My perception followed the definition, though. Would there have been a UIA if people had left the Ukraine to itself?
How to rehabilitate convicted terrorists?
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
It's an important thread since in the near future many of us here posting will be considered terrorists if not already. Probably three quarters of the terrorist operational against western targets today are recruited funded and trained by that same western monolith. So when your handing out the ultimate prices for convictions think about your nephew or your uncle Jack, what were they doing last summer?
Would there have been terrorists had people left Palestine, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan et al to themselves?
Hitler and Stalin both called them terrorists. Were they terrorists or were they heroes?
Heroes, IMO. They were simply defending their country. The definition of terrorism implies baseless aggression for some reason or other. I doubt anyone would consider Germany or the USSR to be passive at the time, and I doubt anyone would consider the UIA to be baselessly aggressive. Like I said, the definition is pretty clear. Well, to me anyway.
Why not? RCMP gave them money, fake bomb and detonation supplies, assistance in planning, logistics, and encouragement. If they created them, then by golly they should uncreate them.
No it doesn't. Not in the link you provided.
Terrorism | Define Terrorism at Dictionary.com
The US government is clearly a terrorist organization if one is to use the strict definition of the word. What else would you call ousting democratically elected governments and installing brutal dictators to ensure the flow of oil.
1953 Iranian coup d'état - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So " the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. " doesn't imply aggression to you? lol
The two terms aren't always mutually exclusive. They used terror as a weapon so they were terrorists, but they may have saved people from much worse. Though thats up for debate. Trading Hitler for Stalin isnt really an improvement.
So were the reasons for the aggression against the Ukraine used by the USSR and Germany well-founded, then? What did the Ukraine do to justify aggression against it?
Well they were experts on the subject so I guess they'd know. They used it as did the allies, just on a different scale.
2 attempted genocides weren't bad enough and it went from Stalin to Hitler back to Stalin.
At the time the Ukraine did not exist. It was a part of the Soviet Union. Before that it had been part of Russia for centuries. So when the Soviet Union used aggression on the Ukraine it was just doing it to itself. It wasnt invading a separate sovereign country like Hitler was. Poland would be a better analogy as it did it was a recognized sovereign state and was invaded by both. In that case I'd say no there was no justification.
Indeed they were in a no-win situation. They probably would have been better off trying to fight their way out of the country.
The Germans were welcomed initially by most in the Soviet Union. Not taking advantage of that was a huge mistake on that part. They preferred following their racist ideology and enslaved or murdered most of these people instead of making them allies.
Funds terrorist organizations. Though they are far from alone when it comes to doing that sort of thing.
I forgot about that. But either way, even one part of a country can carry out baseless aggression and terrorism against another part. A struggle for independence may or may not be grounds for aggression, I think.
That still leaves Germany vs the Ukraine.
Genocide X2
I guess Stalin and Hitler should have tried harder to win their hearts and minds?