Martin Sheen proud of uncle's IRA past

[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.