• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Will the UN grow a pair?

Ed

Philosopher
Joined
Aug 4, 2001
Messages
8,658
probably not, but maybe.....

Time to get tough on terrorism, UN warned
By Anton La Guardia, Diplomatic Editor
(Filed: 29/11/2004)

After decades of argument over whether one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, a group of international "wise men" will this week tell the United Nations to outlaw all terror attacks on civilians or risk losing its moral authority.

In a report to be unveiled on Thursday, seen in part by The Telegraph, a panel appointed to reform the UN said it must send "an unequivocal message that terrorism is never an acceptable tactic, even for the most defensible of causes".


Hamas would be classed as terrorists under the UN law
This is a slap in the face for Palestinians, Iraqi insurgents, Kashmiri rebels, al-Qa'eda militants and other groups that claim to be fighting foreign domination. It is also a rebuke to Muslim states that have for years blocked agreement on an all-embracing UN convention on terrorism on the grounds that it should exclude groups fighting "occupation" or "colonialism".

From the Telegraph, today. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...29.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/11/29/ixnewstop.html
 
Ed said:

In a report to be unveiled on Thursday, seen in part by The Telegraph, a panel appointed to reform the UN said it must send "an unequivocal message that terrorism is never an acceptable tactic, even for the most defensible of causes".

The problem is, is that really true? You could make a very good case that the U.S. bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were technically terrorism (yes, there were some legitimate targets in those cities, but everybody knows the whole point was intimidation and pressure to surrender). Yet the decision to drop The Bomb ended the Pacific war and may well have saved a huge number of lives on both sides. History has come down on the side of the terrorists.

I also think people need to start recognizing the distinction between terrorism and guerrilla warfare -- two very different things that most people treat interchangeably, for some reason.

Jeremy
 
I wish they would grow a pair too.
With the Red Crescent saying that 6,000 people might have been slain in Fallujah they ought to be talking about state terrorism too.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4047469.stm
Note the caption to the picture:

"The US prevented aid entering the city for weeks"

It should have be followed by the following analysis:

"...a crime against humanity under international law"


Inconsistent UN ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ as usual.
 
Well, if they are going to do that...

They might as well grow a pair about State Sponsored Terrorism while they are at it.

Oh, and here is a relavent quote on Terrorism in general:

"Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death." -- Adolf Hitler
 
You realise this is a two edged sword, Ed? By saying that terrorism can never be used, you are also asking the UN to become more involved in the conflicts where it is used. If a population cannot hope to fight the state it is in conflict with conventional means, and it cannot tolerate the injustice it perceives it is receiving, then the only alternative is some form of binding authority external to the two groups involved in the conflict if the conflict cannot be resolved by negotiation.

Merely using force to stop terrorism, and nothing more, means that the more powerful will win every time, no matter how injust or just the cause of each side.

This may or may not be a bad thing, but I think this is the logical end of that idea.
 
a_unique_person said:
You realise this is a two edged sword, Ed? By saying that terrorism can never be used, you are also asking the UN to become more involved in the conflicts where it is used. If a population cannot hope to fight the state it is in conflict with conventional means, and it cannot tolerate the injustice it perceives it is receiving, then the only alternative is some form of binding authority external to the two groups involved in the conflict if the conflict cannot be resolved by negotiation.

I think this is a good example of what I meant when I said a lot of people conflate terrorism and guerrilla warfare. You can fight an "underground" war against a state without resorting to terrorism. It's all a matter of the targets you pick.

Jeremy
 
Why even bother? The UN can't "grow a pair" until is has the power to compel members to act. Terrorist organizations can't be controlled by UN resolutions. What good could possibly be done by this?
 
demon said:
I wish they would grow a pair too.
With the Red Crescent saying that 6,000 people might have been slain in Fallujah they ought to be talking about state terrorism too.

There first has to be terrorism, for there to be state terrorism.

"The US prevented aid entering the city for weeks"

It should have be followed by the following analysis:

"...a crime against humanity under international law"

Your derision of the media for NOT lying and propagating your delusions is telling.




And Ed, I'm not sure I want to the UN to grow a pair. Any organization that gives that much power to tin-pot dictators, third world ****-holes, and theocratic tyrannies needs to be weak and useless.
 
Re: Re: Will the UN grow a pair?

toddjh said:
You could make a very good case that the U.S. bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were technically terrorism (yes, there were some legitimate targets in those cities, but everybody knows the whole point was intimidation and pressure to surrender). Yet the decision to drop The Bomb ended the Pacific war and may well have saved a huge number of lives on both sides. Jeremy

Well, not really. See, terrorist is fighting against a civilian in a non-war state. BOTH countries were OPENLY at war.

It doesn't work when the Jihadists attacked on 9/11 because, thought they will say they declared war (jihad) in the US, the US had never declared war on 'them', and 'them' is a VERY hard thing to define, since they have no national borders or government.

If the US sends it's army to, say, Cameroon, and declares war (god only knows why) then THAT would be an act of terrorism (or aggression) since they didn't also decalre war.

The WW2 thing doesn't apply here though.
 
Re: Re: Re: Will the UN grow a pair?

Larspeart said:
Well, not really. See, terrorist is fighting against a civilian in a non-war state. BOTH countries were OPENLY at war.

That may be one definition, but I think that's too narrow in this case. In fact, I can't find a dictionary that agrees with you that terrorism requires a lack of declared war.

To me, terrorism is a policy of attempting to create fear in a group of people, in the hopes that they will bring pressure to bear on the authorities to take a certain course of action. Under that definition, the U.S. nuclear attacks arguably qualify.

Jeremy
 
toddjh said:
I think this is a good example of what I meant when I said a lot of people conflate terrorism and guerrilla warfare. You can fight an "underground" war against a state without resorting to terrorism. It's all a matter of the targets you pick.

Jeremy

And you are a good example of not understanding that both sides often use such tactics in such conflicts. The bombing of Dresden was a good example of state terrorism, for example. There was no other justification for the act, as the town had no military significance.
 
a_unique_person said:
There was no other justification for the act, as the town had no military significance.
Sure, you just have to ignore the 100+ factories, the transportation (railroad) hubs and the many communications targets. Beyond that, no military value whatsoever. :rolleyes:
 
WildCat said:
Sure, you just have to ignore the 100+ factories, the transportation (railroad) hubs and the many communications targets. Beyond that, no military value whatsoever. :rolleyes:

In 1941 Charles Portal of the British Air Staff advocated that entire cities and towns should be bombed. Portal claimed that this would quickly bring about the collapse of civilian morale in Germany. Air Marshall Arthur Harris agreed and when he became head of RAF Bomber Command in February 1942, he introduced a policy of area bombing (known in Germany as terror bombing) where entire cities and towns were targeted.

One tactic used by the Royal Air Force and the United States Army Air Force was the creation of firestorms. This was achieved by dropping incendiary bombs, filled with highly combustible chemicals such as magnesium, phosphorus or petroleum jelly (napalm), in clusters over a specific target. After the area caught fire, the air above the bombed area, become extremely hot and rose rapidly. Cold air then rushed in at ground level from the outside and people were sucked into the fire.

In 1945, Arthur Harris decided to create a firestorm in the medieval city of Dresden. He considered it a good target as it had not been attacked during the war and was virtually undefended by anti-aircraft guns. The population of the city was now far greater than the normal 650,000 due to the large numbers of refugees fleeing from the advancing Red Army.

On the 13th February 1945, 773 Avro Lancasters bombed Dresden. During the next two days the USAAF sent over 527 heavy bombers to follow up the RAF attack. Dresden was nearly totally destroyed. As a result of the firestorm it was afterwards impossible to count the number of victims. Recent research suggest that 35,000 were killed but some German sources have argued that it was over 100,000.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWdresden.htm

That was the first link mr google threw up. You may not like the site, but the facts seem quite straight forward. The aim was to burn the town to the ground using incendiary. The firestorm was intentionally created, not to attack military targets, but civilian ones.

They didn't just bomb it, the intent was terror to make morale collapse. Ditto the A-Bomb.
 
a_unique_person said:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWdresden.htm

That was the first link mr google threw up. You may not like the site, but the facts seem quite straight forward. The aim was to burn the town to the ground using incendiary. The firestorm was intentionally created, not to attack military targets, but civilian ones.

They didn't just bomb it, the intent was terror to make morale collapse. Ditto the A-Bomb.
Ahem:
II. ANALYSIS: Dresden as a Military Target

5. At the outbreak of World War II, Dresden was the seventh largest city in Germany proper.2 With a population of 642,143 in 1939, Dresden was exceeded in size only by Berlin, Hamburg, Munich, Cologne, Leipzig, and Essen, in that order.3 The serial bombardments sustained during World War II by the seven largest cities of Germany are shown in Chart A.

6. Situated 71 miles E.S.E. from Leipzig and 111 miles S. of Berlin, by rail, Dresden was one of the greatest commercial and transportation centers of Germany and the historic capital of the important and populous state of Saxony.4 It was, however, because of its geographical location and topography and as a primary communications center that Dresden assumed major significance as a military target in February 1945, as the Allied ground forces moved eastward and the Russian armies moved westward in the great combined operations designed to entrap and crush the Germans into final defeat.

7. Geographically and topographically, Dresden commanded two great and historic traffic routes of primary military significance: north-south between Germany and Czechoslovakia through the valley and gorge of the Elbe river, and east-west along the foot of the central European uplands.5 The geographical and topographical importance of Dresden as the lower bastion in the vast Allied-Russian war of movement against the Germans in the closing months of the war in Europe.

8. As a primary communications center, Dresden was the junction of three great trunk routes in the German railway system: (1) Berlin-Prague-Vienna, (2) Munich-Breslau, and (3) Hamburg-Leipzig. As a key center in the dense Berlin-Leipzig railway complex, Dresden was connected to both cities by two main lines.6 The density, volume, and importance of the Dresden-Saxony railway system within the German geography and e economy is seen in the facts that in 1939 Saxony was seventh in area among the major German states, ranked seventh in its railway mileage, but ranked third in the total tonnage carried by rail.7

9. In addition to its geographical position and topography and its primary importance as a communications center, Dresden was, in February 1945, known to contain at least 110 factories and industrial enterprises that were legitimate military targets, and were reported to have employed 50,000 workers in arms plants alone.8 Among these were dispersed aircraft components factories; a poison gas factory (Chemische Fabric Goye and Company); an anti-aircraft and field gun factory (Lehman); the great Zeiss Ikon A.G., Germany’s most important optical goods manufactory; and, among others, factories engaged in the production of electrical and X-ray apparatus (Koch and Sterzel A.G.), gears and differentials (Saxoniswerke), and electric gauges (Gebruder Bassler).9

10. Specific military installations in Dresden in February 1945 included barracks and hutted camps and at least one munitions storage depot.10

11. Dresden was protected by antiaircraft defenses , antiaircraft guns and searchlights, in anticipation of Allied air raids against the city.11 The Dresden air defenses were under the Combined Dresden (Corps Area IV) and Berlin (Corps Area III) Luftwaffe Administration Commands.12

From your own link!

In February of 1945, with the Russian army threatening the heart of Saxony, I was called upon to attack Dresden; this was considered a target of the first importance for the offensive on the Eastern front. Dresden had by this time become the main centre of communications for the defence of Germany on the southern half of the Eastern front and it was considered that a heavy air attack would disorganise these communications and also make Dresden useless as a controlling centre for the defence. It was also by far the largest city in Germany - the pre-war population was 630,000 - which had been left intact; it had never before been bombed. As a large centre of war industry it was also of the highest importance.
No military significance?!

While the raids on Dresden may have been demoralizing for the German population, that was a secondary purpose. All bombing raids were demoralizing.

And Dresden was bombed again by great numbers of bombers on March 2 and Aprill 17, so obviously the allies felt it was still not quite destroyed.

As far as "area bombing", that was just a tactic that acknowledged the innate innacuracy of aerial bombardment in that era. When the first plane dropped it's bombs, they all did. It was designed to maximize damage to the target and minimize flight time over heavily defended cities.
 
The main reason dresden had been spared up until that point in the war was because its geographical position in the far east of that country put it out of range of allied bombers until forward bases in France had been established, certainly not because it had no military value.
 
WildCat said:
Ahem:


From your own link!


No military significance?!

While the raids on Dresden may have been demoralizing for the German population, that was a secondary purpose. All bombing raids were demoralizing.

And Dresden was bombed again by great numbers of bombers on March 2 and Aprill 17, so obviously the allies felt it was still not quite destroyed.

As far as "area bombing", that was just a tactic that acknowledged the innate innacuracy of aerial bombardment in that era. When the first plane dropped it's bombs, they all did. It was designed to maximize damage to the target and minimize flight time over heavily defended cities.

They specifically used incendiary, to make the whole place burn to the ground. HE is what you use to attack a military target to destroy it.

From the link

In 1941 Charles Portal of the British Air Staff advocated that entire cities and towns should be bombed. Portal claimed that this would quickly bring about the collapse of civilian morale in Germany. Air Marshall Arthur Harris agreed and when he became head of RAF Bomber Command in February 1942, he introduced a policy of area bombing (known in Germany as terror bombing) where entire cities and towns were targeted.
 
a_unique_person said:
They specifically used incendiary, to make the whole place burn to the ground. HE is what you use to attack a military target to destroy it.
I read your link, thank you.

There were 1,475 tons of incendiary bombs dropped on Dresden on Feb. 14-15. There were also 2,431 tons of HE bombs dropped those same 2 days.

I won't argue that the goal was to destroy the city (that was the goal of every raid back then, precision bombing just didn't exist), but the reasons were military.
 
WildCat said:
I read your link, thank you.

There were 1,475 tons of incendiary bombs dropped on Dresden on Feb. 14-15. There were also 2,431 tons of HE bombs dropped those same 2 days.

I won't argue that the goal was to destroy the city (that was the goal of every raid back then, precision bombing just didn't exist), but the reasons were military.

BS. Germany was on the ropes, and everyone knew it except Hitler. The same with the A-bomb. It was terrorism, and it worked, but it was still terrorism.
 
a_unique_person said:
BS. Germany was on the ropes, and everyone knew it except Hitler. The same with the A-bomb. It was terrorism, and it worked, but it was still terrorism.
Translation: Oops, my case is weak. Better try to change the subject to Hiroshima.
 
a_unique_person said:
BS. Germany was on the ropes, and everyone knew it except Hitler.
So in your opinion, when should have all military action against Germany ceased?

Do you even realize that Germany had launched a major offensive (Battle of the Bulge) involving 29 divisions (600,000 Germans) that was put down just a few weeks prior to the Dresden bombing? Was it over afer that, but before Dresden?

As a wise man ;) once said, "It ain't over till it's over".
 

Back
Top Bottom