So wait was Hiroshina and nagasaki terrorism?

[QUOTE="nZiFFLe"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]""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.kuraimen

and that's why it's a poor definition.

look, you could argue that the acts of the us were immoral, sure, i'm not saying otherwise. but to say that the bombings were acts of terrorism is misleading because they are acts of war, by defintion.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="nZiFFLe"]

and that's why it's a poor definition.

nZiFFLe

look, you could argue that the acts of the us were immoral, sure, i'm not saying otherwise. but to say that the bombings were acts of terrorism is misleading because they are acts of war, by defintion.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][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.WhiteKnight77

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.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][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.WhiteKnight77

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.

LJ's debating techniques 101. If you don't have a point pretend you forgot to copy paste. Can this get more lame? [QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Yes reading comprehension is important...and from the part you quoted there has been no consensus because ARAB DIPLOMATS want a different interpretation.kuraimen

Oh...and for my debating techniques at least I respond to posts without deflecting with ad hominems.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Except 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?LJS9502_basic

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.

[QUOTE="nZiFFLe"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] Lol so you go from it being not debatable as you claim to you simply not agreeing with it? figures...kuraimen

look, you could argue that the acts of the us were immoral, sure, i'm not saying otherwise. but to say that the bombings were acts of terrorism is misleading because they are acts of war, by defintion.

the fact that you call it a 'un definition' is hilarious. the un are biased; political scientists are impartial, for the most part.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

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.

kuraimen

:lol: In fact double.:lol: My debating techniques? Where is the link? A copy/paste on a URl you've been told doesn't work for me doesn't count....and telling me to google certainly doesn't count as a link. You might want to reread the bolded...the world leaders have NOT made it a black and white issue......;)

Oh...and for my debating techniques at least I respond to posts without deflecting with ad hominems.

LJS9502_basic

LOL This is the most ridiculous conversation I've ever had. So since I didn't "link" the article it makes it inaccessible and therefor nonexistent even though me and others have accessed it? LOL No wonder you believe anything you want if you are capable of ignoring things to that extend to suit your arguments.

And who said that I said they made it a black and white issue? I have been saying that there's no agreed definition of terrorism you are the ones who are saying there is an "undebatable" or consensual definition of terrorism not me.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] I notice when he gets pinned down he deflects.:PLJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="nZiFFLe"]

look, you could argue that the acts of the us were immoral, sure, i'm not saying otherwise. but to say that the bombings were acts of terrorism is misleading because they are acts of war, by defintion.

nZiFFLe

the fact that you call it a 'un definition' is hilarious. the un are biased; political scientists are impartial, for the most part.

[QUOTE="mrmusicman247"]I'm pretty sure it was retaliation.mayceV

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]:lol: In fact double.:lol: My debating techniques? Where is the link? A copy/paste on a URl you've been told doesn't work for me doesn't count....and telling me to google certainly doesn't count as a link. You might want to reread the bolded...the world leaders have NOT made it a black and white issue......;)

Oh...and for my debating techniques at least I respond to posts without deflecting with ad hominems.

kuraimen

LOL This is the most ridiculous conversation I've ever had. So since I didn't "link" the article it makes it inaccessible and therefor nonexistent even though me and others have accessed it? LOL No wonder you believe anything you want if you are capable of ignoring things to that extend to suit your arguments.

And who said that I said they made it a black and white issue? I have been saying that there's no agreed definition of terrorism you are the ones who are saying there is an "undebatable" or consensual definition of terrorism not me.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]:lol: In fact double.:lol: My debating techniques? Where is the link? A copy/paste on a URl you've been told doesn't work for me doesn't count....and telling me to google certainly doesn't count as a link. You might want to reread the bolded...the world leaders have NOT made it a black and white issue......;)

Oh...and for my debating techniques at least I respond to posts without deflecting with ad hominems.

LJS9502_basic

LOL This is the most ridiculous conversation I've ever had. So since I didn't "link" the article it makes it inaccessible and therefor nonexistent even though me and others have accessed it? LOL No wonder you believe anything you want if you are capable of ignoring things to that extend to suit your arguments.

And who said that I said they made it a black and white issue? I have been saying that there's no agreed definition of terrorism you are the ones who are saying there is an "undebatable" or consensual definition of terrorism not me.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="kuraimen"]

LOL This is the most ridiculous conversation I've ever had. So since I didn't "link" the article it makes it inaccessible and therefor nonexistent even though me and others have accessed it? LOL No wonder you believe anything you want if you are capable of ignoring things to that extend to suit your arguments.

And who said that I said they made it a black and white issue? I have been saying that there's no agreed definition of terrorism you are the ones who are saying there is an "undebatable" or consensual definition of terrorism not me.

kuraimen

[QUOTE="nZiFFLe"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] Act of war that can be classified as terrorism too as the UN definition shows.kuraimen

the fact that you call it a 'un definition' is hilarious. the un are biased; political scientists are impartial, for the most part.

i already named one, and said that he mentions in his texts that the definition i provided is widely accepted among pr theorists.

all i'm saying is that political scientists are relatively impartial, while the un is absurdly biased. if you can't see that, then you need to read up more on un policies.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]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.

kuraimen

Did you bother to even read the screwed up post from a previously linked to (and not just a URL you pasted in a thread, a real link)?

Here, I will poste it again:

Of these estimates, only Nimitz's included losses of the forces at sea, though kamikazes had inflicted 1.78 fatalities per kamikaze pilot in the Battle of Okinawa -- troop transports off Kyushuwould have been much more exposed.

• A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated thatconquering Japan would cost 1.7 to 4 million American casualties, including 400,000 to 800,000fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scaleparticipation by civilians in the defense of Japan.

Outside the government, well-informed civilians were also making guesses. Kyle Palmer, warcorrespondent for the Los Angeles Times, said half a million to a million Americans would die by theend of the war. Herbert Hoover, in memorandums submitted to Truman and Stimson, also estimated500,000 to 1,000,000 fatalities, and were believed to be conservative estimates; but it is not known ifHoover discussed these specific figures in his meetings with Truman. The chief of the Army Operationsdivision thought them "entirely too high" under "our present plan of campaign."Operation Downfall

Operation Downfall: Planned Invasion of the Islands of Japan in World War II (a link, not just a pasted URL)

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="nZiFFLe"]

the fact that you call it a 'un definition' is hilarious. the un are biased; political scientists are impartial, for the most part.

nZiFFLe

i already named one, and said that he mentions in his texts that the definition i provided is widely accepted among pr theorists.

all i'm saying is that political scientists are relatively impartial, while the un is absurdly biased. if you can't see that, then you need to read up more on un policies.

New drinking game.....everyone has to take a drink when they see reading comprehension FTW. :PLJS9502_basic

ROFLMAO. I'm in, I have a few beers that I can drink.

Of these estimatesWhiteKnight77

[QUOTE="nZiFFLe"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] What political scientists are you talking about? Should I expect to believe some political scientists you haven't named instead of the UN? Where is this law of nature that make political scientists invulnerable to bias?kuraimen

i already named one, and said that he mentions in his texts that the definition i provided is widely accepted among pr theorists.

all i'm saying is that political scientists are relatively impartial, while the un is absurdly biased. if you can't see that, then you need to read up more on un policies.

i did mention the author, look back. and it's funny you're crticizing the legitmacy of my definition, considering you're upholding one from the freaking un.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"][QUOTE="Krelian-co"]

yeah because its the same soldiers killing each other than killing 200 thousand civilians and leaving a nuclear waste in the area, do you even know what radioactivity do to people and how long that area is going to be affected?

Krelian-co

i laughed at the millions part, can i know where you came with this number?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

He's actually way low in his estimate of how many would die, it was likely there would be as many as 14 million casualties, 4 on our side alone.

So yes, killing 200,000 civilians was the better choice than millions.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="nZiFFLe"]

i already named one, and said that he mentions in his texts that the definition i provided is widely accepted among pr theorists.

all i'm saying is that political scientists are relatively impartial, while the un is absurdly biased. if you can't see that, then you need to read up more on un policies.

nZiFFLe

i did mention the author, look back. and it's funny you're crticizing the legitmacy of my definition, considering you're upholding one from the freaking un.

[QUOTE="Krelian-co"]

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"] Would you rather approximately 200,000 civilians dead or millions of civilians dead? If your answer is millions, then you are the dilusional and yes, I now about radioactivity. Rad Safety is a good class to have, especially if you are going to be exposed to it in your line of work (industrial radiography).CaveJohnson1

i laughed at the millions part, can i know where you came with this number?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

He's actually way low in his estimate of how many would die, it was likely there would be as many as 14 million casualties, 4 on our side alone.

So yes, killing 200,000 civilians was the better choice than millions.

[QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]

[QUOTE="Krelian-co"]

i laughed at the millions part, can i know where you came with this number?

kuraimen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

He's actually way low in his estimate of how many would die, it was likely there would be as many as 14 million casualties, 4 on our side alone.

So yes, killing 200,000 civilians was the better choice than millions.

Reality is reality, take it, or have people laugh at you, and think of you as stupid and unpatriotic. That's the bottom line; I'm not debating this when I clearly laid out the numbers and facts.

[QUOTE="nZiFFLe"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] You mentioned a book, never named the book or its author and expect me to believe that is the most objective definition of a word as if that is even possible?kuraimen

i did mention the author, look back. and it's funny you're crticizing the legitmacy of my definition, considering you're upholding one from the freaking un.

[QUOTE="nZiFFLe"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] You mentioned a book, never named the book or its author and expect me to believe that is the most objective definition of a word as if that is even possible?kuraimen

i did mention the author, look back. and it's funny you're crticizing the legitmacy of my definition, considering you're upholding one from the freaking un.

LMFAO!!!! I just found this document about the various definitions of terrorism. http://www.azdema.gov/museum/famousbattles/pdf/Terrorism%20Definitions%20072809.pdf

Here is the US government definition.

"…activities that involve violent… or life-threatening acts… that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and… appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and…(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States…"

H&N bombs also fit that definition by the way since it say nothing about the perpetrator being a state or not. So now the US is biased too?

Although the last sentence make it almost seem like they are trying to say terrorism exist only if the act is perpetrated against the US LOL. Typical american BS.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="nZiFFLe"]

i did mention the author, look back. and it's funny you're crticizing the legitmacy of my definition, considering you're upholding one from the freaking un.

LJS9502_basic

And? where is the contradiction? Again that there's no consensus doesn't mean there's no definition or that people can't use one.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="nZiFFLe"]

i did mention the author, look back. and it's funny you're crticizing the legitmacy of my definition, considering you're upholding one from the freaking un.

kuraimen

LMFAO!!!! I just found this document about the various definitions of terrorism. http://www.azdema.gov/museum/famousbattles/pdf/Terrorism%20Definitions%20072809.pdf

Here is the US government definition.

"…activities that involve violent… or life-threatening acts… that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and… appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and…(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States…"

H&N bombs also fit that definition by the way since it say nothing about the perpetrator being a state or not. So now the US is biased too?

Although the last sentence make it almost seem like they are trying to say terrorism exist only if the act is perpetrated against the US LOL. Typical american BS.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] What makes your definition more legitimate than mine? You said as if only the UN has a problem with that definition.kuraimen

And? where is the contradiction? Again that there's no consensus doesn't mean there's no definition or that people can't use one.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]Maybe do some reading instead of blindly assuming things

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

He's actually way low in his estimate of how many would die, it was likely there would be as many as 14 million casualties, 4 on our side alone.

So yes, killing 200,000 civilians was the better choice than millions.

CaveJohnson1

Reality is reality, take it, or have people laugh at you, and think of you as stupid and unpatriotic. That's the bottom line; I'm not debating this when I clearly laid out the numbers and facts.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Did you not say it was there was no consensus on the definition? Contradiction much?LJS9502_basic

And? where is the contradiction? Again that there's no consensus doesn't mean there's no definition or that people can't use one.

[QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] Sure I can kill any number of people I want as long as I make sure I "estimate" a higher number if I didn't.kuraimen

Reality is reality, take it, or have people laugh at you, and think of you as stupid and unpatriotic. That's the bottom line; I'm not debating this when I clearly laid out the numbers and facts.

look, you could argue that the acts of the us were immoral, sure, i'm not saying otherwise. but to say that the bombings were acts of terrorism is misleading because they are acts of war, by defintion.

nZiFFLe

I say, any external threat with the clear intent to kill(murder) civilians is terrorism especially for the purpose of demoralization and/or to cause terror(which the bombings of Japan/Dresden clearly were anyway). :)

I'd classify these specific attacks as 'An act(s) of terrorism during a time of war.'

----

Clarification (since I may need it...):

The reason I used 'external threat' is 'cause I want No exceptions to justify killing civilians. As in, it's not just military, which can be argued... argument being: that the alqueda (or whatever) people aren't a military.

For an 'internal threat' doing the same it's much more gray, you'd have to establish the "purpose of demoralization and/or to cause terror" was the motive to determine if it was terrorism, or 'just' murder.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] What makes your definition more legitimate than mine? You said as if only the UN has a problem with that definition.LJS9502_basic

LMFAO!!!! I just found this document about the various definitions of terrorism. http://www.azdema.gov/museum/famousbattles/pdf/Terrorism%20Definitions%20072809.pdf

Here is the US government definition.

"…activities that involve violent… or life-threatening acts… that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and… appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and…(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States…"

H&N bombs also fit that definition by the way since it say nothing about the perpetrator being a state or not. So now the US is biased too?

Although the last sentence make it almost seem like they are trying to say terrorism exist only if the act is perpetrated against the US LOL. Typical american BS.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]You really do live in your own little world don't you?

Reality is reality, take it, or have people laugh at you, and think of you as stupid and unpatriotic. That's the bottom line; I'm not debating this when I clearly laid out the numbers and facts.

CaveJohnson1

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="kuraimen"]

And? where is the contradiction? Again that there's no consensus doesn't mean there's no definition or that people can't use one.

kuraimen

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]I have no data to back me up, I'm just debating for the sake not admitting I'm wrongCaveJohnson1

Oh that's classic.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="nZiFFLe"]

i did mention the author, look back. and it's funny you're crticizing the legitmacy of my definition, considering you're upholding one from the freaking un.

kuraimen

LMFAO!!!! I just found this document about the various definitions of terrorism. http://www.azdema.gov/museum/famousbattles/pdf/Terrorism%20Definitions%20072809.pdf

Here is the US government definition.

"…activities that involve violent… or life-threatening acts… that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and… appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and…(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States…"

H&N bombs also fit that definition by the way since it say nothing about the perpetrator being a state or not. So now the US is biased too?

Although the last sentence make it almost seem like they are trying to say terrorism exist only if the act is perpetrated against the US LOL. Typical american BS.

ehh, you go by your definition, i'll go by mine.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="kuraimen"]

LMFAO!!!! I just found this document about the various definitions of terrorism. http://www.azdema.gov/museum/famousbattles/pdf/Terrorism%20Definitions%20072809.pdf

Here is the US government definition.

"…activities that involve violent… or life-threatening acts… that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and… appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and…(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States…"

H&N bombs also fit that definition by the way since it say nothing about the perpetrator being a state or not. So now the US is biased too?

Although the last sentence make it almost seem like they are trying to say terrorism exist only if the act is perpetrated against the US LOL. Typical american BS.

kuraimen

[QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] I have no data to back me up, I'm just debating for the sake not admitting I'm wrongkuraimen

I didn't just blindly follow my own assumptions and then debate them unwilling to admit I'm wrong.

Those comments have no reflection on you btw.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]Of these estimateskuraimen

Of course they are estimates, never said otherwise. I have asserted that others claimed those numbers and provided you with those who stated them. The fact is, while any invasion is planned, estimates are made as to the number of casualties that are expected to take place. In the Pacific Theater, those numbers were always conservative in their estimates and the facts show that those estimates were low, for both sides. As the war progressed, it was shown time and again that the Japanese were going to fight to the end with very few (compared to the numbers originally attached to the units) who surrendered at the end of the campaign or who were captured during said campaign. The fact is, it was known that there would be a high number of casualties with an invasion of mainland Japan on both side and military and civilian alike.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] You can't say there is no consensus and then force your definition as being correct. THAT is the contradiction. And you've done that several times now in the last page or so.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] What makes your definition more legitimate than mine? You said as if only the UN has a problem with that definition.nZiFFLe

LMFAO!!!! I just found this document about the various definitions of terrorism. http://www.azdema.gov/museum/famousbattles/pdf/Terrorism%20Definitions%20072809.pdf

Here is the US government definition.

"…activities that involve violent… or life-threatening acts… that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and… appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and…(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States…"

H&N bombs also fit that definition by the way since it say nothing about the perpetrator being a state or not. So now the US is biased too?

Although the last sentence make it almost seem like they are trying to say terrorism exist only if the act is perpetrated against the US LOL. Typical american BS.

ehh, you go by your definition, i'll go by mine.

When the Mongols sacked Baghdad and massacred the people, was that terrorism? If so, I think we really need to hold them accountable.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]You might to reread that...that is the Federal Criminal code and as such pertains to domestic crimes.LJS9502_basic