Mostel was sanctioned for refusing to cooperate with HUAC (specifically, he would not provide evidence regarding other suspected communists (he denied being a communist himself, but that’s as may be given that other accused communists likewise denied it, only to have KGB records reveal they were indeed on the payroll)). So Mostel was not punished for what he merely passively believed.
If communism or activity in aid of the Soviet cause were illegal (and they were), and if HUAC was legally empowered to investigate such activities (and it was), and if there were communists or Soviet sympathizers in Hollywood (and there were), and if certain targets of the investigation were lying about their affiliations, beliefs, or efforts (and they were; it’s now accepted that the Hollywood Ten were, by and large, the sympathizers, and in some cases party members, that they were alleged to be), and if a colleague of the targets refused to cooperate with a lawful investigation (and Mostel did), then he may have been punished based upon an overbroad, or paranoid, or overly harsh proscription against such conduct, but was not punished for thoughts alone.
Grey, you’re on shaky ground. Dresden; Nagasaki; even the firebombing of Tokyo. These did far more than cripple infrastructure. The bridges, the power stations, the rail yards. Entire cities is not just infrastructure. I also get that your definitions fall into time periods: if an act of terror is short and horrific, I don’t believe that makes it worse than acts (and therefore lives) of terror that last decades.
Damn, and here I thought all along that the IRA wanted Northern Ireland OUT of the UK, not to remain in it. :dubious: Looks like I was wrong again.:smack: Of course, we all know it’s just those damn Orangemen who set off all the bombs, right? :rolleyes:
You do realize that the CPUSA was funded by the USSR, right? And you do realize that American communists were a main factor in the USSR’s acquisition of the Bomb, yes?
This whole tangent probably warrants its own thread, though.
Yes, jjimm, you have a good point. Some bombings were for the purpose of terror, retaliation, and the killing of civilians. If we had lost, it’d be General Lemay and such who would be in the War Crimes Tribunal. However, we didn’t lose, and the airpower nuts had backing from the highest sources. OTOH, we were clearly & obviously in a war to the death against Evil, so we have some excuse. But we really did think that such bombing would cause the war to get over earlier- and in the case of Nagasaki they were right. Terribly, horribly so, yes, but still- the 50000 people who died at Nagasaki pale in comparison to the millions of Japanses who would have died had we tried to either invade, or as LeMay would have had us do “bomb & starve them out”.
“I’m not trying to atagonize anyone, I’d just like an honest opinion on why some are you completely fucked up, while revelling in your fucked-up-ed-ness.”
Maybe I should start a thread of my own.
Just to inspire calm debate, you understand.
By the way, when is that song Sunday, Bloody Sunday going to be banned from the airways? Haven’t the Irish had enough time to get over themselves yet?
I can only post on weekends now, so I have to be efficient in my sarcasm
Earlier in the post you imply that the Smith Act made any communist guilty of something. But as you state in your post, the Smith Act made it a crime only to advocate the violent overthrow of the US government. Under the Smith Act, it was legal to advocate or teach communist ideals. It was also legal to advocate the non-violent overthrow of the US government. Communists had diverse beliefs, just like members of the Republican and Democrat parties. The Smith Act only outlawed communists advocating the violent overthrow of the US government - much different that completely outlawing communism.
Actually, some would argue than any U2 album after Actung Baby should be banned from the airwaves. And many are still on the fence about that album (although I happened to enjoy it). But I digress.
When will the Irish go back to doing what made Ireland great - drinking and fighting! [DUCKS SHILLELAGH BLOW]
I don’t think you are asking a serious question but I’ll indulge myself anyway.
1 - The Pentagon is the HQ for the DOD. It was not designed as a fortress but as an office building and it was designed for efficiency. If you’re asking why the GREAT AND POWERFUL UNITED STATES didn’t have anti-aircraft rocket launchers it’s because it is one of thousands of military office buildings. It is not a single command-and-control facility for everything that moves. Part of the building was recently renovated to resist attack and it was successful in its design to limit damage. We have fortresses and they are well defended, up to and including conventional nukes.
2 - The WTC was brought down by a nutcase who didn’t like troops in Saudi Arabia. The troops were in Saudi Arabia to baby-sit Kuwait. They were babysitting Kuwait because Saddam was still a threat to the region. Saddam was an indirect cause of 9/11 for that simple reason. You will note the first thing Bush did after the war was to announce the removal of troops from Saudi Arabia. The troops will soon be moving to Qatar for the Iraqi transition.
The reason we can’t “get over it” is because we are still feeling its effects. This was not a case of a simple bombing. The WTC had more office space than all of Cincinnati (a large US city). We will probably loose a major airline over it. The related industries have taken a beating. The cost to NY alone has been estimated at 100 billion dollars. This type of economic damage would have wiped out a smaller country.
When the affects go away, the story will go away.
IMO you disguised a discussion of US foreign policy as a 9/11 question. You are free to address the subject directly without the subterfuge. If I’m wrong, I apologize.
I’d say both. Bin Laden [the man] isn’t a threat, the people who follow him are. If staying in Saudi Arabia really upsets the Wahabi Muslims who followed Bin Laden then it is pointless to stay there. Qatar built a huge base just for us so it is a no-brainer to leave.
You could say Bin Laden won, but you would have to find the dark hole he is hiding in to tell him. He can’t show himself in the light of day, and he is estranged from both his family and country. Maybe he got to keep his pet goat for companionship. Don’t know.
I’m surprised that no one’s mentioned the fact that for most of the 20th Century the US was referred to as “Fortress America.” What may be difficult for the OPer to grasp is that the US hasn’t had a significant attack on it’s territory by a foreign power in nearly 60 years, and that was a military target. The last time US civilians died in signifcant numbers during an attack would be 136 years prior, during the American Civil War. The last time a foreign enemy killed large numbers of American civilians on US soil in an attack would have most likely been the War of 1812, some 189 years before.
While the Europe was getting the crap pounded out of it for large portions of the 20th Century, Americans remained unscathed. Even though large numbers of the US population participated in both World Wars, Korea, Vietnam, and the Persian Gulf War (to name but a few of the 20th Century conflicts the US was involved in), America itself was always seen as a “safe” place, where danger was more likely to come from our own, than some foreign enemy. That all changed on 9/11. I imagine that if the terrorists had targeted Canada as well as the US on 9/11, Canadians would react in the same manner as Americans. (This is not to imply that Canadians didn’t feel anything on 9/11. Despite Bush’s ignoring of Canada, Canada has been a vital ally of the US since 9/11. Canadians selflessly gave of themselves on 9/11 in helping with US citizens stranded in Canada after all flights were grounded on 9/11. Canadian soldiers have served with distinction in Afghanistan, and were highly praised by American forces who fought side-by-side with the Canadians. America is lucky to have Canada as a neighbor.)
I know jjimm, I know. Actually I’ve half expected this thing to completely unwind after that throw away line. I really dread trying to make any kind of definitive terrorism definition, because You deserve an answer though.
WWII (and WWI) was examples of total war. Entire economies were realigned to provide war munitions, food, ships, planes and anything else war related. Entire populations were conscripted in wartime service. You were either fighting, farming, manufacturing or incapable of the above. Add to that the fact that the populations were in a state of war and you have, in my view, a poor analogy to a modern terrorist attacks. The populations were active instruments in war making regardless of were they were in relation to the battlefield. They were also fully aware that they were at war.
My definition (which seems awfully specific for my flailing around here) of terrorism doesn’t intentionally fall into time periods. The impact of the 9-11 attacks, though, is directly tied to it. The example people (myself included I guess) are drawing on, is the decades of low grade civil war in Northern Ireland. Between guerilla attacks on police and army bases, there were attacks on civilian populations (therefore terrorist) in both NI and the UK. I don’t mean to take anything away from the suffering of those involved; however the fact remains that after many years of these attacks a peoples’ perception adjusts.
As I mentioned in my replies to the OP, Americans did not expect an attack, Americans did not know they were at war with OBL (and by extension in his mind Islam), and Americans were by no definition mobilized to a war like footing. Suddenly ~3000 of them were gone.
A cowboy riding on the plains finds darkness approaching. He spies a fire at some distance, tended by an Indian.
“May I share your fire?” asks the cowpoke.
“Sure,” says the Indian, “and have some supper.”
“How kind of him to share not only his fire but his food with me”, reflects the cowboy, who is a trained ventriloquist. “I will entertain him.”
“May I talk to you horse?”
“You want to talk to my horse?” snickers the Indian. “Sure. Go ahead.”
“So”, asks the cowboy, “what is it like being the Indian’s horse?”
“Why it’s grand!” the thrown voice responds. “He never puts me up wet, and you know, he feeds me before he eats his own supper!”
“May I talk to you dog?”
The Indian thinks this is pretty cool. Maybe the White guy isn’t crazy. “Sure.”
“He is a kind master” responds the dog, “we hunt together and he shares the kill with me.”
The cowboy continues, “May I talk to your sheep?”