I raised the point that the Germans called allied aircrew terror flies to make the point that the definition of terrorism is subjective. The Germans thought they were: I certainly don't.However, at the beginning of World War II both Britain and France accepted President Roosevelt's appeal that there should be no "bombardment from the air of civilian populations or unarmed cities". As a consequence, RAF aircrews attacking the German fleet were not allowed initially to attack warships in harbour because of the risk of civilian casulaties. That view obviously changed.

I'm with you Ian! My guess is more are than aren't. I think it was a deliberate attempt by Freight Shifters to create this controversy too. It probably would have been best, however, to just ignore it, though. Now it's in the spotlight and they have achieved their goal.

I think it's worth noting in regard to another argument put forward, that probably one of the chief reasons characters such as Arthur Harris were not tried as war criminals, is because they were fortunate enough to not find themselves on the losing side at the close of hostilities. It is always up to those on the winning side to determine who is and is not a war criminal and what merits punishment, whereas the vanquished are in no position to lay similar accusations, even if to a neutral observer, they might well be justified in doing so.You can find plenty of examples of such military actions by the victors in WW1 and WW2 which would certainly qualify as stepping outside the accepted rules of warfare if you care to look. Clearly there was no shortage of actions by the ##### in WW2 that would qualify as war crimes, but the notion that every move the Allies ever made during WW2 could in no way ever be regarded in a similar light to an observer not interested in cementing an historical justification for their every action is, if we are entirely honest, a bit of a stretch.As much as it is reassuring for one to believe it, warfare, and indeed the politics of ideological conflicts is rarely a simple case of guys in white hats versus guys in black hats. Both sides think they are the ones in the white hat, which is summed up beautifully incidentally, in this very funny sketch:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsNLbK8_rBYAl

I (almost) totally agree with you Al. :Big Grin: There's absolutely no doubt that there were Allied war crimes - the shooting of captured German wounded during the Battle of the Bulge is well documented and admitted by many of the participants, is just one example. I totally agree about the white hats/black hats dichotomy being a romantic fantasy. (Hilarious video BTW!) And there's absolutely no doubt in my mind that some of the prosecutions and some of the guilty verdicts at the various war crime trials were motivated by pure malice - the execution of the Japanese commander in the Phillipines is probably one of the best examples of such an injustice, in that case almost certainly motivated and orchestrated by MacArthur to avenge his previous defeat in 1942.But it still remains a fact that no Luftwaffe personnel, at any level of command except Goering, were prosecuted by the victorious powers, even though some ot the operations carried out by the Luftwaffe were as much atrocities as was the Allied bombing of Dresden. Had the allies simply wanted 'vengeance,' including the Dutch who had every reason to feel the bombing of Rotterdam was an atrocity or those on the recieving end of the random, indiscriminate violence of the V1 campaign, they could have had it. Who could or would have stopped them? But they didn't. Yes, there were some inconsistencies in the process of defining and punishing "war crimes." But I believe overall it was a much fairer process than it might have been, and certainly would have been had the Axis powers won the war.(I really didn't start this thread to have this kind of discussion, but I think it's been awesome! All of the posts have made good points or asked good questions...) :Applause:

I raised the point that the Germans called allied aircrew terror flies to make the point that the definition of terrorism is subjective. The Germans thought they were: I certainly don't.However, at the beginning of World War II both Britain and France accepted President Roosevelt's appeal that there should be no "bombardment from the air of civilian populations or unarmed cities". As a consequence, RAF aircrews attacking the German fleet were not allowed initially to attack warships in harbour because of the risk of civilian casulaties. That view obviously changed.

Thanks for clarifying - and what you say is absolutely true, though I'm not sure how much effect FDR's appeal really had on that policy - I think Chamberlain had already adopted it before the FDR appeal, but you may be right... You are certainly right in pointing out that one person's terrorist can be another person's freedom fighter or Holy warrior. But it's not just a subjective thing - there are accepted legal definitions in International Law and the fact that some groups do not recognize that law, doesn't invalidate it.

I'm with you Ian! My guess is more are than aren't. I think it was a deliberate attempt by Freight Shifters to create this controversy too. It probably would have been best, however, to just ignore it, though. Now it's in the spotlight and they have achieved their goal.

Thanks for the support! But I truly doubt the Freight Shifters had any motives, other than to provide interesting and unusual packages for the community. I honestly don't think they intended to offend or cause a controversy and are probably scratching their heads thinking #####? But I did send a polite and friendly email to the author of the package to give him a chance to respond before I decided to start this thread and I did not hear back from him.

Another take on terrorism. The Times today reported two terrorist car bomb attacks on Iranian nuclear scientists and the their families on the streets of Tehran. In one a scientist was killed and his wife injured: in the other the scientist and his wife were injured.It's interesting to speculate who might have been behind these attacks.

And if you've been living under a rock lately the US State Department has been using civilian diplomats to perform spying duties... Just proves that both sides are willing to use civilians to achieve their goals..

And if you've been living under a rock lately the US State Department has been using civilian diplomats to perform spying duties...

I fail to see significance of this 'late revelation'. All CIA employees happen to be civilians and yes, when they are stationed abroad they often engage in collecting intelligence which could be construed as 'spying', when assigned to US embassies they often mascarade as 'diplomats', US does it, Russia does it, others do it too, it has been like this for the past of 70+ years so what's new?

Had they been invited into the country I agree.. they weren't not in that capacity. And espionage is illegal in every country.. lets just make that clear.

I fail to see significance of this 'late revelation'. All CIA employees happen to be civilians and yes, when they are stationed abroad they often engage in collecting intelligence which could be construed as 'spying', when assigned to US embassies they often mascarade as 'diplomats', US does it, Russia does it, others do it too, it has been like this for the past of 70+ years so what's new?

I really don't want this to turn into a political debate but Michal is right - "diplomatic cover" has been used for espionage agents for centuries and every nation does it and every nation knows the other guys are doing it too. And to be brutally honest with you, if I was an Israeli I would want, and expect, the Mossad to assasinate key Iranian nuclear scientists. After all the President of Iran has frequently said that once it has the capability, Iran will turn the "Zionist entity into an inferno of flames" or some other such rhetoric. I don't condone killing innocent people - but there really is a distinction between "terrorism" and "assasination." I know it sounds like semantics but it's not. The goal of an "assination" is to kill a particular person or group of people who pose a threat to the nation or cause of the assasin. I'm not saying it's right, just saying it's different to terrorism. The goal of terrorism is to kill as many people as possible, totally refusing to discriminate who they are as long as their deaths or maiming will spread "terror" among the targeted nation and advance the ideological goals of the terrorist. There really is a difference. (Yes, I know someone is going to say "depends what side you are on." I don't agree - though both are ethically questionable, terrorism is a clearly defined and clearly illegal act under international law. Killing that is legally sanctioned by an internationally recognized government that is targeted against an identified threat and is not intended to call indiscrimate deaths, is not NECESSARILY "murder" - it totally depends on the circumstances. When a sniper "takes out" the ranking officer of a group of combatants, it is not "murder." If that same sniper deliberately shot a woman who was filling her water container at a village will, it is. Etc. etc.I'm ready to stop this conversation any time but not willing to allow generalizations that just aren't true to go unchallenged. Michal - thanks for the sane observation. BTW, if I was an Iranian I would also want the Iranian intelligence service to assasinate Israeli nuclear scientists if I believed it would stop an unprovoked nuclear strike on my country. But hopefully I would not want one of my government agencies to explode a bomb in a crowded marketplace just to create fear.Guys, can we get back to flight simulation? I never meant this thread to become a political forum.

kiwiflyeri: I'm just pointing out the gray areas in all of this. I'm in total support of your original post.. that is I totally support banning self proclaimed terrorist organization, Hezbollah and Hamas. Going any further than that really does become political. But lets remember one thing, Iran is on the radar for a "SECRET" uranium enrichment project, not terrorism.

I've done my part , I Downloaded it, wrote an afcad, and sent the planes into the side of a Afgan mountain known to have baddies hiding in the vicinity.ta ta ta ! :Peace:

LMAOAl

Well I am willing to admit I am wrong, I am impressed with how civil everyone has been and how well thought out all the replies have been.-John

I've done my part , I Downloaded it, wrote an afcad, and sent the planes into the side of a Afgan mountain known to have baddies hiding in the vicinity.ta ta ta ! :Peace:

:Party:

Well I am willing to admit I am wrong, I am impressed with how civil everyone has been and how well thought out all the replies have been.-John

I agree - I think the topic is done but I also think the discussion was worthwhileIan

LMAOAl

Al - if you L'ed your A off, what are sitting on in that picture of yours? And if you no longer have an A, where is all that cake going to end up? In your thighs man, in your thighs! Think about it!!!!!!! :Just Kidding:

Aah, but that is based on the theory that I simply sit around doing nothing after having eaten the cake, which of course is not true, since my double agent work for Hezbollah, Mossad, the CIA and the Salvation Army keeps me incredibly active. I could tell you more about it, but then I'd have to kill you.Al