|
 Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
 Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W  [Re: ]
#2956846 - 08/02/04 03:01 PM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
the use of violence for political aims = terrorism?
No, read the full definition.
that would make every action in every war (including even defensive violence) an act of terrorism
No it wouldn't. How can shooting at soldiers who have come to destroy your town and kill everyone in it be considered an act of "terrorism"?
it was intended to cause fear with the idea that that fear was far more powerful than the actual attack.
They picked the world trade center for what it represented and they attacked at 8.45am rather than 2pm in the afternoon when it would've been busier. If they'd wanted simply to create fear they'd have picked the Superbowl.
not all intentional attacks on civilians are terrorist acts.
Which intentional attack on civilians wasn't a terrorist attack?
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: ]
#2956850 - 08/02/04 03:02 PM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
so whether an attack is an act of terrorism or not depends not on the act, its recipients, and intended affects, but rather on how much money the aggressor has?
No you missed the point entirely. Think about it for a while.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: DieCommie]
#2956855 - 08/02/04 03:04 PM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said:
... many of the Japanese did not deserve it so i voted no. But I do think it was the proper thing to do.
I'm inclined to agree with you, I think Truman saw the bombings as a strategic neccessity for victory in war. The war in the Pacific was much more brutal than in Europe, the enemy's soldiers had shown themselves to be disciplined and tenacious fighters as well as merciless and fanatical (Kamikazes anyone?). To invade and occupy the Japanese mainland was not a prospect that was looked upon as something that would be easy. My guess is that Truman's decision was based on his first duty to the American citizens (soldiers included), to keep them alive and safe and to end the war decisively.
--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: Xlea321]
#2956945 - 08/02/04 03:24 PM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
No, read the full definition.
i have read the full definition. it states:
"Terrorism - the use of violence for political aims or to force a government to act, esp because of the fear it causes among the people." (italics mine)
according to this definition, using violence for political aims or to force a government to act is an act of terrorism. while the definition includes a part about causing fear amongst the people, and i agree that this is essential for any definition of terrorism, this one does not require that an act of violence be intended to cause fear amongst a civilian population, or even be an attack against civilians at all, to be considered terrorism. it is therefore, in my view, incomplete.
How can shooting at soldiers who have come to destroy your town and kill everyone in it be considered an act of "terrorism"?
it cannot, which is an example of why the oxford english dictionary's definition is incomplete. because this is a use of violence for poltical ends (the goal is to force a government to abandon its plans to invade and destroy your town) according to the oxford english dictionary's definition, it is an act of terrorism. you and i can both see that it is not.
They picked the world trade center for what it represented and they attacked at 8.45am rather than 2pm in the afternoon when it would've been busier. If they'd wanted simply to create fear they'd have picked the Superbowl.
i disagree. i believe the intent of the attack was to create fear. the fear caused by the attack certainly did more damage than the attack itself.
Which intentional attack on civilians wasn't a terrorist attack?
according to your assessment of the goals of 9/11, and my definition of terrorism, the 9/11 attack on the twin towers was not.
but here's a better example... genocide, considering its goals, is usually not terroristic. the aggressor is not intending to use fear as a weapon. he wants the "undesirables" dead, not merely afraid. hitlers "final solution" wasn't a terrorist action. he wanted certain civilians dead, plain and simple. he wasn't trying to use fear as a weapon. he just wanted to kill them.
please consider my definition a little more thoroughly. i feel as though you haven't a good understanding of it nor important objections to it. basically what i'm saying is that "terrorism" isn't a blanket description to apply to all intentional attacks against civilians, but it refers to only certain acts, depending on their motives. i understand that "terrorism" is an emotionally charged word and that this may cloud debate on the issue, but really... what's wrong with my defintion?
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: Xlea321]
#2956983 - 08/02/04 03:33 PM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I like Peter Ustinovs definition best - "War is the rich mans terrorism, terrorism is the poor mans war".
i understand the quote, but it's not a definition of terrorism except in that it alludes to the idea that terrorism is really no different from war.
warfare is not necessarily terrorism however, and terrorism not necessarily warfare. whether an act is terrorism, warfare, both, or neither depends not on the wealth of the aggressor but the intended victims and intended results.
there is probably more than one way to read this quote. why not tell what it means to you?
|
 The_Red_Crayon
Exposer of Truth
 
Registered: 08/13/03
Posts: 13,673
Loc: Smokey Mtns. TN 
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
|
Re: If you fuck with the Bull, you get the horn. [Re: JesusChrist]
#2957228 - 08/02/04 04:27 PM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Japan in WWII had commited horrible attrocities. Way worse than the germans did and thats saying something. including live dissections of u.s. pilots. http://www.centurychina.com/wiihist/germwar/uspow.htm
When the Japanese had reached their zenith in 1942 it had left many civilian casualties in their wake including the beheading of many innocent women and children. Since the Japanese commited so many atrocities it was very hard for them to cover it up.
Including reports of officers who threw babies in the air to catch them and impale them with their sabres. Starving of prisoners, disease testing, Raping of women, Torturing of POWS.
War is hell.
Edited by The_Red_Crayon (08/02/04 04:27 PM)
|
downforpot
Stranger
Registered: 06/25/01
Posts: 5,715
|
Re: If you fuck with the Bull, you get the horn. [Re: The_Red_Crayon]
#2957314 - 08/02/04 04:56 PM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I totaly forgot about that, Red Crayon. They packed bombs full of fleas that had some disease in them and then they dropped them over China, probably around Manchuria.
--------------------
http://www.myspace.com/4th25
"And I don't care if he was handcuffed
Then shot in his head
All I know is dead bodies
Can't fuck with me again"
|
CJay
Dark Stranger
Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 931
Loc: Riding a bassline
|
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: ]
#2959218 - 08/03/04 07:15 AM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
If the Twin Towers had fallen in a natural earth quake it would have had nothing to do with terrorism or war, it would have been an 'Act of God' (as they are known - whether God exists or perpetrates these events is another matter. But that is the accepted term of description)
If terrorism is simply attacking civillians, what about the attempted attack on the USS The Sullivans? They weren't attacking civvies then. And how about that hit on the PEntagon? By your definition these are not terrorist acts.
And how about the USS Cole? "On Thursday, October 12, 2000, 17 young lives were taken in a terrorist attack on the USS Cole, docked in the port of Yemen to take on fuel. Seventeen sons and daughters gave their life on that day. All of America grieves with the families."
Military target - not civillians - by your definition these guys are fighting a war (which you define as non-terrorism). They cannot be terrorists.
And there are plenty more cases like this....
It's not like some guy just sat down yesterday and said 'oh I know I'll write something called the Oxford dictionary' and made a whole load of cock-ups. A team of editors from the world's oldest and most established university produce this.
Perhaps what people should actually be doing is qualifying their use of the word terrorism with suitable adjectives, yet appreciating that terrorism is actually a very broad concept.
Perpetrating aggressive, offensive War seems to me to be terrorism writ large. Consider the aims and the rhetoric of terrorist groups:
"Irish America fulfilled certain functions. They supplied guns, weapons, war material and financial and moral support. It was obvious to me personally that if we were going to prosecute a war , we would have to have the right weaponry with which to do it." McGeough (IRA weapons aquisitioner)
And what about Al-Qaeda - isn't their whole thing about 'jihad' (holy war)?
When a nation, or group, is at war with another, creating fear amongst the populace is a major asset in the fight, and crucial to reducing enemy morale.
Hence 'shock and awe' (doubtlessly a metaphor for the word 'terror' - u can look up the 3 words 'shock' 'and' 'awe' in the dictionary if you need to)
'Shock and awe' was meant to firstly scare the living shit out of the USA's terrorist opposition, but on a wider scale it actually scared the shit out of the population of the world at large. A massive act of calculated terrorism which has left the world chilled to the bone and filled with the fear of America, America's present political aims achieved through violence, forcing the governments of the world to act - in this case to act in support or at the very least supplication. Remember if you aren't with them...You are against them.
And don't disagree with the daddy.
Even under your definition:
The CIA's covert coup d'etat of a democratic leader in Iran 1953, replacing him with a dictator. Did they wear uniforms? Terrorism? Another dictator created; great while he licks US government butt.
JFK sending 'freedom fighters' into Cuba - leading the world to the Cuban missile crisis - terrorism?
Ronnie's counter-terrorists like the 'grim reapers, uniforms? terrorism?
|
CJay
Dark Stranger
Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 931
Loc: Riding a bassline
|
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: ]
#2959323 - 08/03/04 08:04 AM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
 
I do agree that terrorism is an emotionally charged and debatable word. And the use and definition of words is an evolving process.
When it comes to defending yourself against killers in your town, it comes down to immediate survival. The war may have political intent, but one's immediate self defence does not. It only has one aim - survival. That is the aim of defensive violence committed upon maurading intruders. Politics comes a far second. However through fending them off you could always be described as terrorising the maurauders I suppose.
(Especially if you went beyond the realms of purely responsive defensive violence after driving them from your homestead, formed a political campaign of sorts - since this then would be considered action and politically purposeful aggression - and hunted them down, killing them in a grizzly manner - hmmm, is that kind of what the GWB administration is doing?).
War and Terrorism contain aspects of each other, but are clearly not exclusively identical. Otherwise there would be only one word.
However there is little that is more terrifying in this world then war, and since terror is the basis of terrorism, I think it's safe to say the populace of both sides is terrorised.
After reading those examples of the Japanese disecting live pilots and throwing babies onto sabres - well that's pretty f**kin scary shit, especially when one knows they are gung ho suicide bombers (kamikazes)too......If I was an American in those days these kind of things would have created terror in me, as the prospect does for me now.
I just think we cannot draw a solid line between the acts of militants and the acts of governments when similar acts are used to similar effect and both sides claim to be fighting 'wars'.
I am actually now very interested to find a Complete Oxford dictionary, rather than the Advanced Learners edition that just happened to be sat next to me at work when I made the post. I'm sure in that there will be greater definition and possible variables...I'll let you know if I do look it up. Having said that, this basic definition is given in the edition I used because it is the hub of the meaning of the word, and to me it shows that terrorism is a word that does not mean simply small bands of militant people attacking civillians.
Words, words - they trap us and they free us and none say exactly what we are trying to express. The feelings go beyond.
But it's fun trying, learning and discussing.
Thanks for making me think guys
|
JesusChrist
Son Of God
Registered: 02/19/04
Posts: 1,459
Last seen: 12 years, 17 hours
|
Re: If you fuck with the Bull, you get the horn. [Re: The_Red_Crayon]
#2959848 - 08/03/04 10:31 AM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Boy was that disturbing to read. Wow. The people in Abu Garib don't know how nice that had it. I lived in Japan for 6 years. They have a very unique cultural mindset to say the least.
--------------------
Tastes just like chicken
|
EdwardTheGreat
The Wanderer
Registered: 06/15/04
Posts: 10
Loc: Somewhere In Time
Last seen: 20 years, 15 days
|
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: downforpot]
#2960194 - 08/03/04 01:00 PM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Fine, downforpot and Jesus Christ.
By your logic it is acceptable to kill innocent people with brutal weapons. Therefore, by the same logic, the attacks on 9/11 were also acceptable means of warfare, as will be any future attacks. The Saudi terrorists were, and are still waging a war on the United States. If attacks like these are justified, then why not also use chemical and biological weapons? Heck, if we are going to do that, lets throw the Geneva Convention out the window and torture captive prisoners.
If you can justify the use of atomic weapons on civilian populations, what else are you willing to do?
My view on all of this is complete pacifism.
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: EdwardTheGreat]
#2960430 - 08/03/04 02:05 PM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
EdwardTheGreat said:
If you can justify the use of atomic weapons on civilian populations, what else are you willing to do?
Anything to protect freedom.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: DieCommie]
#2960480 - 08/03/04 02:15 PM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Anything to protect freedom.
anything?
|
JesusChrist
Son Of God
Registered: 02/19/04
Posts: 1,459
Last seen: 12 years, 17 hours
|
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: EdwardTheGreat]
#2960481 - 08/03/04 02:16 PM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Edward, you are great.
I think that a land invasion would have been more costly to both sides. I am not alone in that belief. What we did arguably saved lives. If we had complete pacifism, we never would have stopped the Japanese or Hitler. Lets all get together, hold hands and sing kumbaya! The Greatest Generation changed the world for the better. The freedoms that you enjoy today are the result of the sacrifice of millions of Americans along the way.
--------------------
Tastes just like chicken
|
CJay
Dark Stranger
Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 931
Loc: Riding a bassline
|
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: EdwardTheGreat]
#2963163 - 08/04/04 04:23 AM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
well said
|
CJay
Dark Stranger
Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 931
Loc: Riding a bassline
|
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: DieCommie]
#2963167 - 08/04/04 04:25 AM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
You mean anything to protect your beliefs
|
CJay
Dark Stranger
Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 931
Loc: Riding a bassline
|
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: JesusChrist]
#2963174 - 08/04/04 04:30 AM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Don't be so sure - once we were in the war it had to go that way, but the path of humanity needen't travel that way.
|
CJay
Dark Stranger
Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 931
Loc: Riding a bassline
|
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: JesusChrist]
#2963181 - 08/04/04 04:37 AM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
If it is justifiable for the USA (or any nation/group) to commit hideous acts of violence in the name of their beliefs, then that justification must also be applied to the other. For within their world - like yours - those beliefs are worth doing anything to protect.
The fact is it would be good if everyone across the board of belief systems woke up a bit and realised that these beliefs are relative, and treated each other respectfully.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: CJay]
#2963509 - 08/04/04 08:42 AM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
You mean anything to protect your beliefs
no, not really. while i don't agree with what he said, "freedom" does not equate to "beliefs". being enslaved, killed, tortured, or persecuted is a little more than a violation of one's "beliefs".
|
downforpot
Stranger
Registered: 06/25/01
Posts: 5,715
|
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: EdwardTheGreat]
#2963708 - 08/04/04 10:11 AM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
EdwardTheGreat, I changed my mind. I'm for the land invasion now. Anything for a licence to kill Japs.
--------------------
http://www.myspace.com/4th25
"And I don't care if he was handcuffed
Then shot in his head
All I know is dead bodies
Can't fuck with me again"
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Shop: Buy Bali Kratom Powder
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 3 4 all )
Phred
MAIA
trendal
afoaf
Great_Satan
spacedragon
Humidity
Tao