people are still afraid to fly? How many people get worked up by the very sight of a dark skinned man with a beard on a plane? If no one is terrified, why are so many people being inconvenienced by the TSA and Homeland Security?

Or those who are afraid of something bad that might happen to them personally.

How many people won't go outside their garden for a fear of something bad taking place? How many people are afraid to drive or be driven on the road in case they are in an accident? How many people are afraid of cruises because of the fear of drowning? There is no substance in that quote because it is a real minority and can be classed alongside others.

They were all intended to get the surviving civilian populations to force their governments to end the war. In the case of Dresden, the area of the city which was bombed had virtually no military value, and so IMO had no military justification. Nagasaki and Hiroshima, on the other hand, were valid military targets, filled with war industry and military units. The fact that they also sufficed to bring the Japanese government to surrender, thereby potentially saving far more lives than they took, may provide some justification for them. That does not make them any less horrific, nor does it deny that they were ultimately acts of terrorism. Just that, as far as the Allied nations were concerned, they were "good" acts of terrorism.

There is no such thing as a good act of terrorism. You are generalising terrorism to suit your argument, to make atrocities in any mans eyes look clean. If Nagasaki and Hiroshima, was holding, and/or were producing these weapons then why did the Americans not bomb the shipping? They had the ability to do so or they could not have dropped the bombs that they did...and why “two” if it was an act of terrorism? Surely one would have been enough?

Be well IAN 2411