Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

That's a good question. He'd have probably (in my opinion) condemned the attacks but suggested that the US government carried them out itself in order to gain justification for the invasion of Iraq and the spread of "Yankee Imperialism". That way he can condone the murder of the innocent people in the towers whilst still attacking the US government.

Well said, but of course I will need to look into it. I'll admit I don't know much about Che, I was thrown from the study of him by the many, many shirts featuring his face.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

This is the UK. I don't know whether we even have 47,000 active soldiers any more with all the cuts our government is making

You have about 230k.

I will be really interested in what conclusions people come to about the characters in the new Red Dawn movie! Though I'm sure the movie will only ever show them killing military targets and no civilians ever getting hurt.

I know the difference between Hollywood and RL bad guys

 Jihadin wrote:
I know the difference between Hollywood and RL bad guys

Grooming and likelihood to be sexually attracted to farm animals?

Don't make me post that video KM

 dogma wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

That's a good question. He'd have probably (in my opinion) condemned the attacks but suggested that the US government carried them out itself in order to gain justification for the invasion of Iraq and the spread of "Yankee Imperialism". That way he can condone the murder of the innocent people in the towers whilst still attacking the US government.

Well said, but of course I will need to look into it. I'll admit I don't know much about Che, I was thrown from the study of him by the many, many shirts featuring his face.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

This is the UK. I don't know whether we even have 47,000 active soldiers any more with all the cuts our government is making

You have about 230k.

The many many bad shirts of che make me cringe. I have no idea why anyoneone who was such a monumental failure gets depicted on shirts and posters and venerated. Maybe it's because he failed twice, fail once you are historys' footnote, fail twice and people venerate you. Did Jesus fail twice?

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

Do Americans support the British people? Because quite a bit of funding for the IRA came from the US.

I call it the green tinted glasses effect. 'The English horrifically murdered most of my family (or forced them to starve to death) between 100 and 200 years ago, so I support what the IRA does now.' is a common sentiment.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

The IRA are terrorists and criminals.

Ok... now we're getting somewhere. You do realize that there are whole nations that say the same thing... about the British Army/Government, right?

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

When it comes to Northern Ireland there's a lot of rubbish spoken, often by Americans who simply don't have much of an idea of what it was actually about. I guess some take it upon themselves to sympathise with the IRA against the evil jackboot of British tyranny as they see themselves as being a bit 'Oirish' because some distant relative might have migrated from there a long time ago.

'Long time' can be a relative term, though, and you have to admit, people on the receiving end of crimes against humanity tend to be resentful about it for a long time. My great uncle (as well as the rest of my mother's side, to lesser degrees), for example, really disliked the English to his dying day (understatement ahoy!). For him, it was not 'a long time ago' even when he was telling me the story as a small child about what he did during the Sixteen and after, because there's no such thing as 'a long time ago' when you're talking about things like the rape and murder of your parents, for example. He went a little nuts and got his Batman on by blowing up British armored cars. He eventually did leave Ireland because he felt that over all things were heading the wrong way and that the Irish were getting almost as brutal as the English (something about shooting hostages).

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

Well wearing a shamrock and getting pissed once a year doesn't make you Irish or any more informed about the political situation there

It does when one of the people you're getting pissed with that year is Gerry Adams, who was visiting for a fund raising event a few years back.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bullockist wrote:
Maybe it's because he failed twice, fail once you are historys' footnote, fail twice and people venerate you.

Actually it's because of the book.



Let me make an example:

The Nazi's referred to Jews and resistance fighters as terrorists. I really can't think of any better way to show how it really is just a label applied by governments on people they don't like.

Think they were label partisans at that timeframe. Partisans were more force on force type combat.

Partisan is just another word for a Guerrilla fighter. The only difference is that 'Partisan' is French and that makes it fancier. Partisans are free to engage in terrorist tactics as much as any other guerrilla.

So they're insurgents in today terms.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

Well wearing a shamrock and getting pissed once a year doesn't make you Irish or any more informed about the political situation there

It does when one of the people you're getting pissed with that year is Gerry Adams, who was visiting for a fund raising event a few years back.

Actually no, getting pissed with a murderer with a very blinkered worldview doesn't make you any more informed about anything, it probably makes you less so.

Yeah the words are used in a way that is interchangeable.

Problem is that the proper definition of insurgency is not the same as a partisan. I guess in my quickened response I just overlooked the nuance here. Allow me to rectify:

Partisans and insurgence are both guerrilla fighters in that they use guerrilla warfare. Technically however insurgence are fighters engaged in conflict with an authority to whom they are not legitimate constituent (meaning that the outcome of the conflict has no bearing on them). Partisans are the same, except that they are legitimate constituents to the conflict.

Example:

And insurgent is an American who joins the IRA to fight for Irish independence. The American is not Irish, has no citizenship to the Irish or the British, meaning the conflicts outcome is meaningless to him/her, and thus not a legitimate constituent to the conflict (This is of course massively simplified).

EDIT: Another way of defining the difference is who the invasive force is. Insurgents are an outside force opposing an authority to whom they are not constituents. Partisan as a term tends to be used to define an internal force opposing an outside authority (hence why you heavily see the word in use concerning WWII resistance movements).

 dæl wrote:

Actually no, getting pissed with a murderer with a very blinkered worldview doesn't make you any more informed about anything, it probably makes you less so.

If that's what you believe, I'd avoid any bars near military bases, houses of government, and police stations. Since they're all blinkered murderers to someone.

Washington, Lincoln, and Roosevelt, in particular, would be poor drinking companions indeed, by that definition.

However, I might point out that my world view is already pretty skewed. After all, I know that the difference between 'liberation' and 'occupation' is largely whether the band of killers you support is the one that just took over, just as the difference between 'glorious leader' and 'vicious drug lord' is largely whether or not their continued regime is an embarrassment to the administration in Washington or an asset (for whatever reason).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

Partisans and insurgence are both guerrilla fighters in that they use guerrilla warfare. Technically however insurgence are fighters engaged in conflict with an authority to whom they are not legitimate constituent (meaning that the outcome of the conflict has no bearing on them). Partisans are the same, except that they are legitimate constituents to the conflict.

One is protected under the laws of war, as well, whereas the other is considered an 'illegal combatant' according to the US. However, the reality is that most nations don't really discrimination between the two and assume that all of them fall under the latter category, usually not bothering with such niceties as the Geneva Conventions, the actual legal status of the prisoners notwithstanding.

For real complications, consider the status of armed refugee groups when a war spills over into a surrounding country. Are tehy insurgents, partisans, or something else all together?

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 dæl wrote:

Actually no, getting pissed with a murderer with a very blinkered worldview doesn't make you any more informed about anything, it probably makes you less so.

If that's what you believe, I'd avoid any bars near military bases, houses of government, and police stations. Since they're all blinkered murderers to someone.

Washington, Lincoln, and Roosevelt, in particular, would be poor drinking companions indeed, by that definition.

However, I might point out that my world view is already pretty skewed. After all, I know that the difference between 'liberation' and 'occupation' is largely whether the band of killers you support is the one that just took over, just as the difference between 'glorious leader' and 'vicious drug lord' is largely whether or not their continued regime is an embarrassment to the administration in Washington or an asset (for whatever reason).

Did Washington, Lincoln or Roosevelt often order the killing of innocent women? It's not really general practice among soldiers and police either. Now I am no fan of some of the actions of the British government but they do tend to draw the line when it comes to murdering innocent civilians and indiscriminate bombing.

 dæl wrote:

Did Washington,

Yes. There's a reason he's to this day called 'town burner' by the Iroquois Confederacy. Most of the military actions he ordered in western New York and Pennsylvania during his administration would fall under 'crimes against humanity'.

 dæl wrote:

Lincoln

Yes. In fact, he went so far as to authorize 'total' war, including direct war on the Civilian Population.

 dæl wrote:
or Roosevelt

On that specific charge, Theodore, not so much, Franklin, on the other hand... yes.

 dæl wrote:
but they do tend to draw the line when it comes to murdering innocent civilians and indiscriminate bombing.

Really? Please explain that to the citizens of Dresden. I'm sure they'll be glad to know that the deliberate firebombing of a city filled with refugees for no strategic gain was a line drawn. The bombers must have flown off course when they crossed that line and killed 186,000 civilians (according to allied POWs sent to clean up) and missed almost every single military installation in the city.

 LordofHats wrote:
Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello, Just post Bellum.

Most 'terrorist' organizations pretty much automatically fail two of the above.

That's a nice, fancy pants latin way of putting it, yeah

And I'd say that they are terrorist organisation because they fail those tests.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bullockist wrote:
The many many bad shirts of che make me cringe. I have no idea why anyoneone who was such a monumental failure gets depicted on shirts and posters and venerated. Maybe it's because he failed twice, fail once you are historys' footnote, fail twice and people venerate you. Did Jesus fail twice?

The what?

I mean, Che was a brutal and ruthless man, and a key figure in producing the regime in Cuba. So I've no admiration for the guy, but the revolution there was successful, so calling him a failure makes zero sense.

 sebster wrote:

Bullockist wrote:
The many many bad shirts of che make me cringe. I have no idea why anyoneone who was such a monumental failure gets depicted on shirts and posters and venerated. Maybe it's because he failed twice, fail once you are historys' footnote, fail twice and people venerate you. Did Jesus fail twice?

The what?

I mean, Che was a brutal and ruthless man, and a key figure in producing the regime in Cuba. So I've no admiration for the guy, but the revolution there was successful, so calling him a failure makes zero sense.

He failed to successfully cause revolutions in the Congo and in Bolivia. Though at the moment Bolivia has a very popular left leaning government, led by a president who admired Che and what he attempted to do so whether he failed in Bolivia is up for debate. Why people admire him is less that he failed and more that he tried to do it in the first place and refused to give up.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 sebster wrote:

Bullockist wrote:
The many many bad shirts of che make me cringe. I have no idea why anyoneone who was such a monumental failure gets depicted on shirts and posters and venerated. Maybe it's because he failed twice, fail once you are historys' footnote, fail twice and people venerate you. Did Jesus fail twice?

The what?

I mean, Che was a brutal and ruthless man, and a key figure in producing the regime in Cuba. So I've no admiration for the guy, but the revolution there was successful, so calling him a failure makes zero sense.

He failed to successfully cause revolutions in the Congo and in Bolivia. Though at the moment Bolivia has a very popular left leaning government, led by a president who admired Che and what he attempted to do so whether he failed in Bolivia is up for debate. Why people admire him is less that he failed and more that he tried to do it in the first place and refused to give up.

Since Che had one successful revolution and one failed revolution and that makes him a monumental failure, then it would seem Thomas Edison is the biggest loser in history. On the light bulb alone he failed several hundred times.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
He failed to successfully cause revolutions in the Congo and in Bolivia. Though at the moment Bolivia has a very popular left leaning government, led by a president who admired Che and what he attempted to do so whether he failed in Bolivia is up for debate. Why people admire him is less that he failed and more that he tried to do it in the first place and refused to give up.

I don't think you've got a full grasp on how difficult revolutions are, and how likely they are to succeed.

I mean, it's like saying someone's a loser for only winning one World Cup, despite being in four World Cup squads.


And I think people admire him because he was a true believer. He turned down a comfortable life as a doctor to join a cause he believed would benefit all humanity. That he became a murderous bastard along the way and the regime he helped create ended up about as bad as the government it overthrew seems to escape most of his fans, though

 sebster wrote:


And I think people admire him because he was a true believer. He turned down a comfortable life as a doctor to join a cause he believed would benefit all humanity. That he became a murderous bastard along the way and the regime he helped create ended up about as bad as the government it overthrew seems to escape most of his fans, though

This Sebster is why, when i see someone wearing a che shirt, i get the resistable urge to gut them with a blunt fishing knife.

I think i'm going to have to get a che shirt made up with murderer emblazoned across it in red, can't say i haven't learned something from greenpeace campaigns.

 sebster wrote:


Most 'terrorist' organizations pretty much automatically fail two of the above.

 sebster wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
He failed to successfully cause revolutions in the Congo and in Bolivia. Though at the moment Bolivia has a very popular left leaning government, led by a president who admired Che and what he attempted to do so whether he failed in Bolivia is up for debate. Why people admire him is less that he failed and more that he tried to do it in the first place and refused to give up.

I don't think you've got a full grasp on how difficult revolutions are, and how likely they are to succeed.

I mean, it's like saying someone's a loser for only winning one World Cup, despite being in four World Cup squads.


And I think people admire him because he was a true believer. He turned down a comfortable life as a doctor to join a cause he believed would benefit all humanity. That he became a murderous bastard along the way and the regime he helped create ended up about as bad as the government it overthrew seems to escape most of his fans, though

I am aware of how difficult a revolution is. So many revolutions overthrow the government without a clear goal of what they want to do afterwards, which often leads to the military just sweeping in and nothing really changes. The fact that the Cuban revolution has survived this long and kept to so many of the ideals it fought for in the first place (universal healthcare, education and agrarian reform) alive is evidence that Fidel and his supporters had a definite vision of what they wanted Cuba to be like. Reading the memoirs of the Cuban campaign that Che wrote gives a pretty clear insight into how difficult it was to get to the end result, though. In the first battle against Batistas forces the 50 Guerrillas who arrived by boat were cut down to around 12.

What I find interesting is that he was at his worst when he was in a position of power in the revolutionary Cuban government. During all his time in the field he would never order the execution of POWs, injured enemy soldiers would be given medical treatment to the best of the guerrillas ability, the local populace would not be threatened and any food would be paid for. I think that he was someone who didn't actually want the power afterwards, preferring to be someone who brought the change about. After all he gave up his position in the Cuban government and even his Cuban citizenship when he left to fight in the Congo.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

Do Americans support the British people? Because quite a bit of funding for the IRA came from the US.

I call it the green tinted glasses effect. 'The English horrifically murdered most of my family (or forced them to starve to death) between 100 and 200 years ago, so I support what the IRA does now.' is a common sentiment.

In the Irish-American community perhaps. It's certainly not been my experience.

 Albatross wrote:

In the Irish-American community perhaps. It's certainly not been my experience.

Hmm... Most likely that's due to the US getting a larger percentage of the more militant refugees in the 18th and 19th century. Remember that getting the US to invade Ireland and drive out the English was a ancillary goal to the better part of an entire army corps during the US Civil War, and they used that experience to invade Canada. (Another case of win all the battles and lose the war).

It's like Israel. Most US Jews will never visit Jerusalem. But they'll send billions (and make sure their Congressmen send billions more) to ensure it's security. Many of them, if they were even descendent from Jews that actually fled the destruction of Judea, had not had a connection to the region for 2k years.

Belief and ideology have little to do with reality. Irish-Americans have built up a belief structure that equates Ireland with the Promised Land and England with a cross between Hitler and Satan.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

In the Irish-American community perhaps. It's certainly not been my experience.

Hmm... Most likely that's due to the US getting a larger percentage of the more militant refugees in the 18th and 19th century. Remember that getting the US to invade Ireland and drive out the English was a ancillary goal to the better part of an entire army corps during the US Civil War, and they used that experience to invade Canada. (Another case of win all the battles and lose the war).

It's like Israel. Most US Jews will never visit Jerusalem. But they'll send billions (and make sure their Congressmen send billions more) to ensure it's security. Many of them, if they were even descendent from Jews that actually fled the destruction of Judea, had not had a connection to the region for 2k years.

Belief and ideology have little to do with reality. Irish-Americans have built up a belief structure that equates Ireland with the Promised Land and England with a cross between Hitler and Satan.

Having lived in both England and Northern Ireland I can confirm that the two areas are practically identical apart from the accents and several very minor cultural quirks. The same is true of regions within England though. In fact, I'd posit that Northern Ireland and Yorkshire have more in common culturally than Yorkshire and Greater London. My father's side of the family are all northern-Irish border county catholic Republicans (some of whom are, or were, Sinn Fein members) and I can tell you from experience that they don't hate the English anywhere near as much as the Irish-Americans claim to. Something about actually living and working with people from 'the other side' tends to do that to you. The Irish and English are massively intermingled these days (as evidenced by my own family) economically, socially and culturally. Americans don't have that same connection with Ireland, or England for that matter - I guess this makes things a little difficult to grasp. Irish-Americans typically have some half-remembered and little-understood family mythology upon which to base their opinions of the England-Ireland relationship, and base their opinions of my country, England, upon godawful Hollywood movies and national stereotypes because most of them will never visit these shores and know next to nothing of our 1000+ year history. The relationships between the peoples of the nations that comprise (and comprised) Britain are very long and very complicated. Any attempts by ignorant Americans (which are the exception and not the rule, thankfully) to impose their childish and reductive world-view upon the history of these islands and the current state of relationships between its people is something I find grossly offensive. You live thousands of miles away. Basically, shut the feth up.

EDIT: Erm, in a general sense. Not you specifically. Unless you want to.

 Albatross wrote:

Something about actually living and working with people from 'the other side' tends to do that to you.

That works right up to the moment that someone pulls out an Orange flag and starts marching around commemorating 'The Twelfth'. Granted, last time I visited Ireland was 1997, so, again, perhaps my view is skewed.

 BaronIveagh wrote:


Really? Please explain that to the citizens of Dresden. I'm sure they'll be glad to know that the deliberate firebombing of a city filled with refugees for no strategic gain was a line drawn. The bombers must have flown off course when they crossed that line and killed 186,000 civilians (according to allied POWs sent to clean up) and missed almost every single military installation in the city.

Wasn't Dresden an RAF action?

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

Something about actually living and working with people from 'the other side' tends to do that to you.

That works right up to the moment that someone pulls out an Orange flag and starts marching around commemorating 'The Twelfth'. Granted, last time I visited Ireland was 1997, so, again, perhaps my view is skewed.

Probably. Last time I was there was a couple of months ago, when I was visiting my granny. There was some big orange march planned for the village and surrounding area that I was staying in, and most people seemed to regard it with bemusement. I certainly wouldn't say that tensions were high. It just doesn't seem to be something that the majority of the population get worked up about these days, certain parts of Belfast aside. A niche interest, and an anachronistic one at that. The young people certainly didn't seem to give a gak about it either way - kind of a 'what are those daft buggers up to now? *tut* ' reaction.

That bodes quite well for the future of the province, I feel.

 dogma wrote:


Where are you going to find ~47k people willing to live on a rock under constant threat of war?

The internal share of the oil money in the Falklands can easily attract residents, they don't have to spend all year their either to count.
So long as the Falklands island assembly (who are by and large fairly self aware) choose carefully where they recruit populace from they will be ok.

They could get a number of oil residents there anyway, again the trick is to set rules as to where they are recruited from. It oil companies bring in 5000 people from Latin America you will get problems very quickly. Fortunately for the Falklanders they are not so dogmatic about being transparent on who they let in in large numbers, as they see the need to preserve an Anglic majority. I am far more worried about woolly thinking in Westminster than on the Falklands themselves.

They could get 50,000 people easily enough, pay them 'benefits' of $20K available only for the months of the year they stay there. It might sound stupid but other small island countries do something similar, if not for the same reason. Nauru for example, technically the richest country in the world in terms of highest minimum income. they gain enough from fishing rights in the exclusive economic zone to give the entire population a state benefit income of $20K in addition to anything else they earn. Falklanders can be in for the same, in fact could easily get more with their oil plus fishing, pay the UK a share and pay for the garrison and have cash to spare to corporate profit real easy. The islands share of several billion barrels of oil split only 50,000 ways is a whole lot of money per capita.
If we can hold the line until 2017 this easily could be the reality. A Falklands with the population and income to say a big "F' off" to Argentina permanently. In the best case scenario you get a toned down tundra and sheep version of a gulf state. All it take s is a little vision, getting forward planning out of the bungling idiots in Whitehall is the big problem to me, not the Argentinians.

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:

Wasn't Dresden an RAF action?

True, but the subject was the British government, so...

On cops and bombings: I've seen it before, but the one that springs to mind was Philadelphia, blowing up MOVE, killed 11 people, including children. Incidentally, 4 pounds of C4 apparently is considered 'excessive force' by US judges.