If the NYT Editors were around in 1943...

[Skeptic]

Sheer genius:

http://thepeoplescube.com/images/NYT_Warsaw_uprising_editors.gif

[senorpogo]

"Jewish resistance shatters hope of peaceful final solution"

Ouch.

[senorpogo]

I also like "Culture shock: American knee-jerk support of Jewish rebels irritates cultured Europeans". Then there's a picture of people wearing hats.

You could probably run that headline anytime in the past sixty odd years.

[headscratcher4]

Not sure why this is so different than the realities of 1943...the US as a whole (not just the NYT) was relatively indifferent to the holocaust...stopping it, per se, wasn't really why we went to war in Europe...

Just an aside.

[Tony]

Not sure why this is so different than the realities of 1943...the US as a whole (not just the NYT) was relatively indifferent to the holocaust...stopping it, per se, wasn't really why we went to war in Europe...

Just an aside.


Leave your "facts" out of "Skeptic's" revisionist history.

[EBU]

Can you point to a similar NYT headline from recent times (e.g. which uses the word "over-reaction" to describe Jews' actions)?

[senorpogo]

Can you point to a similar NYT headline from recent times (e.g. which uses the word "over-reaction" to describe Jews' actions)?

Nope. That doesn't make it any less funny.

[Tony]

Nope. That doesn't make it any less funny.

Ohh yeah. Laughing about people murdered in the Holocaust, real funny. :rolleyes:

[ponderingturtle]

Not sure why this is so different than the realities of 1943...the US as a whole (not just the NYT) was relatively indifferent to the holocaust...stopping it, per se, wasn't really why we went to war in Europe...

Just an aside.

And you could have interesting comparisons between some of the resistance groups fighting the nazi's and our problems in Iraq.

Why do people pretend that the french government is anything other than a state founded by terrorists after WWII?

[senorpogo]

Ohh yeah. Laughing about people murdered in the Holocaust, real funny. :rolleyes:

Yes, I'm laughing at the holocaust. I couldn't be laughing at a parody of what some see as typcial western liberal reaction. Of course, most people couldn't realize that because they'd have to stop playing for their political "team". Then Kos kicks you out of the party.

[headscratcher4]

And you could have interesting comparisons between some of the resistance groups fighting the nazi's and our problems in Iraq.

Why do people pretend that the french government is anything other than a state founded by terrorists after WWII?

Isn't France a state founded by terrorists after 1793?

[Tony]

Yes, I'm laughing at the holocaust.

Because it's so funny right?

I couldn't be laughing at a parody of what some see as typcial western liberal reaction.

Actually, I feel pity for the ignoramuses who actually see that as the "typical western liberal reaction". That people could be so divorced from reality is chilling. But hey, I won't fault you for laughing at them. :)

[Tony]

Isn't France a state founded by terrorists after 1793?

Let's not forget the USA, a country founded by western-liberal "terrorists" in 1776.

[senorpogo]

Actually, I feel pity for the ignoramuses who actually see that as the "typical western liberal reaction". That people could be so divorced from reality is chilling. But hey, I won't fault you for laughing at them. :)

Thank you!
I look forward to your future posts where I am sure you will continue to not fault me.

[AmateurScientist]

Let's not forget the USA, a country founded by western-liberal "terrorists" in 1776.

You have no idea what "terrorism" means. Hint: militia does not equal terrorists.

AS

[Tony]

You have no idea what "terrorism" means.

A fact of which I have recently become painfully aware is that no-one has any idea what terrorist or terrorism means. It's a political buzzword used to scare people to your side. Since you're so sure, why don't you present what you think terrorism means.

[ponderingturtle]

Isn't France a state founded by terrorists after 1793?

Well there where several overthrows, but it did invent terrorism as a term.

[ponderingturtle]

Let's not forget the USA, a country founded by western-liberal "terrorists" in 1776.

Yep, damn tax deniers. They wouldn't even fight a proper war, and resorted to all kinds of unconventional terrorist acts like attacking in the winter and such. Didn't respect the rules of war at all.

[ponderingturtle]

You have no idea what "terrorism" means. Hint: militia does not equal terrorists.

AS

So please give me a definition of terrorism that is not "people I don't like" but excludes the french resistance and american rebelion but includes those that we want to classify as terrorists?

[AmateurScientist]

A fact of which I have recently become painfully aware is that no-one has any idea what terrorist or terrorism means. It's a political buzzword used to scare people to your side. Since you're so sure, why don't you present what you think terrorism means.

I agree that often people misuse or misunderstand the term, including our President. That doesn't mean that it's a buzzword without any real meaning, however. Contrary to what you may think, it was widely used to describe certain acts long before President Bush came to office.

I'm sure others may disagree with the definition the US Department of State uses, but it's not a bad one. According to it, terrorism is "Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents."

I studied it as "transnational terrorism" in college in the early 80s, and by my recollection it had a few elements key to it. One was that it consisted of at least a violent act or threat of immediate violence. It had to be politically motivated to accomplish some goal or set of goals, and calculated to be broadcast publicly, with the intent to instill fear in the people targeted. Note, in this instance, by "people targeted," I do not mean the victims of the actual violence. I mean the people of the nation or group to which the victims belong. The actual victims of the violence itself are usually random and incidental. It is almost exclusively employed by groups who share ideological or political goals and who do not have access to traditional military might. That does not mean they don't have access to military weapons. It means "might," as in power or strength enough to win by traditional military means. In other words, they are militarily weak. Terrorism is a tool of the politically and militarily weak and desperate, and is a last resort to accomplishing one's goals. That's because other means are usually more effective, if one has access to them.

It's important to understand that instilling fear in order to pressure a government to accede to the terrorists' demands is critical to terrorism. Armed nation states aren't really capable of committing terrorist actions because they have traditional militaries or militias. Saber rattling or military deterrence is not terrorism, for instance. Neither is military action by a sovereign nation (I might make an exception for the Japanese Navy's kamikaze and human torpedo campaigns, however, despite Japan's being a sovereign nation at the time -- those tactics were desperate and designed to demoralize the US Navy and to instill fear).

The reason the revolutionary American colonists weren't terrorists is because they didn't mean to accomplish their independence by instilling fear in the British public. They intended to gain it by the use of force -- violent struggle against the redcoats. The American war effort consisted of the Continental Army and was augmented by militiamen, who often employed guerilla tactics. Guerilla tactics are not necessarily terroristic, which is a mistake I think a lot of people seem to make when describing guerillas and terrorists. Guerillas can be terrorists, but not all guerillas are terrorists.

Furthermore, the water gets muddied because certain persons misuse "revolutionary" as a euphemism for terrorism. Groups can be revolutionary without employing terrorism to accomplish their goals. Nothing necessarily prevents revolutionary groups from employing terrorism, however. See, for example, the IRA. It's a classic example of a group which has employed terrorism to gain attention to its political cause.

AS

[brodski]

It's important to understand that instilling fear in order to pressure a government to accede to the terrorists' demands is critical to terrorism.
So you wouldn't agree that groups such as the Ulster volunteer force, or any number of other "loyalist" groups which I would see as terrorist, who attacked Republican/ Catholic civilians, and attempted to instill fear in them and dissuade them from campaigning for either Catholic civil rights or a United Ireland, they did not , however, attack the UK government, aside from that, their methods and tactics where practically identical to republican terrorists.

[AmateurScientist]

So please give me a definition of terrorism that is not "people I don't like" but excludes the french resistance and american rebelion but includes those that we want to classify as terrorists?

Terrorism does not mean revolutionaries taking action. The French resistance was largely about sabotage and intelligence gathering for the Allies. It was deliberately undermining the German occupation and war effort. It was not using the media to instill fear in the German people to pressure the German government to free France. It was literally fighting the German army and the Gestapo, but engaged in special forces type missions and espionage.

The American rebellion didn't employ tactics to instill fear in the British people. The colonists used force to expel the British Army and overthrow British rule. They used a traditional military army, trained by professional soldiers, and augmented by a militia.

AS

[UserGoogol]

Ohh yeah. Laughing about people murdered in the Holocaust, real funny. :rolleyes:

That's unfair. The Holocaust can be extremely funny. (When one person dies, it's black comedy; when millions of people die, it's megacomedy!) That said, as senorpogo says, this really isn't a joke about the Holocaust, it's a joke about the "liberal media." I don't find it funny, but that's just because it's as a general thing, hard to find political satire funny if you disagree with it. I think the comparison between WW2 Warsaw and modern-day Israel is incredibly weak unless you already accept the thesis "the media hates jews, lololololo amirite?" Thus, the joke seems to be preaching to the choir, and I am not a member of that choir, so eh.

[AmateurScientist]

So you wouldn't agree that groups such as the Ulster volunteer force, or any number of other "loyalist" groups which I would see as terrorist, who attacked Republican/ Catholic civilians, and attempted to instill fear in them and dissuade them from campaigning for either Catholic civil rights or a United Ireland, they did not , however, attack the UK government, aside from that, their methods and tactics where practically identical to republican terrorists.

OK, they are terrorists. I'll expand the definition to include them. Their violence is meant to instill fear in the people to keep them from supporting those who oppose British rule. It's the same as how I defined it, only without the condition that their immediate target is an actual government. In this case, their ultimate target is a fictional unified Irish government desired by Irish Republicans. You're kind of splitting hairs here.

AS

[Tony]

I agree that often people misuse or misunderstand the term, including our President. That doesn't mean that it's a buzzword without any real meaning, however. Contrary to what you may think, it was widely used to describe certain acts long before President Bush came to office.

I'm sure others may disagree with the definition the US Department of State uses, but it's not a bad one. According to it, terrorism is "Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents."

I studied it as "transnational terrorism" in college in the early 80s, and by my recollection it had a few elements key to it. One was that it consisted of at least a violent act or threat of immediate violence. It had to be politically motivated to accomplish some goal or set of goals, and calculated to be broadcast publicly, with the intent to instill fear in the people targeted. Note, in this instance, by "people targeted," I do not mean the victims of the actual violence. I mean the people of the nation or group to which the victims belong. The actual victims of the violence itself are usually random and incidental. It is almost exclusively employed by groups who share ideological or political goals and who do not have access to traditional military might. That does not mean they don't have access to military weapons. It means "might," as in power or strength enough to win by traditional military means. In other words, they are militarily weak. Terrorism is a tool of the politically and militarily weak and desperate, and is a last resort to accomplishing one's goals. That's because other means are usually more effective, if one has access to them.

It's important to understand that instilling fear in order to pressure a government to accede to the terrorists' demands is critical to terrorism. Armed nation states aren't really capable of committing terrorist actions because they have traditional militaries or militias. Saber rattling or military deterrence is not terrorism, for instance. Neither is military action by a sovereign nation (I might make an exception for the Japanese Navy's kamikaze and human torpedo campaigns, however, despite Japan's being a sovereign nation at the time -- those tactics were desperate and designed to demoralize the US Navy and to instill fear).

The reason the revolutionary American colonists weren't terrorists is because they didn't mean to accomplish their independence by instilling fear in the British public. They intended to gain it by the use of force -- violent struggle against the redcoats. The American war effort consisted of the Continental Army and was augmented by militiamen, who often employed guerilla tactics. Guerilla tactics are not necessarily terroristic, which is a mistake I think a lot of people seem to make when describing guerillas and terrorists. Guerillas can be terrorists, but not all guerillas are terrorists.

Furthermore, the water gets muddied because certain persons misuse "revolutionary" as a euphemism for terrorism. Groups can be revolutionary without employing terrorism to accomplish their goals. Nothing necessarily prevents revolutionary groups from employing terrorism, however. See, for example, the IRA. It's a classic example of a group which has employed terrorism to gain attention to its political cause.

AS

Nice post. On the subject of the bastardization of "terrorism", check this out:

http://www.slate.com/id/2147496/nav/tap1/

[AmateurScientist]

Nice post. On the subject of the bastardization of "terrorism", check this out:

http://www.slate.com/id/2147496/nav/tap1/

Thanks.

Checked it out. I think it's a real stretch to classify school shootings as terrorist acts, and the posting of messages on web pages to be terroristic threats. Those laws are being abused and corrupted, in my opinion.

You're right. It's bastardization.

AS

[fuelair]

So please give me a definition of terrorism that is not "people I don't like" but excludes the french resistance and american rebelion but includes those that we want to classify as terrorists?

Purposefully goes after, tortures, kidnaps, kills non-fighting civilians as an ongoing policy.


Edited to add: a large number of "patriots" of the French Revolution were terrorists.

[a_unique_person]

Sheer genius:

http://thepeoplescube.com/images/NYT_Warsaw_uprising_editors.gif

Sheer stupidity. The circumstances are in no way comparable.

[Skeptic]

Sheer stupidity. The circumstances are in no way comparable.

Let's see: Hitler threathens to kill all the jews and does everything to achieve it while pretending the war is all their fault... Hizbullah/Hamas threathen to kill all the jews and do everything to achieve it while pretending the war is all their fault... gee, seems similar to me.

[a_unique_person]

There are also a lot of differences. You left all of them out.

[Chaos]

You have no idea what "terrorism" means. Hint: militia does not equal terrorists.

AS

So you are saying that, for example, the Boston Tea Party was not a terrorist act?

[Skeptic]

There are also a lot of differences. You left all of them out.

Yes, there are differences: for example, the excuse Hitler had for killing all the jews was that they are parasites who can't even have their own country, while the exculse Hizbullah and Hamas have for killing all the jews is that they are occupiers because they have their own country.

But when the similarity is a monomaniacal desire to butcher all the jews in any way possible, the differences pale to insignificance. It's like supporting the actions of one serial killer and condemning another because the first serial killer dresses better.

[UserGoogol]

Just because an entity wants to kill an entire group of people does not give that group of people carte blanche to do whatever they want to that entity in defense.

The big difference between the Warsaw uprising and the present Israel situation is that Israel has far more options. Israel is, unlike WW2-era Poland, sovereign and relatively propserous. Furthermore, the threat posed by Hezbollah is much smaller than the threat posed by Nazis. The goal is similar, but the Nazis could just blitzkrieg in and start rounding up Jews, whereas Hezbollah can only kidnap Jews on a sporadic basis. The Warsaw Uprising was good (although maybe not that good, since it failed) because they didn't really have many options. Israel has options.

[Skeptic]

Just because an entity wants to kill an entire group of people does not give that group of people carte blanche to do whatever they want to that entity in defense.

Quite right; but the point is that supporting the side who wants to kill the entire group of people is morally the same in both cases.

[UserGoogol]

Perhaps. But even the fake New York Times page isn't explicitly supporting the Nazis, they're just being comically critical of the uprisings against the Nazis, which is a very distinct thing.

[gtc]

The goal is similar, but the Nazis could just blitzkrieg in and start rounding up Jews, whereas Hezbollah can only kidnap Jews on a sporadic basis.

Its not quite all Hezbollah can do though, is it?

[UserGoogol]

No, Hezbollah certainly has other methods of killing Jews, I was just going for paralellism for linguistic effect. But even when you take into account bombs and the like, it's still not anywhere near as effective as Nazi Germany was.

[a_unique_person]

Quite right; but the point is that supporting the side who wants to kill the entire group of people is morally the same in both cases.

Hezbollah only had minority support, the Shia and Sunni are more wary of each other than before, with the civil war in Iraq, Xians are a large minority group, as are the Druze, who have traditionally been israeli allies.

[gumboot]

I think that fake newspaper would be a lot funnier if it wasn't so tragically true. And I don't mean that specific incident, necessarily, I mean more the parallels of what was happening in the world, and what the general mood of the people was.

When national figures in places like Lebanon, Syria, Iran, North Korea, Iraq (pre-invasion) etc... accuse western governments of being war mongerers I can't help but think of Hitler labelling Churchill as a warmongerer in the 1930's.

-Andrew

[a_unique_person]

I think that fake newspaper would be a lot funnier if it wasn't so tragically true. And I don't mean that specific incident, necessarily, I mean more the parallels of what was happening in the world, and what the general mood of the people was.

When national figures in places like Lebanon, Syria, Iran, North Korea, Iraq (pre-invasion) etc... accuse western governments of being war mongerers I can't help but think of Hitler labelling Churchill as a warmongerer in the 1930's.

-Andrew

How many of their troops are in the Western countries, and how many Western troops are in their countries.

[Mycroft]

How many of their troops are in the Western countries, and how many Western troops are in their countries.

What would that be evidence of?

[Skeptic]

How many of their troops are in the Western countries, and how many Western troops are in their countries.

Jan. 1, 1945:

Thousands of American/British/Russian troops in German territory.
Not one German soldier (except POWs) in Allied territory.

Therefore, justice is on the Germans' side.

[Beerina]

Just because an entity wants to kill an entire group of people does not give that group of people carte blanche to do whatever they want to that entity in defense.

You forgot a few words. "Wants to...and tries to...and would if it could".

The big difference between the Warsaw uprising and the present Israel situation is that Israel has far more options. Israel is, unlike WW2-era Poland, sovereign and relatively propserous. Furthermore, the threat posed by Hezbollah is much smaller than the threat posed by Nazis. The goal is similar, but the Nazis could just blitzkrieg in and start rounding up Jews, whereas Hezbollah can only kidnap Jews on a sporadic basis. The Warsaw Uprising was good (although maybe not that good, since it failed) because they didn't really have many options. Israel has options.

One need not use less severe options in one's self-defense, to placate the emotional guilt of people sitting safely thousands of miles away.

You can discuss the practical wisdom of what they did, but trying to hold your nose up in the air at the wrongness of their actions is barking up the wrong tree.

[AmateurScientist]

So you are saying that, for example, the Boston Tea Party was not a terrorist act?

Yes, I am. The Sons of Liberty who destroyed the tea on the ships didn't commit or threaten to commit any acts of violence against persons for the purpose of instilling fear in the British people. It was an act of rebellion, to be sure, one with a message to the King, but not all rebellious acts against a government are terrorism.

Don't make the mistake of equating rebellion or dissent with terrorism. There is no comparison.

For instance, Cindy Sheehan may be a nut, but she's not a terrorist. Get it?

AS

[a_unique_person]

Jan. 1, 1945:

Thousands of American/British/Russian troops in German territory.
Not one German soldier (except POWs) in Allied territory.

Therefore, justice is on the Germans' side.

Got Hitler on the brain? Maybe you need to think things through with few more examples than fall for a hasty generalisation.

[Skeptic]

Got Hitler on the brain?

Yup. Perhaps because Hamas, Hizbullah, Iran's president, and others openly want to do the same thing again.

Maybe you need to think things through with few more examples than fall for a hasty generalisation

(Shurg) the same is true for virtually every war where the attacker was defeated. The Napoleonic wars ended with Russian troops in (what is now) Poland and eastern Europe, and not one Frenchman in Russia. In WWI the allies eventually conquered German territory before the Armstice. Does this mean Russia or England were the agressors in that war?

[gtc]

How many of their troops are in the Western countries

That is a very good question and one we will struggle to answer for many years to come, I think.

Edited to add: WWII will always come into discussions about the Middle East, so to say that someone has Hitler on their brain is not productive.