I find it hilarious (Hypocritical) that some users, ignorant as they are, can justify the Hiroshima/Nagasaki crimes against humanity by stating that every japanese citizen was trained to fight, yet Im sure any sane person would consider a bomb killing Israelis as an act of terrorism, regardless of the fact that most Israelis must also receive military training
So wait was Hiroshina and nagasaki terrorism?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
The distinction I make is military combatants of said countries being involved in ongoing battles....verse random attacks without warning.I find it hilarious (Hypocritical) that some users, ignorant as they are, can justify the Hiroshima/Nagasaki crimes against humanity by stating that every japanese citizen was trained to fight, yet Im sure any sane person would consider a bomb killing Israelis as an act of terrorism, regardless of the fact that most Israelis must also receive military training
Nayef_shroof
It is like talking to a fanatic. They will use anything to justify it.I find it hilarious (Hypocritical) that some users, ignorant as they are, can justify the Hiroshima/Nagasaki crimes against humanity by stating that every japanese citizen was trained to fight, yet Im sure any sane person would consider a bomb killing Israelis as an act of terrorism, regardless of the fact that most Israelis must also receive military training
Nayef_shroof
[QUOTE="Nayef_shroof"]It is like talking to a fanatic. They will use anything to justify it.Or they see the difference between war and random acts of violence.;)I find it hilarious (Hypocritical) that some users, ignorant as they are, can justify the Hiroshima/Nagasaki crimes against humanity by stating that every japanese citizen was trained to fight, yet Im sure any sane person would consider a bomb killing Israelis as an act of terrorism, regardless of the fact that most Israelis must also receive military training
kuraimen
[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Nayef_shroof"]It is like talking to a fanatic. They will use anything to justify it.Or they see the difference between war and random acts of violence.;) They make up the definitions that suit them to justify their actions. It is not like war and acts of violence are defined naturally someone has to define them. I find hypocritical to shield on definitions when the acts are practically the same kind of atrocities.I find it hilarious (Hypocritical) that some users, ignorant as they are, can justify the Hiroshima/Nagasaki crimes against humanity by stating that every japanese citizen was trained to fight, yet Im sure any sane person would consider a bomb killing Israelis as an act of terrorism, regardless of the fact that most Israelis must also receive military training
LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Or they see the difference between war and random acts of violence.;)LJS9502_basicThey make up the definitions that suit them to justify their actions. It is not like war and acts of violence are defined naturally someone has to define them. I find hypocritical to shield on definitions when the acts are practically the same kind of atrocities.Wrong dude. Military engagements are easy to spot...particularly when the war has been going on for some time. An unknown random attack is quite different....and they are NOT practically the same atrocity unless someone is looking to justify and/or demonize. Which seems to be the case. Yeah dropping two nukes on civilian population and killing 200 thousand innocent people is definitely not as bad as flying airplanes into two buildings and killing 3000 innocent people. Clearly the killers of those 200 thousand civilians are being demonized since they just did out of the goodness of their hearts not like those killing the 3000 people, those are real bastards :roll:
[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Or they see the difference between war and random acts of violence.;)LJS9502_basicThey make up the definitions that suit them to justify their actions. It is not like war and acts of violence are defined naturally someone has to define them. I find hypocritical to shield on definitions when the acts are practically the same kind of atrocities.Wrong dude. Military engagements are easy to spot...particularly when the war has been going on for some time. An unknown random attack is quite different....and they are NOT practically the same atrocity unless someone is looking to justify and/or demonize. Which seems to be the case. So...Under the pretense of military combat/engagement, anything is justifiable? Thats probably the most ridiculous post you've made in recent memory, and thats quite the testament...
[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Wrong dude. Military engagements are easy to spot...particularly when the war has been going on for some time. An unknown random attack is quite different....and they are NOT practically the same atrocity unless someone is looking to justify and/or demonize. Which seems to be the case.LJS9502_basicYeah dropping two nukes on civilian population and killing 200 thousand innocent people is definitely not as bad as flying airplanes into two buildings and killing 3000 innocent people. Clearly the killers of those 200 thousand civilians are being demonized since they just did out of the goodness of their hearts not like those killing the 3000 people, those are real bastards :roll: Your bias doesn't let you see the difference in the two situations. You demonize a war maneuver while justifying a terrorist attack. LOL the irony... You have ho jurisdiction to deem ANYONE bias
[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Wrong dude. Military engagements are easy to spot...particularly when the war has been going on for some time. An unknown random attack is quite different....and they are NOT practically the same atrocity unless someone is looking to justify and/or demonize. Which seems to be the case.LJS9502_basicYeah dropping two nukes on civilian population and killing 200 thousand innocent people is definitely not as bad as flying airplanes into two buildings and killing 3000 innocent people. Clearly the killers of those 200 thousand civilians are being demonized since they just did out of the goodness of their hearts not like those killing the 3000 people, those are real bastards :roll: Your bias doesn't let you see the difference in the two situations. You demonize a war maneuver while justifying a terrorist attack. First of all I'm not justifying any terrorist attack. Stop accusing me of what you are guilty of, shows the poverty of your arguments. And second I'm not the one making a different value judgement on both events. I'm condemning both equally, that's why I call them both terrorist acts.
[QUOTE="nZiFFLe"]According to whom?a lot of people here don't know the definition of terrorism. us and japan were at war, therefore, any act the us committed against japan was an act of war. terrorism has to be committed by a non-state actor.
kuraimen
political scientists.
According to whom?[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="nZiFFLe"]
a lot of people here don't know the definition of terrorism. us and japan were at war, therefore, any act the us committed against japan was an act of war. terrorism has to be committed by a non-state actor.
nZiFFLe
political scientists.
Okay, which ones? The definition of terrorism is hardly a settled issue internationally because any part can twist the definition to put their side on a better light.[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Oh my argument was made posts ago....and it was quite logical. Second.....in several threads you have given justification for 9/11 so let's not state otherwise.,LJS9502_basicI have never said 9/11 was the best course of action or justified it as such. If you are to make an accusation at least have the decency of quoting me instead of shielding yourself behind your poorly made up arguments. You've justified in this very thread by saying it was an economic target and thus okay dude.:lol: How is that in any way or form justifying it as the best course of action or a legitimate one like people are doing with the Japan nuking here? Reading comprehension FTW
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] I have never said 9/11 was the best course of action or justified it as such. If you are to make an accusation at least have the decency of quoting me instead of shielding yourself behind your poorly made up arguments.kuraimenYou've justified in this very thread by saying it was an economic target and thus okay dude.:lol:. How is that in any way or form justifying it as the best course of action or a legitimate one like people are doing with the Japan nuking here? Reading comprehension FTWReading comprehension FTW indeed....justification is showing a reason/motivation for something....which you did by stating the WTC was a symbol and/or economic importance
[QUOTE="nZiFFLe"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] According to whom?kuraimen
political scientists.
Okay, which ones? The definition of terrorism is hardly a settled issue internationally because any part can twist the definition to put their side on a better light.look in any political science textbook and you'll see the same definition for terrorism. here's the one from mine: "terrorism: use or threat of violence by nongovernmental actors to change government policies by creating fear of further violence" (d'anieri). the definition is really not debatable.
. How is that in any way or form justifying it as the best course of action or a legitimate one like people are doing with the Japan nuking here? Reading comprehension FTWReading comprehension FTW indeed....justification is showing a reason/motivation for something....which you did by stating the WTC was a symbol and/or economic importance That it was a symbol of economic importance nothing else. I agree Hiroshima and Nagasaki were also military targets does that make me think it was less of an act of terrorism? NO!! because one thing has nothing to do with the other unless you want to use tailored definitions to make it look like your side killing 200 thousand civilians is not as bad as killing 3000.[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] You've justified in this very thread by saying it was an economic target and thus okay dude.:lol:LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Reading comprehension FTW indeed....justification is showing a reason/motivation for something....which you did by stating the WTC was a symbol and/or economic importance That it was a symbol of economic importance nothing else. I agree Hiroshima and Nagasaki were also military targets does that make me think it was less of an act of terrorism? NO!! because one thing has nothing to do with the other unless you want to use tailored definitions to make it look like your side killing 200 thousand civilians is not as bad as killing 3000. Usually words are defined by consensus. The US is not a terrorist organization while Al Qaeda is. Which means you don't actually have much of a point other than US bashing.[QUOTE="kuraimen"]. How is that in any way or form justifying it as the best course of action or a legitimate one like people are doing with the Japan nuking here? Reading comprehension FTWkuraimen
Okay, which ones? The definition of terrorism is hardly a settled issue internationally because any part can twist the definition to put their side on a better light.[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="nZiFFLe"]
political scientists.
nZiFFLe
look in any political science textbook and you'll see the same definition for terrorism. here's the one from mine: "terrorism: use or threat of violence by nongovernmental actors to change government policies by creating fear of further violence" (d'anieri). the definition is really not debatable.
Lol what makes it non debatable that it appears in your book? Well I have news for you it IS a highly debatable subject in the real world. http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=29633 U.N. Member States Struggle to Define Terrorism[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Reading comprehension FTW indeed....justification is showing a reason/motivation for something....which you did by stating the WTC was a symbol and/or economic importanceThat it was a symbol of economic importance nothing else. I agree Hiroshima and Nagasaki were also military targets does that make me think it was less of an act of terrorism? NO!! because one thing has nothing to do with the other unless you want to use tailored definitions to make it look like your side killing 200 thousand civilians is not as bad as killing 3000. Usually words are defined by consensus. The US is not a terrorist organization while Al Qaeda is. Which means you don't actually have much of a point other than US bashing.LJS9502_basic
And there is consensus of the definition of terrorism as the link I provided above shows. For me and many other around the world the Japan bombings are nothing short of terrorism.
Usually words are defined by consensus. The US is not a terrorist organization while Al Qaeda is. Which means you don't actually have much of a point other than US bashing.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] That it was a symbol of economic importance nothing else. I agree Hiroshima and Nagasaki were also military targets does that make me think it was less of an act of terrorism? NO!! because one thing has nothing to do with the other unless you want to use tailored definitions to make it look like your side killing 200 thousand civilians is not as bad as killing 3000.kuraimen
And there is consensus of the definition of terrorism as the link I provided above shows. For me and many other around the world the Japan bombings are nothing short of terrorism.
Your link doesn't show anything. Not that that matters when the organizations are defined.....but here is what your link says. We're sorry, the page you are looking for may have moved during the redesign of our site or no longer exists. Please return to the home page or use the search option for further information. You can contact us if you feel you have reached this page in error:[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Usually words are defined by consensus. The US is not a terrorist organization while Al Qaeda is. Which means you don't actually have much of a point other than US bashing.LJS9502_basic
And there is consensus of the definition of terrorism as the link I provided above shows. For me and many other around the world the Japan bombings are nothing short of terrorism.
Your link doesn't show anything. Not that that matters when the organizations are defined.....but here is what your link says. We're sorry, the page you are looking for may have moved during the redesign of our site or no longer exists. Please return to the home page or use the search option for further information. You can contact us if you feel you have reached this page in error: It works fine for me http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=29633 You can look it up in google if the link doesn't work U.N. Member States Struggle to Define Terrorism By Thalif Deen[QUOTE="nZiFFLe"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] Okay, which ones? The definition of terrorism is hardly a settled issue internationally because any part can twist the definition to put their side on a better light.kuraimen
look in any political science textbook and you'll see the same definition for terrorism. here's the one from mine: "terrorism: use or threat of violence by nongovernmental actors to change government policies by creating fear of further violence" (d'anieri). the definition is really not debatable.
Lol what makes it non debatable that it appears in your book? Well I have news for you it IS a highly debatable subject in the real world. http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=29633 U.N. Member States Struggle to Define Terrorismdid you even read your own article? nowhere in there does it contradict the definition i gave. the article just talked about expanding the definition, and it did mention 'state terrorism' but that doesn't describe what the us did to japan.
It works fine for me You can look it up in google if the link doesn't work U.N. Member States Struggle to Define Terrorism By Thalif DeenkuraimenThat is what the page said when I copied and pasted your link.....and no, I'm not doing your work for you. I'm well aware there is some disagreements over having one legal definition. Though as I said......terrorist organizations are named.....and AQ is one. So the definition isn't really important of the word.....if we have the organization listed as such.;)
I find it hilarious (Hypocritical) that some users, ignorant as they are, can justify the Hiroshima/Nagasaki crimes against humanity by stating that every japanese citizen was trained to fight, yet Im sure any sane person would consider a bomb killing Israelis as an act of terrorism, regardless of the fact that most Israelis must also receive military training
Nayef_shroof
In addition, the Japanese had organized the Patriotic Citizens Fighting Corps-which included all
healthy men aged 15–60 and women 17–40-to perform combat support, and ultimately combat jobs.
Weapons, training, and uniforms were generally lacking: some men were armed with nothing better than
muzzle-loading muskets, longbows, or bamboo spears; nevertheless, they were expected to make do
with what they had. One mobilized high school girl, Yukiko Kasai, found herself issued an awl and told,
"Even killing one American soldier will do. … You must aim for the abdomen."Operation Downfall Planned Invasion of the Islands of Japan in World War II
People should really read linked material that was previously posted. Not doing so only makes one who make statements like you did, ignorant. The fact is, the Japanese did get some sort of training to attack US military personell.
The dropping of the bombs were an act of war. Nothing forbade the dropping of atomic weapons at the time either (and nothing still forbids their use in wartime to this day even). Hamas firing rockets into the civilian population is on a different level entirely than the dropping of atomic bombs during wartime.
You could read them?lol, read the articles you post first. :P
nZiFFLe
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]So the definition isn't really important of the word....kuraimenLMFAO!! That's the LJ's debating skills I know alright What giving you a fact so you can dismiss with an ad hominem? I see you have no rebuttal to the fact that AQ is considered a terrorist organization and the US isn't....which pretty much means I made my point and you are trying to deflect away from that with insults.:lol:
Did you read it? Here quotes: "The key sticking points in the draft treaty revolve around several controversial yet basic issues, including the definition of "terrorism"." "For example, what distinguishes a "terrorist organisation" from a "liberation movement"? And do you exclude activities of national armed forces, even if they are perceived to commit acts of terrorism? If not, how much of this constitutes "state terrorism"? " "Arab diplomats have continued to argue that any comprehensive definition of terrorism must include the phenomena of "state terrorism" and distinguish it from the right of self-determination." ""We (the world leaders) affirm that the targeting and deliberate killing of civilians and non-combatants cannot be justified or legitimised by any cause or grievance, and we declare that any action intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants, when the purpose of such an act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population or to compel a government or an international organisation to carry out or to abstain from any act, cannot be justified on any grounds, and constitutes an act of terrorism." " That last definition perfectly fits H&N. It says nothing about the one making a terrorist being a state or a separate group.lol, read the articles you post first. :P
nZiFFLe
[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]So the definition isn't really important of the word....LJS9502_basicLMFAO!! That's the LJ's debating skills I know alright What giving you a fact so you can dismiss with an ad hominem? I see you have no rebuttal to the fact that AQ is considered a terrorist organization and the US isn't....which pretty much means I made my point and you are trying to deflect away from that with insults.:lol: My whole rebuttal is justifying H&N as a terrorist act not trying to comply with the US government definition of terrorism to exclude themselves from it.
[QUOTE="nZiFFLe"]Did you read it? Here quotes: "The key sticking points in the draft treaty revolve around several controversial yet basic issues, including the definition of "terrorism"." "For example, what distinguishes a "terrorist organisation" from a "liberation movement"? And do you exclude activities of national armed forces, even if they are perceived to commit acts of terrorism? If not, how much of this constitutes "state terrorism"? " "Arab diplomats have continued to argue that any comprehensive definition of terrorism must include the phenomena of "state terrorism" and distinguish it from the right of self-determination." ""We (the world leaders) affirm that the targeting and deliberate killing of civilians and non-combatants cannot be justified or legitimised by any cause or grievance, and we declare that any action intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants, when the purpose of such an act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population or to compel a government or an international organisation to carry out or to abstain from any act, cannot be justified on any grounds, and constitutes an act of terrorism." " That last definition perfectly fits H&N. It says nothing about the one making a terrorist being a state or a separate group. You might want to refresh your memory with article 52 of the Geneva Convention because the definition doesn't coincide. And since the GC was the work of several countries....not just the opinion of one...I'd say it has more weight in international policy.lol, read the articles you post first. :P
kuraimen
[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="nZiFFLe"]Did you read it? Here quotes: "The key sticking points in the draft treaty revolve around several controversial yet basic issues, including the definition of "terrorism"." "For example, what distinguishes a "terrorist organisation" from a "liberation movement"? And do you exclude activities of national armed forces, even if they are perceived to commit acts of terrorism? If not, how much of this constitutes "state terrorism"? " "Arab diplomats have continued to argue that any comprehensive definition of terrorism must include the phenomena of "state terrorism" and distinguish it from the right of self-determination." ""We (the world leaders) affirm that the targeting and deliberate killing of civilians and non-combatants cannot be justified or legitimised by any cause or grievance, and we declare that any action intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants, when the purpose of such an act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population or to compel a government or an international organisation to carry out or to abstain from any act, cannot be justified on any grounds, and constitutes an act of terrorism." " That last definition perfectly fits H&N. It says nothing about the one making a terrorist being a state or a separate group. You might want to refresh your memory with article 52 of the Geneva Convention because the definition doesn't coincide. And since the GC was the work of several countries....not just the opinion of one...I'd say it has more weight in international policy. That is from an UN declaration hardly ONE country. Anyways it shows that consensus about the definition of terrorism doesn't really exist.lol, read the articles you post first. :P
LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Your link doesn't show anything.And there is consensus of the definition of terrorism as the link I provided above shows. For me and many other around the world the Japan bombings are nothing short of terrorism.
LJS9502_basic
What link? All I see is a URL he posted and it has to be copy and pasted verses clicked on as a link can be done. ;)
[QUOTE="nZiFFLe"]""We (the world leaders) affirm that the targeting and deliberate killing of civilians and non-combatants cannot be justified or legitimised by any cause or grievance, and we declare that any action intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants, when the purpose of such an act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population or to compel a government or an international organisation to carry out or to abstain from any act, cannot be justified on any grounds, and constitutes an act of terrorism." " That last definition perfectly fits H&N. It says nothing about the one making a terrorist being a state or a separate group.lol, read the articles you post first. :P
kuraimen
and that's why it's a poor definition.
""We (the world leaders) affirm that the targeting and deliberate killing of civilians and non-combatants cannot be justified or legitimised by any cause or grievance, and we declare that any action intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants, when the purpose of such an act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population or to compel a government or an international organisation to carry out or to abstain from any act, cannot be justified on any grounds, and constitutes an act of terrorism." " That last definition perfectly fits H&N. It says nothing about the one making a terrorist being a state or a separate group.[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="nZiFFLe"]
lol, read the articles you post first. :P
nZiFFLe
and that's why it's a poor definition.
Lol so you go from it being not debatable as you claim to you simply not agreeing with it? figures...[QUOTE="kuraimen"]My whole rebuttal is justifying H&N as a terrorist act not trying to comply with the US government definition of terrorism to exclude themselves from it.LJS9502_basicExcept even under the Geneva Convention there is some limitation on what constitutes too many civilian casualties. If the advantage is greater...it's not against the rules as the international committee decided. So that rebuts your argument as well. The bombs ended the war quicker and with less casualties than were estimated were a land invasion required. So do you want to link the opinion of some Arab leaders again? Or does the entirety of the international community get a say?
He still hasn't answered the question if a million civilian casualties is acceptable. Do you expect him to be able to answer your questions to the same thing? Come on LJ, we both know he cannot answer a question straight on.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment