So wait was Hiroshina and nagasaki terrorism?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for nZiFFLe
nZiFFLe

1481

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#501 nZiFFLe
Member since 2009 • 1481 Posts

[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.

Lol so you go from it being not debatable as you claim to you simply not agreeing with it? figures...

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.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#502 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180302 Posts
[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] That is from an UN declaration hardly ONE country. Anyways it shows that consensus about the definition of terrorism doesn't really exist.

I don't think you read that entirely right.... "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."

I certianly read more than you, in fact it is the post you quoted ""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." " Those were not arab leaders that's a UN declaration. Really focus at least a little bit.

You know what they say about assumptions...I'm rather well read. Nothing in that quoted part actually pertains to this case in regard to WW2....however it does apply to 911. Had the US wanted to just randomly kill civilians the US wouldn't have warned said civilians of the impending attack. Period. Oh hey...when did AQ tell the employees of the WTC to stay home that day?
Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#503 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] You didn't link anything...

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.

Quoted for the third time ""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." "
Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#504 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts

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

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

nZiFFLe

Lol so you go from it being not debatable as you claim to you simply not agreeing with it? figures...

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.

Act of war that can be classified as terrorism too as the UN definition shows.
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#505 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180302 Posts

[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

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?

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.

I notice when he gets pinned down he deflects.:P
Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#506 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts

[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

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?

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.

You mention a million casualties like it is a fact. Show me that alternative reality of yours where 1 million casualties happened and I believe you. If you can't then that's pure speculation and opinion. And yes 1 million casualties is not acceptable either but I don't believe that would have happened if the US didn't drop the bombs I in fact believe 200 thousand lives would have been saved.
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#507 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180302 Posts

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
Quoted for the third time ""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." "

: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.

Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#508 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts
[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.

I notice when he gets pinned down he deflects.:P

Is that what you call when you can't copy/paste a link to ignore it?
Avatar image for nZiFFLe
nZiFFLe

1481

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#509 nZiFFLe
Member since 2009 • 1481 Posts

[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.

Act of war that can be classified as terrorism too as the UN definition shows.

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

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#510 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180302 Posts

[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

I notice when he gets pinned down he deflects.:P

Is that what you call when you can't copy/paste a link to ignore it?

Right because I copied and pasted exactly what was on the page. Dishonest tactics there dude.

Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#511 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts

: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.

Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#512 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts

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

Is that what you call when you can't copy/paste a link to ignore it?

Right because I copied and pasted exactly what was on the page. Dishonest tactics there dude.

Wat? I think you need to get some sleep you are starting to make no sense at all.
Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#513 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts

[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

Act of war that can be classified as terrorism too as the UN definition shows.

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

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?
Avatar image for GHlegend77
GHlegend77

10328

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#514 GHlegend77
Member since 2009 • 10328 Posts
[QUOTE="mrmusicman247"]I'm pretty sure it was retaliation.mayceV
...to what? Japan was at war, yeah but what tipped the pot to drop a nuke on them? it wasn't retaliation. It was the systematic slaughter of 200 thousand civilians to end a war quickly.

You could argue that it was indeed retaliation due to the fact that Japan committed terrorism by bombing Pearl Harbor, presumably because they f***ing wanted to. Another point which you could argue was that it paved the way for heavy nuclear weapon policies by showing the world the horror that the nuke does. In addition, a mainland invasion of Japan or conventional firebombing would have produced the same number of casualties while bringing a slower conclusion to the war. In closing, your arguments don't hold up. Thank you and goodbye.
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#515 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180302 Posts

[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.

Dishonest dude. I told you....and pasted what the url led to for me. Now you can keep belaboring the point.....which anyone who has read this thread knows that I didn't get to see it.....you can keep avoiding answering every question that's put to you....and you can keep switching between saying terrorism isn't defined to telling us the UN defined it.....which is it now?...and you can continue to deflect with ad hominem attacks but that only goes so far when the conversation is public for anyone that wants to read it.
Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#516 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts
[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.

Dishonest dude. I told you....and pasted what the url led to for me. Now you can keep belaboring the point.....which anyone who has read this thread knows that I didn't get to see it.....you can keep avoiding answering every question that's put to you....and you can keep switching between saying terrorism isn't defined to telling us the UN defined it.....which is it now?...and you can continue to deflect with ad hominem attacks but that only goes so far when the conversation is public for anyone that wants to read it.

That there's no consensus doesn't mean that there exist no definition. Again reading compehension FTW. You have provided a definition of terrorism that excludes something like the H&N bombs from it and I just linked to the UN definition that fits perfectly with an event like H&N. Sorry but I'll agree with that definition more than yours.
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#517 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180302 Posts

[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

Dishonest dude. I told you....and pasted what the url led to for me. Now you can keep belaboring the point.....which anyone who has read this thread knows that I didn't get to see it.....you can keep avoiding answering every question that's put to you....and you can keep switching between saying terrorism isn't defined to telling us the UN defined it.....which is it now?...and you can continue to deflect with ad hominem attacks but that only goes so far when the conversation is public for anyone that wants to read it.

That there's no consensus doesn't mean that there exist no definition. Again reading compehension FTW. You have provided a definition of terrorism that excludes something like the H&N bombs from it and I just linked to the UN definition that fits perfectly with an event like H&N. Sorry but I'll agree with that definition more than yours.

You see I don't have to debate you....you seem to be doing that yourself.;)

Avatar image for nZiFFLe
nZiFFLe

1481

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#518 nZiFFLe
Member since 2009 • 1481 Posts

[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.

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?

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.

Avatar image for WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77

12605

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#519 WhiteKnight77
Member since 2003 • 12605 Posts

[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

You mention a million casualties like it is a fact. Show me that alternative reality of yours where 1 million casualties happened and I believe you. If you can't then that's pure speculation and opinion. And yes 1 million casualties is not acceptable either but I don't believe that would have happened if the US didn't drop the bombs I in fact believe 200 thousand lives would have been saved.

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)

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#520 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180302 Posts
New drinking game.....everyone has to take a drink when they see reading comprehension FTW. :P
Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#521 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts

[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

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?

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.

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?
Avatar image for WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77

12605

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#522 WhiteKnight77
Member since 2003 • 12605 Posts

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.

Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#523 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts
Of these estimatesWhiteKnight77
Being the keywords. Estimates are not facts. The sources I quoted back then estimated very different things. In fact many directly dispute Hoover's assertions so they were aware of the estimates you are talking about.
Avatar image for nZiFFLe
nZiFFLe

1481

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#524 nZiFFLe
Member since 2009 • 1481 Posts

[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.

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?

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.

Avatar image for CaveJohnson1
CaveJohnson1

1714

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#525 CaveJohnson1
Member since 2011 • 1714 Posts

[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

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).

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

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.

Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#526 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts

[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

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?

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.

What makes your definition more legitimate than mine? You said as if only the UN has a problem with that definition.
Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#527 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts

[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?

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.

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.
Avatar image for CaveJohnson1
CaveJohnson1

1714

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#528 CaveJohnson1
Member since 2011 • 1714 Posts

[QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]

[QUOTE="Krelian-co"]

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

kuraimen

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.

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.

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.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#529 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180302 Posts
[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.

What makes your definition more legitimate than mine? You said as if only the UN has a problem with that definition.

Did you not say it was there was no consensus on the definition? Contradiction much?
Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#530 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts

[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.

What makes your definition more legitimate than mine? You said as if only the UN has a problem with that definition.

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.

Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#531 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts

[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

What makes your definition more legitimate than mine? You said as if only the UN has a problem with that definition.

Did you not say it was there was no consensus on the definition? Contradiction much?

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.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#532 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180302 Posts

[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

What makes your definition more legitimate than mine? You said as if only the UN has a problem with that definition.

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.

You might to reread that...that is the Federal Criminal code and as such pertains to domestic crimes.
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#533 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180302 Posts

[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

Did you not say it was there was no consensus on the definition? Contradiction much?

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.

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.
Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#534 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts

[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

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.

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.

Again estimates are not facts and that people don't agree with your estimates doesn't mean they don't live in the real world just that they are more critical.
Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#535 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts
[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.

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.

Who says I'm forcing? I am explaining why I think my definition is better. I have never claimed it is undebatable or a fact unlike others here
Avatar image for Diviniuz
Diviniuz

6460

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 73

User Lists: 0

#536 Diviniuz
Member since 2009 • 6460 Posts
My criteria for terrorism is the killing of innocent life. those bombs did that.
Avatar image for CaveJohnson1
CaveJohnson1

1714

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#537 CaveJohnson1
Member since 2011 • 1714 Posts

[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

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.

I have no data to back me up, I'm just debating for the sake not admitting I'm wrong

I knew it!

Avatar image for Inconsistancy
Inconsistancy

8094

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#538 Inconsistancy
Member since 2004 • 8094 Posts

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.

Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#539 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts
[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.

You might to reread that...that is the Federal Criminal code and as such pertains to domestic crimes.

Well the other definitions say nothing about the perpetrator being not a state either. So the H&N bombs also apply US Patriot Act of 2001: terrorist activities include • threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other vehicles. • threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected" persons, such as government officials • any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the intent of the crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or substantial property damage rather than for "mere personal monetary gain FBI definition of terrorism: The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#540 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts

[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

I have no data to back me up, I'm just debating for the sake not admitting I'm wrong

I knew it!

What are you 12?
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#541 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180302 Posts

[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

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.

Who says I'm forcing? I am explaining why I think my definition is better. I have never claimed it is undebatable or a fact unlike others here

Sure you have. By continuing to push the definition you have given validity to it. You've argued several times about the world leaders aspect of that definition....though if one is being honest they should know the UN is but a group of countries that ALL have their own agendas. So I'd not necessarily believe they were making a neutral definition either.

Avatar image for deactivated-6127ced9bcba0
deactivated-6127ced9bcba0

31700

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#542 deactivated-6127ced9bcba0
Member since 2006 • 31700 Posts

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

I knew it!

Oh that's classic.

Avatar image for nZiFFLe
nZiFFLe

1481

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#543 nZiFFLe
Member since 2009 • 1481 Posts

[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

What makes your definition more legitimate than mine? You said as if only the UN has a problem with that definition.

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.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#544 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180302 Posts

[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

You might to reread that...that is the Federal Criminal code and as such pertains to domestic crimes.

Well the other definitions say nothing about the perpetrator being not a state either. So the H&N bombs also apply US Patriot Act of 2001: terrorist activities include • threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other vehicles. • threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected" persons, such as government officials • any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the intent of the crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or substantial property damage rather than for "mere personal monetary gain FBI definition of terrorism: The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

You want to change this thread to US law now? Or are we still dealing with international rules and not domestic? FYI...the FBI operates in country.

Avatar image for CaveJohnson1
CaveJohnson1

1714

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#545 CaveJohnson1
Member since 2011 • 1714 Posts

[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 knew it!

What are you 12?

Nah, but I took history back then and even learned about the problems invading japan would have caused.

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.

Avatar image for WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77

12605

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#546 WhiteKnight77
Member since 2003 • 12605 Posts

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]Of these estimateskuraimen
Being the keywords. Estimates are not facts. The sources I quoted back then estimated very different things. In fact many directly dispute Hoover's assertions so they were aware of the estimates you are talking about.

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.

Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#547 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts

[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

Who says I'm forcing? I am explaining why I think my definition is better. I have never claimed it is undebatable or a fact unlike others here

Sure you have. By continuing to push the definition you have given validity to it. You've argued several times about the world leaders aspect of that definition....though if one is being honest they should know the UN is but a group of countries that ALL have their own agendas. So I'd not necessarily believe they were making a neutral definition either.

And again, why should I accept YOUR definition then? It is definitely not a fact or undeniable
Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#548 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts

[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.

Fine but don't claim it is undebatable then.
Avatar image for deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51

57548

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#549 deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
Member since 2004 • 57548 Posts

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

Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#550 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts

[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

Well the other definitions say nothing about the perpetrator being not a state either. So the H&N bombs also apply US Patriot Act of 2001: terrorist activities include • threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other vehicles. • threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected" persons, such as government officials • any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the intent of the crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or substantial property damage rather than for "mere personal monetary gain FBI definition of terrorism: The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

You want to change this thread to US law now? Or are we still dealing with international rules and not domestic? FYI...the FBI operates in country.

So the definition of terrorism in the US changes if it is done inside the country and outside? Talk about arbitrariness... That means that if Japan dropped the bombs n the US instead that would be considered terrorism by that definition since it was on US land.