The African Queen and the way we look at things today.

[mikey2much]

Sometime when you have a little time to kill, you should rent a copy of The African Queen. I did, and as I watched I thought of how similar the actions of the movie were to the actions of the event that damaged the USS Cole.

Two people take an old boat and rig a bomb up on it to try and blow up a warship. In the movie Bogie rigs a torpedo on his boat and then has it sink beneath him. They are picked up by the warship and tried as spies and sentenced to be hanged. With the nooses around their necks the heroes turn and salute each other. Before the hanging can take place the ship hits the small boat and blows up.

With the USS Cole two men take a small boat and rig a bomb up in it. They then take this boat and sail it up against the side of an armed warship. They turn and salute each other just before the bomb goes off.

I had always thought of bogie as a hero and now I find he is a terrorist?

I would like to hear your views. Is attacking an armed warship in a small boat a terrorist act, the same as blowing up a school bus or crashing an airliner full of civilians?

I think that we are at war. We know those people over there don’t like us. Our sailors know this and should have been a little more aware of what was going on around them.

I would consider the damage to the USS Cole as being done by an act of war not a terrorist act.

In my mind a terrorist is somebody who attacks civilians and others helpless to stop them. The choice of targets makes the difference between terrorists and freedom fighter.

I guess the question is. Am I out of step with the rest of the world on this?

Mike

 

[Jubal_Harshaw]

Sometime when you have a little time to kill, you should rent a copy of The African Queen. I did, and as I watched I thought of how similar the actions of the movie were to the actions of the event that damaged the USS Cole.

Two people take an old boat and rig a bomb up on it to try and blow up a warship. In the movie Bogie rigs a torpedo on his boat and then has it sink beneath him. They are picked up by the warship and tried as spies and sentenced to be hanged. With the nooses around their necks the heroes turn and salute each other. Before the hanging can take place the ship hits the small boat and blows up.

With the USS Cole two men take a small boat and rig a bomb up in it. They then take this boat and sail it up against the side of an armed warship. They turn and salute each other just before the bomb goes off.

I had always thought of bogie as a hero and now I find he is a terrorist?

I would like to hear your views. Is attacking an armed warship in a small boat a terrorist act, the same as blowing up a school bus or crashing an airliner full of civilians?

I think that we are at war. We know those people over there don’t like us. Our sailors know this and should have been a little more aware of what was going on around them.

I would consider the damage to the USS Cole as being done by an act of war not a terrorist act.

In my mind a terrorist is somebody who attacks civilians and others helpless to stop them. The choice of targets makes the difference between terrorists and freedom fighter.

I guess the question is. Am I out of step with the rest of the world on this?

Mike

Yeah, you are. And a little off on your facts. Not to mention living in a dream world if you're going to compare terrorist acts to a hollywood movie. You apparently only watched the end of the movie. The only things the two have in common are explosives and salutes. Perhaps one of the terrorists was a Bogart fan?

The Cole was attacked before the War on Terrorism. It was attacked in a "friendly" port. It was not an act of declared war.

I suppose you think the 9/11 attacks were justified as well.

I'd just love to invite you for dinner sometime. I'll fix pork chops.

 

[ChristopherMaxwell]

The African Queen was a great film, but set in a war. Not the same thing as terrorism.

Bogie and Kate were great in it, of course.

 

[Huckleman2000]

I agree that warfare is pretty much non-stop terrorism. I guess the difference, though, is the lack of state sponsorship (at least overt...).

So, when civilians attack a military target, then it's terrorism. Or guerrilla warfare. But, when civilians are deliberately targeted by a military, then it's terrorism. Or, collateral damage. But when people in an area attack other civilian people to draw attention to their cause, that's terrorism. Or gang violence.

It's sort of a fluid definition.

 

[starrkers]

It depends which side you're on.

 

[mikey2much]

The Cole was attacked before the War on Terrorism. It was attacked in a "friendly" port. It was not an act of declared war.

I suppose you think the 9/11 attacks were justified as well.

I'd just love to invite you for dinner sometime. I'll fix pork chops.

Calm down Jubal,

I don't think that the 9/11 attacks were justified. I think that was terrorism at its worst, like blowing up school buses. It is a case of armed men attacking unarmed people. The sailors on the Cole were armed, fighting men. Nothing like the 9/11 attacks.

And by the way nobody it seems declares war anymore. The last time we declared war the African Queen hadn't been made yet.

I wish we would declare war when we go to war. Somehow it would make it more legit to me if we would go through the motions of declaring a war before we blow the shit out of somebody.

Why do you think we refuse to declare war when it is damn sure going to be a war? Maybe you could explain over those pork chops you were going to serve me.
mike

 

[mikey2much]

I agree that warfare is pretty much non-stop terrorism. I guess the difference, though, is the lack of state sponsorship (at least overt...).

So, when civilians attack a military target, then it's terrorism. Or guerrilla warfare. But, when civilians are deliberately targeted by a military, then it's terrorism. Or, collateral damage. But when people in an area attack other civilian people to draw attention to their cause, that's terrorism. Or gang violence.

It's sort of a fluid definition.

Under those defiinitions how would you describe the men who fought the american revolution? Can we follow laws that would make our founding fathers outlaws and still think that we are true to their ideals and beliefs?

I mean in the new world of our fearless leaders is there room for freedom fighters, or is everybody who opposes us or our allies a terrorist?

I think that people have always had the right and maybe the obligation to stand up and fight against unjust goverments. It seems that we have to draw a line so that there is room for 'honorable men' on the other side also.

mike

 

[mikey2much]

The African Queen was a great film, but set in a war. Not the same thing as terrorism.

Bogie and Kate were great in it, of course.

As always. I love bogie, and Katie, there are no words for her she was great in damn near everything she made.

The question I am asking here is should a man be judged a terrorist if he attacks a soldier. I think that man is a rebel or a freedom fighter, whatever you want to call him but he is not the same at the coward who blows up a school yard, or crashes a plane into a building..

mike

 

[deathlynx]

Yeah, I'd have to agree that the critical differences are the target and the intent...In essence, and band of rebels are terrorists...that's what guerilla warfare specializes in (and why we trained Alkaida (sp?) in the first place)...If you attack a purelyt military target, especially an armed one, it is seen as an act of war...if you attack a civilian target it is seen as an act of terrorism...in truth that IS what the US was going for at the end of World War II...We wanted to scare the Japanese into surrender...Are there occasionally legitimate reasons to commit terrorism? Probably...but the intent has to be factored in as well...at the end of WWII the intent was, in part, to speed up the process of proving that a war of atrician was simply not a viable or winnable option for Japan...

 

[Belegon]

Our founding fathers KNEW they were outlaws...and traitors, at least in the eyes of the king. It's why they expected to be jailed and or hanged for signing that declaration. They accepted it. We should too. However, they were also in their own lands and fighting for their homes. Much as the insurgents in Iraq are today. I completely disagree with deliberately targeting civilians...but I would not call many of the Iraqi's fighting the U.S. "terrorists"...some, perhaps so, but not all.

Terrorism may have a fluid definition and I think that you could successfully make some argument that the attack on the Cole was an act of war in the eyes of the assailants...but 9/11? Or a suicide bomber on an Israeli bus? or, for that matter, Oklahoma City? (We seem to forget that one now...we shouldn't.) Those are terrorist acts, and I don't think there is any doubt.

 

[gauchecritic]

Bandits, terrorists, rebels, freedom fighters, depends whose side they're on and where it's being reported.

I've just been reading about the Cole and it seems that in US law an attack against a military target does not meet the definition of terrorism.

Not defending anything or anyone here but if your (Al Qaida) war is against "the west", "capitalism", "multinationalism" or simply unbelievers then all targets are equal.

Terrorist action is the guy with the muscle and short temper punching the uppity loudmouth.

 

[deathlynx]

Quite true...the terrorist is the guy with the smaller PR budget!

 

[rgraham666]

"War is violence of the strong and we honour it. Terrorism is violence of the weak and we deride it."

Can't remember the provenance of that quote, but it sums up my view nicely.

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=mikey2much]Sometime when you have a little time to kill, you should rent a copy of The African Queen. I did, and as I watched I thought of how similar the actions of the movie were to the actions of the event that damaged the USS Cole.

Two people take an old boat and rig a bomb up on it to try and blow up a warship. In the movie Bogie rigs a torpedo on his boat and then has it sink beneath him. They are picked up by the warship and tried as spies and sentenced to be hanged. With the nooses around their necks the heroes turn and salute each other. Before the hanging can take place the ship hits the small boat and blows up.

With the USS Cole two men take a small boat and rig a bomb up in it. They then take this boat and sail it up against the side of an armed warship. They turn and salute each other just before the bomb goes off.

I had always thought of bogie as a hero and now I find he is a terrorist?

I would like to hear your views. Is attacking an armed warship in a small boat a terrorist act, the same as blowing up a school bus or crashing an airliner full of civilians?

I think that we are at war. We know those people over there don’t like us. Our sailors know this and should have been a little more aware of what was going on around them.

I would consider the damage to the USS Cole as being done by an act of war not a terrorist act.

In my mind a terrorist is somebody who attacks civilians and others helpless to stop them. The choice of targets makes the difference between terrorists and freedom fighter.

I guess the question is. Am I out of step with the rest of the world on this?

Mike[/QUOTE]


~~~

Ah, Mikey, "he'll eat anything...' (old commercial), is doing a little flame here, with an agenda and an ulterior motive, let us nip it in the bud.

There have been no 'wars' declared, since world war two.

I think there should have been, when Uncle Joe Stalin blockaded Berlin, I think we should have nuked Moscow; would have saved a lot of misery, and Winston would have approved, but Truman was a Democrat and a whuss.


There was no 'Korean War', it was a 'Police Action', approved by the United Nations, supported by a coalition, although we all knew we were fighting Russian Communists, in the Mig fighters and the military equipment and then the Chinese Communist hordes that poured over the Yalu.

Let me insert the key ingredient to satisfy your question. The establishment of Israel, a home for the Jewish people, aka the 'Balfour' agreement of about 1914, in about 1948, approved and supported by the United States is the kernel to understanding the current Muslim/Christian conflict.

While most of Europe remains in a turmoil, Catholic/Christian, and now Muslim, since Europeans have become impotent and import Muslim babies, (the exception, temporarily, being GB), America remains the last true bastion in support of rationality and non religious, non faith based governments, we really have a problem.

"...I guess the question is. Am I out of step with the rest of the world on this?..."

Your question is basically shallow and superficial, as are most viewpoints on this forum, being mantra driven.

There was a very dark point in recent human history, when the last representatives of human dignity, England and America, in about 1942 and 43, were in doubt of guarding and retaining the excellence of human history against the march of the Barbarians.

We are approaching another such crossroads in human history as no one will declare a 'war' against faith and ignorance, be it Muslim or Christian, which are the most destructive forces in all of history.

Nazi's, Communist's and Muslims and Christians, are all cut from the same cloth, just a different pattern and color. Those who accept and defend human freedom should declare 'war' against all of them.

Until that is done, twits like you will try to appease.

amicus...

 

[mikey2much]

[QUOTE=mikey2much]Sometime when you have a little time to kill, you should rent a copy of The African Queen. I did, and as I watched I thought of how similar the actions of the movie were to the actions of the event that damaged the USS Cole.

Two people take an old boat and rig a bomb up on it to try and blow up a warship. In the movie Bogie rigs a torpedo on his boat and then has it sink beneath him. They are picked up by the warship and tried as spies and sentenced to be hanged. With the nooses around their necks the heroes turn and salute each other. Before the hanging can take place the ship hits the small boat and blows up.

With the USS Cole two men take a small boat and rig a bomb up in it. They then take this boat and sail it up against the side of an armed warship. They turn and salute each other just before the bomb goes off.

I had always thought of bogie as a hero and now I find he is a terrorist?

I would like to hear your views. Is attacking an armed warship in a small boat a terrorist act, the same as blowing up a school bus or crashing an airliner full of civilians?

I think that we are at war. We know those people over there don’t like us. Our sailors know this and should have been a little more aware of what was going on around them.

I would consider the damage to the USS Cole as being done by an act of war not a terrorist act.

In my mind a terrorist is somebody who attacks civilians and others helpless to stop them. The choice of targets makes the difference between terrorists and freedom fighter.

I guess the question is. Am I out of step with the rest of the world on this?

Mike

~~~

Ah, Mikey, "he'll eat anything...' (old commercial), is doing a little flame here, with an agenda and an ulterior motive, let us nip it in the bud.

While most of Europe remains in a turmoil, Catholic/Christian, and now Muslim, since Europeans have become impotent and import Muslim babies, (the exception, temporarily, being GB), America remains the last true bastion in support of rationality and non religious, non faith based governments, we really have a problem.

"...I guess the question is. Am I out of step with the rest of the world on this?..."

Your question is basically shallow and superficial, as are most viewpoints on this forum, being mantra driven.


Until that is done, twits like you will try to appease.

amicus...[/QUOTE]

The question was asked to get you to think about my position and the way the world is looking at things these days. By the way if most readers on this site are shallow and superficial, what are you doing wasting your super smart brain talking to us twits. You come across like a snobbish S.O.B..

There is a difference between conversation and appeasement. Maybe if you think that talking and listening to another point of view is a form of appeasement, that is part of the problem.

Sorry that I woke you up, roll over and give RR a kiss and go back to sleep.
mike

 

[mikey2much]

"War is violence of the strong and we honour it. Terrorism is violence of the weak and we deride it."QUOTE]

You are right , that just about covers it.
mike

 

[mikey2much]

Our founding fathers KNEW they were outlaws...and traitors, at least in the eyes of the king. It's why they expected to be jailed and or hanged for signing that declaration. They accepted it. We should too. However, they were also in their own lands and fighting for their homes. Much as the insurgents in Iraq are today. I completely disagree with deliberately targeting civilians...but I would not call many of the Iraqi's fighting the U.S. "terrorists"...some, perhaps so, but not all.

Terrorism may have a fluid definition and I think that you could successfully make some argument that the attack on the Cole was an act of war in the eyes of the assailants...but 9/11? Or a suicide bomber on an Israeli bus? or, for that matter, Oklahoma City? (We seem to forget that one now...we shouldn't.) Those are terrorist acts, and I don't think there is any doubt.

What you say makes a great deal of sense. I was trying to draw a line between military targets and unarmed civilians. Oklahoma City is a hard one.
On the one hand that is the office that carried out the Waco slaughter. It might be said that if your job consist of burning whole groups of families, then you should look for a counter-attack. Clint Eastwood said it best in
The Unforgiven. when told that he had just shot an unarmed man, Clint replied
"He should have armed himself before he started to decorate his place with my dead friend."

I think that the dept of ATF and the FBI were wrong to hide behind daycare centers. If I understand it correctly there were three armories in that building as well as three daycare areas.

Oklahoma City was part two of the Waco story. Attack and counter-attack.

On the other hand there were a lot of innocent people who knew nothing of what was being done from that building.
mike

 

[ChristopherMaxwell]

My understanding is that a terrorist is one who attacks indiscriminately, killing and maiming innocent civilians. Not something laudable or romantic at all.

 

[CharleyH]

Sometime when you have a little time to kill, you should rent a copy of The African Queen. I did, and as I watched I thought of how similar the actions of the movie were to the actions of the event that damaged the USS Cole.

Two people take an old boat and rig a bomb up on it to try and blow up a warship. In the movie Bogie rigs a torpedo on his boat and then has it sink beneath him. They are picked up by the warship and tried as spies and sentenced to be hanged. With the nooses around their necks the heroes turn and salute each other. Before the hanging can take place the ship hits the small boat and blows up.

With the USS Cole two men take a small boat and rig a bomb up in it. They then take this boat and sail it up against the side of an armed warship. They turn and salute each other just before the bomb goes off.

I had always thought of bogie as a hero and now I find he is a terrorist?

I would like to hear your views. Is attacking an armed warship in a small boat a terrorist act, the same as blowing up a school bus or crashing an airliner full of civilians?

I think that we are at war. We know those people over there don’t like us. Our sailors know this and should have been a little more aware of what was going on around them.

I would consider the damage to the USS Cole as being done by an act of war not a terrorist act.

In my mind a terrorist is somebody who attacks civilians and others helpless to stop them. The choice of targets makes the difference between terrorists and freedom fighter.

I guess the question is. Am I out of step with the rest of the world on this?

Mike

I loved the movie! I think you are getting to a point in the rest though. What might have happened if Iranians were found up the Saint Lawrence River, the Delaware or any river on American soil ... what if they were caught up the river Thames? Its a lot of wish wash leading to a war in my opinion and it seems sometimes as if the world wants or needs a war right now. (I will use world and war in the same sentence for now).

 

[oggbashan]

The African Queen depicts incidents during a declared war. The hero and heroine were fired on by the Germans long before they reached the lake and therefore were legitimate combatants.

Equating that adventure story with terrorism is far-fetched.

During WWI and WWII U-boats were called terrorist weapons. Submarines were not. U-Boat is German for Unterseeboat = submarine.

In a declared or acknowledged war, what is terrorism and what is a terrorist is a matter of which side you are on. If the "terrorist" is fighting for a state or country against another state or country then the term is just pejorative.

If war is undeclared and the terrorism and the terrorist are targeting people, not states and the terrorist does not represent a de facto government, then terrorism and the terrorist is an enemy of humanity, not just one part of it.

That's my view. Al Queda do not represent a country. The Taleban did and for some people, still do.

Og

 

[CharleyH]

The African Queen depicts incidents during a declared war. The hero and heroine were fired on by the Germans long before they reached the lake and therefore were legitimate combatants.

Equating that adventure story with terrorism is far-fetched.

During WWI and WWII U-boats were called terrorist weapons. Submarines were not. U-Boat is German for Unterseeboat = submarine.

In a declared or acknowledged war, what is terrorism and what is a terrorist is a matter of which side you are on. If the "terrorist" is fighting for a state or country against another state or country then the term is just pejorative.

If war is undeclared and the terrorism and the terrorist are targeting people, not states and the terrorist does not represent a de facto government, then terrorism and the terrorist is an enemy of humanity, not just one part of it.

That's my view. Al Queda do not represent a country. The Taleban did and for some people, still do.

Og

I dunno Og. Falklands comes to mind today. It was never a declared war, but Bless them on both sides. I do agree that terrorism depends on which side you view it. What is intriguing to me is who is the good guy and who is the bad guy in the current situation in Iran.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

"War is violence of the strong and we honour it. Terrorism is violence of the weak and we deride it."QUOTE]

You are right , that just about covers it.
mike

Terrorism is 9/11.

The statement above is devoid of meaning in the context of 9/11; it's naught but fashionable cynicism.

On the thread subject, I can't remember if the boat Bogie attacked was civillian or not. If it was, then even though there was a declared war between nations, the act had decidedly terrorist overtones.

The Cole was legitimate military target. I suspect that the conventions of declared war, nation-states, "friendly nation" harbor and all that are obsolete, to the extent they ever had much meaning.

How about the bombing of civillian targets in WWII? The Nazi's and Imperial Japanese started it, the Americans and Brits showed them to be pikers.

The Scweinfurt raid on the German ball bearing plants was unquestionably legit military action. Dresden was unquestionably terrorism. Everything else falls in between those poles, although there is much ambiguity.

The Tokyo fire-bombing? Hiroshima? The latter is justified as quickly ending the war. However, Japan was already beaten. It was starving and incapable of producing war materiel. The submarine campaign had completely wiped out the merchant fleet. Carrier planes were strafing airfields on the home islands. It is likely that these facts and this context were hard to perceive and appreciate at the time, though.

Context is everything in such matters. I don't view Cole as a terrorist act.

 

[deathlynx]

Terrorism is 9/11.
The statement above is devoid of meaning in the context of 9/11; it's naught but fashionable cynicism.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to upset, but this is a very limited perspective...terrorism has been around for much longer and muchmore persistant than 9/11...in fact, that wasn't the first time the World Trade Centers were hit even...it might have been the single biggest attack in history (depending on perspective), but it's far from the defining moment of terrorism...simply one of the best organized...

How about the bombing of civillian targets in WWII? The Nazi's and Imperial Japanese started it, the Americans and Brits showed them to be pikers.

Gotta show my ignorance here..."pikers"?

The Tokyo fire-bombing? Hiroshima? The latter is justified as quickly ending the war. However, Japan was already beaten. It was starving and incapable of producing war materiel. The submarine campaign had completely wiped out the merchant fleet. Carrier planes were strafing airfields on the home islands. It is likely that these facts and this context were hard to perceive and appreciate at the time, though.

Context is everything in such matters. I don't view Cole as a terrorist act.

I agree about the Cole...Tokyo? Well, capitols are always considered legitimate targets...As for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, well, it's my understanding that they were truly non-militari targets...I agree that the war wouldn't have ended without millions more deaths without them, but the decission to attack truly civilian targets is often one which history treats delicately in general...

Oh, and to add a little to the conversation...here's a dictionary deffinition to "terrorism"

NOUN:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.