With regards to Gerry Adams and the IRA mentioned here - I remember Ted Kennedy welcoming Adams and his IRA terrorist friends to New york in the the 1990s.He thought the IRA were great people planting bombs and blowing people to bits.
Kennedy changed his views slightly though when some muslims flew a bomb into a building on september 11 2001 in Kennedy's back yard .
I happen to have a big problem with the TSA. Its job is SUPPOSED to be limited to making sure that the public trasportation system is protected from guns and explosives, but it has become a law enforcement agency that does unconstitutional searches of personal property without having any sort of probable cause.
Nobody would EVER allow such a thing on the street - to be stopped and have all of your persoanly possestions searched looking for possible evidence of ANY crime just because you happen to be selected at random.
Recently I was searched. They went through all of my persaonl photographs and fiance visa papers, one by one (did they actually think that a gun or a bomb was in there between the pages in the folder or the photos in an evelope.)
My grilfriend collected some special stones from the sea which she gave to me. TSA examined every one looking for something (maybe they thought they were "rock" cocaine?)
Little by little our liberty is ebbing away under the GUISE pf safety or protection.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
Muzzy in comparison, who has initiated more bombing attacks than the Muslim Extremists? When you want to toss a name like Gerry Adams and Compare him to Osama Bin Laden, Or Arafat who was Time Magazines man of the Year once. I think it pales in comparison. The Irish fight was with the Brits not the world. Yes innocent people died from IRA bombings I agree and don't condone the killing of innocent people. Then again Irish citizens especially Irish Catholics didn't have their voices heard in the Political arena.
This also goes hand in hand with the attack on religion. I think our friend Julian, who in another thread said most wars were fought over religion, that is in fact not true. Throughout the great civilizations of the world, I can provide almost 10 to one against the opinion. Though that's what the liberal socialist want to pass along as reality. In fact if the destroy the foundations of religion they can ruin a country. Antonio Gramsci made that fact known in his prison papers. Attack the foundations that makes a culture strong and it will fall to socialism.
I cannot defend myself here. Anybody?
I am not a liberal socialist. It was a passing comment that some believe the many wars of the world are based on religious diffences. Hmmmmmmmm?????? For the most part, religion or lack thereof, does have a face in the conflicts of past history. And now very present in what is going on. I am not sure I absolutely understand the comment, "In fact if the[y] destroy the foundations of religion they can ruin a country." It seems it has been my point. Religiuos differences play quite a role in the decimation of mankind. Whether it is some tyrinical nut job who thinks that Jews should be destroyed. Or what the liddle east is doing. I mean middle. And still there is the conflict between Israel and across the border. ;) Relgious conflict for ever!!!! Sure we can claim the conqueror attitude. Or the fight for land argument. But religious difference plays a key role in how F---'d up the world is.
If only the entire world believed in conservative family values and the basic Christian doctrine. Why can't we all just get along.............? And it doesn't matter if Christian, Musslim, Jewish or Buhddism. See the light for it shines for everyone. It is the same light. It is the same value of life. I am a very right wing conservative by the way.
Julian I know your very conservative and it wasn't an attack on you, it's just Libs use the attack on religion as their talking points.
Religion doesn't destroy a country. President Reagan once said it was the faith of the common person in the Evil Empire that brought it down for the most part.
Easy friend, this is a long fight, don't get so wound up. I used to be like that in my 20's. Relax a little things will change it is already.
Probably, I missed the part where Gerry Adams was compared to Osama bin Laden. bin Laden is MUCH taller than Adams, really no comparison at all - and as far as I know, bin Laden doesn't know a word of Gaelic, nor any of the Roman Catholic catechism. What's the point of comparing them?
I reported, that this is the only incident I am aware of, in which the "no fly list" has contributed to the interception of an actual (alleged) terrorist. If bin Laden decides to hop on an American Airlines flight to Chicago, I'm confident that the list will snag him too.
My guess, is that the majority of the world's people believe that it is never justifiable to slaughter civilians under any circumstances. Anyone who likes can compare nation-states, groups, or individuals who commit this kind of murder, to decide who is "better" or "worse". For example, who was worse - Tim McVeigh, or the SS officers who herded Jews into barns and then set the buildings on fire? The Irgun who blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, or the IRA who blew up pubs in Birmingham? For myself, I think the world will be a better place when all such murder is opposed, and the perpetrators condemned.
To the question, "who has initiated more bombing attacks than the Muslim Extremists?" Well, the United States of America by far exceeds all the rest of the world in bombing attacks, and in non-combatants killed by bombing... but of course, the question was only meant to refer to TERRORIST bombing attacks. If I understand the question to exclude attacks against (supposedly) military targets, then in recent years Muslim extremists could well be in the lead. I read some time ago that even since the upturn of such attacks in the past 10 or 15 years, that bombings by non-Muslim terrorists in India and Sri Lanka have exceeded those by Muslims, but I have not found a reference to confirm this.
Durak, do a little study of 20th Century Hemoclysm before you make an absurd statement that the US exceeds all in bombing attacks and non combatants killed by bombing. More were killed in WWI by European forces than the US combined in all wars together. Where do you guys come up with this crap? Another anti American Obama claim, the evil US. Hell were are mere pikers to the Europeans and the Chinese.
If you recall we entered WWI and WWII way after the festivities started.
Actually, I have studied "20th Century Hemoclysm". Quite a lot.
In WWII Europe, US bombing aircraft dropped 1,463,423 tons of munitions. In the Pacific theater, Allied forces dropped 656,400 tons, almost all of these bombings being American (our allies didn't have much of a bomber capability there). In addition, the US dropped about 32,000 explosive-equivalent tons of fission bombs on two Japanese cities.
In Korea, the US dropped about 600,000 tons of munitions.
During 11 years in Viet Nam (and in a couple of neighboring countries), we managed to drop 7,078,032 tons of ordnance - considerably exceeding the total for all parties in WWII.
If you have data that anyone has exceeded this level of bombing attacks - please contact the US Air Force and US Navy! The will be deeply surprised, and red-faced to boot.
As to non-combatant deaths by bombing, establishing numbers is more difficult. The states that were bleeding out didn't make a priority of counting their dead, which in any case is not easy in a heavily bombed area. And in Europe, the most lethal air raids were carried out by both US (by day) and RAF (by night) planes: how to allocate the credit for deaths on the ground?
However, I believe that most historians will agree that in Japan alone, the deaths due to bombing were probably between 350,000 and 450,000 - or perhaps even higher. These deaths being in city-wide raids, the vast majority were non-combatants. I don't know whether anyone has even bothered to count non-combatant deaths from bombing in Viet Nam, but they must make up some appreciable percentage of the more than 1 million dead there.
"More were killed in WWI by European forces than the US combined in all wars together." More non-combatants, in WWI? By bombing attacks? Please cite a source for this!
"Another anti American Obama claim" This is simply wrong. I have lived in the US for 52 years, and have deep affection for my country. Mr. Obama was a little school kid when I began studying the US history of aerial bombing. Jesus said, "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." To my knowledge, what I have written here is factual, objective truth. If I have misstated fact, I welcome correction. Stating the truth about my country, and its history, IS NOT anti-American.
In many countries, history is white-washed: they only allow themselves to be portrayed as heroes. I believe that this leads to corruption and debasement of their public mores and policies. Talk to people whose entire education was in Soviet schools, and ask them what they learned of history! I am proud that my country is strong to enough to accept the speaking of truth (even though many will ignore it).
Not getting in to a dispute, just my curiosity really, you quote in WWII Europe US forces dropped 1,463,423 tons, how does this figure compare to ALL munitions dropped, in WWII Europe, not just dropped by the allies, dropped by everybody including the Germans, Italians, Russians etc. etc. etc.
And, out of curiosity again, who the phuck was counting? :)
I don't have time to do more research right now, but I can tell you that the RAF tonnage was almost as great as that of the US (1,307,117 tons). The Axis powers had much smaller air forces, a much smaller proportion of bombers, their bombers had much shorter ranges and smaller payloads, and most importantly, these countries had much smaller resources! The Allied bombing campaign cost a lot of money, strategic minerals, and industrial capacity. For all of these reasons, Axis aerial bombing was absolutely dwarfed by the Allied effort.
Probably, the Luftwaffe dropped less than 50,000 tons on England (including the V-1 and V-2 unmanned attacks).
The USSR had more resources, but again, their bombing raids were on a small scale compared to those of the US and Britain. They only started heavy bombing raids on Germany when the war in Europe was almost over.
So I would guess that US tonnage in Europe was around 45% of the grand total, plus or minus a few points. (As I posted above, in Japan, we had the stage pretty much to ourselves.)
As to who was counting: the US government commissioned a study after the war, called the United States Strategic Bombing Survey. Its purpose was to research the Allied bombing campaign, gather comprehensive data, and analyze the effectiveness of strategic bombing (their conclusion being that it was quite poor, compared to what its adherents had claimed it would do). This survey is the source for the US and RAF figures in Europe.
Whilst England (Britain) ain't big enough to drop too many munitions on it wasn't just UK the Jerry's were bombing, as our lots were, either, advancing or withdrawing through mainland Europe Jerry was dropping that sh1t there also!
Don't want to pick a fight here, and I'm really trying not to, but I can't let this one go. You don't generally strike me as an arse, which is why I need to clear this up:
"The Irish fight was with the Brits not the world." - Well, 'the Brits' would be me. Specifically, Manchester and Warrington (both of which I visit regularly) were bombed, and we still bear the scars. I don't see how you're justifiying relegating the importance of this. You're right that Bin Laden is a more prominent terrorist, but I don't think I at any point compared him to Gerry Adams. The fact that they both use terror to achieve their ends makes them extremist by most definitions - I don's see how comparing who's 'worst' is helpful.
The point I was making was that extremists regularly attacked my nation, sponsored by members of your nations government, even if not by the administration itself.
You also seem to be trying to justify the IRA's actions by stating (incorrectly, I might add) that Irish catholics had no real self determination. I must be reading this wrong - I'd appreciate a little clarification.
It wasn't only USA funding the IRA, have you ever wondered how Belfast International Airport continued operating throughout the years of trouble and without being targeted? ..... Because Belfast International Airport were paying the IRA to leave them alone, payments that would have subsequently been used to target mainland UK!
The essence of what durak says here is correct.
The Luftwaffe did not develop a long range bomber for the purpose of strategic bombing. This was a major error on the part of the German military. But then it was not Hitlerís plan to strike at Britain or America, only to annex and consolidate former territories.
The main components of their air attack were the Stuka and the midsized Dornier. (Or HeinknelÖcant remember which).
The Stuka was a dive-bomber used for military targets and to support Blitzkrieg. The Dornier was also used to supply frontlines, medium range bombing and drop paratroopers.
The allies had 7 long range bombers between them. So in terms of payload the allies delivered the greater.
Strategic bombing includes industrial and military targets as well as population centres.
The bombing of population centres was first carried out by Great Britain as a psychological weapon.
Ten days after Dresden, Germany surrendered. Six days after Nagasaki Japan surrendered. None of these cities were considered for their military or industrial importance.
Killing civilians to destroy the morale of the opponent is as old as warfare itself.
USA used the threat of the Nazis to increase military expenditure. During the cold war Communism was used for the same purpose. Now itís Islam.
America has the most potent military force the world has ever known but doesnít know what to do with it.
America also has the most technically advanced intelligence agencies but they canít find Bin Laden? They found Saddam easy enough. Iím sure if they put up a reward of 40 virgins here and now never mind in the hereafter they get a few takers.
The American people lost the pioneering spirit which made their country so great. They lost the words on the statue of liberty and all that those words mean.
The spirit which built America is now the realm of the intelligence agencies which control and support international fascism. The final frontier is the space between our ears.
Allies 7 long range bombers between them, well UK had:
With slower speeds and 1930/40's technology nothing was long range, compared to later standards, but I've just thought of 9 long, or lengthy, range UK bombers off the top of my head.
Nowadays UK doesn't have a single long range bomber in service, mind the RAF still operates an Avro Lancaster, and the nearest we have to a long range bomber is the Nimrod which is a variation of the Comet, the world's first jet airliner, that's how well equipped UK forces are!
We hardly need bombers since the development of intercontinental missiles which can fly down an air duct. (supposedly)
1940's technology meant that the only way to achieve success thro long range bombing was to blitz the whole area with thousands of bombs. Hence the civilian casualties.
Remember those bombers flew at a higher altitude and the targeting was a crosshair and a mental calculation of speed and height.