So wait was Hiroshina and nagasaki terrorism?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77

12605

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#551 WhiteKnight77
Member since 2003 • 12605 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.

So you are now trying to use a 21st century definition that applies to what happens today to events that happened 65 years ago when a country was at war with an aggressor? That's rich. Sorry, you are grasping at straws there. The simple facts are the events of August 6th and 9th 1945 happened under a formal declaration of war and helped to end a very costly war that would have been made more costly with an invasion. Those events have no comparison to what happened 55 years after the fact to a populace that was not actively engaged in any declared war against anyone.

Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#552 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]I knew it!

CaveJohnson1

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.

I quoted several US army and government forces that say the bombs were not justified and used very different estimates. What is that about "blindly" following. I have my sources and I have read about history too pal.
Avatar image for deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51

57548

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

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

In roughly 4000 BC, the Egyptians invaded a peaceful neighboring country and destroyed their cultue. I strongly believe we should enact sanctions for that action. What barbarians.

Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#554 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts

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.

WhiteKnight77

How was it shown at the time that the japanese were going to fight to the end. The several quotes from people at the time that I provided said that that was hardly the case and that there was a good chance the japanese were going to surrender.

Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#555 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts

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

sonicare
I don't see any mongol here defending a massacre by their people.
Avatar image for deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51

57548

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

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

Persia (modern day Iran), invaded Greece and burned the Acropolis down (the first acropolis). I believe this constitutes a war crime.

Avatar image for deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51

57548

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

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

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

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

kuraimen

I don't see any mongol here defending a massacre by their people.

I dont see any thread condemning them.

Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#558 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.WhiteKnight77

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.

So you are now trying to use a 21st century definition that applies to what happens today to events that happened 65 years ago when a country was at war with an aggressor? That's rich. Sorry, you are grasping at straws there. The simple facts are the events of August 6th and 9th 1945 happened under a formal declaration of war and helped to end a very costly war that would have been made more costly with an invasion. Those events have no comparison to what happened 55 years after the fact to a populace that was not actively engaged in any declared war against anyone.

So a massacre 70 years ago is not a massacre now. Wow how things change. I could care less about what was "allowed" then it was a terrible act and deserves the label of terrorism.
Avatar image for deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51

57548

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

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

Would the armenian genocide committed by Turkey be considered a war crime or terrorism?

Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#560 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="sonicare"]

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

sonicare

I don't see any mongol here defending a massacre by their people.

I dont see any thread condemning them.

If this were a Mongolian board and mongol people kept defending such act I'm sure there would be.
Avatar image for WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77

12605

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#561 WhiteKnight77
Member since 2003 • 12605 Posts

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

So you are now trying to use a 21st century definition that applies to what happens today to events that happened 65 years ago when a country was at war with an aggressor? That's rich. Sorry, you are grasping at straws there. The simple facts are the events of August 6th and 9th 1945 happened under a formal declaration of war and helped to end a very costly war that would have been made more costly with an invasion. Those events have no comparison to what happened 55 years after the fact to a populace that was not actively engaged in any declared war against anyone.

kuraimen

So a massacre 70 years ago is not a massacre now. Wow how things change. I could care less about what was "allowed" then it was a terrible act and deserves the label of terrorism.

That is yours (and maybe a few others) opinion. The fact that you do not care what was allowed shows you live a revisionist dream.

Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#562 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts

Would the armenian genocide committed by Turkey be considered a war crime or terrorism?

sonicare
I have no problem considering it both, I don't see why anyone should use stylized terms to soften such atrocities.
Avatar image for -Tish-
-Tish-

3624

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 21

User Lists: 0

#563 -Tish-
Member since 2007 • 3624 Posts
Yes, yes it was. Terrorism indeed.
Avatar image for deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51

57548

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

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

Are the Russian purges of their own people in the 40's and 50's and Pol Pots cambodian purges considered terrorism? If one kills one owns people, is that considered a war crime?

Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#565 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

So you are now trying to use a 21st century definition that applies to what happens today to events that happened 65 years ago when a country was at war with an aggressor? That's rich. Sorry, you are grasping at straws there. The simple facts are the events of August 6th and 9th 1945 happened under a formal declaration of war and helped to end a very costly war that would have been made more costly with an invasion. Those events have no comparison to what happened 55 years after the fact to a populace that was not actively engaged in any declared war against anyone.

WhiteKnight77

So a massacre 70 years ago is not a massacre now. Wow how things change. I could care less about what was "allowed" then it was a terrible act and deserves the label of terrorism.

That is yours (and maybe a few others) opinion. The fact that you do not care what was allowed shows you live a revisionist dream.

If living in a revisionist dream means I'm not a moral relativist then that's fine by me. I consider the second much worse than the first.
Avatar image for deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51

57548

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

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

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

Would the armenian genocide committed by Turkey be considered a war crime or terrorism?

kuraimen

I have no problem considering it both, I don't see why anyone should use stylized terms to soften such atrocities.

Some people claim nothing ever happened.

Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#567 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="sonicare"]

Would the armenian genocide committed by Turkey be considered a war crime or terrorism?

sonicare

I have no problem considering it both, I don't see why anyone should use stylized terms to soften such atrocities.

Some people claim nothing ever happened.

Well irregardless, acts of such magnitude should be comdemned equally and nobody should be making apologies about them. That's why the H&N bombings get so much steam because people actually dare defend them.
Avatar image for deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51

57548

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

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

Is starting a war of choicean act of terrorism?

Avatar image for WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77

12605

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#569 WhiteKnight77
Member since 2003 • 12605 Posts

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

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.

kuraimen

How was it shown at the time that the japanese were going to fight to the end. The several quotes from people at the time that I provided said that that was hardly the case and that there was a good chance the japanese were going to surrender.

The fact that the militarists of the Japanese government tried to overthrow the Emperor is a strong statement of wanting to fight to the end. As noted previously, when a Japanese diplomat tried to get the Soviets to intercede and get the Allies to accept surrender terms that the Japanese found acceptable, they were rebuffed and there pleas not entertained. Again, the Allies were not going to accept Japanese surrender terms, but only unconditional surrender, which the Japanese rebuffed once the Potsdam Declaration was given.

Avatar image for Inconsistancy
Inconsistancy

8094

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#570 Inconsistancy
Member since 2004 • 8094 Posts

Is starting a war of choicean act of terrorism?

sonicare
If your intent is to kill civilians, especially to demoralize or terrorize(...), then it is. I think a war of choice, however, is a bad choice. :)
Avatar image for deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51

57548

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

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

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] I have no problem considering it both, I don't see why anyone should use stylized terms to soften such atrocities.kuraimen

Some people claim nothing ever happened.

Well irregardless, acts of such magnitude should be comdemned equally and nobody should be making apologies about them. That's why the H&N bombings get so much steam because people actually dare defend them.

It's not so much that people defend them as they seem to be given a special category of their own. No one seems to care about the tens of millions of civilians killed in WW2 by conventional means. The only ones of import are those killed in the nuclear bombings according to the self righteous pundits of these threads. I say that based upon the disproportionate amount of attention they garner. I suppose it could be the shock/fear of nuclear weapons as opposed to conventional weapons, but both kill. Conventional weapons have just done more of it so maybe people simply accept or belittle them.

Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#572 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts
Again, the Allies were not going to accept Japanese surrender terms, but only unconditional surrender, which the Japanese rebuffed once the Potsdam Declaration was given.WhiteKnight77
Well maybe they should to avoid murdering 200 thousand civilians. Accepting some terms would have been the moral high ground instead they chose the lowest of the low.
Avatar image for deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51

57548

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

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

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

Is starting a war of choicean act of terrorism?

Inconsistancy

If your intent is to kill civilians, especially to demoralize or terrorize(...), then it is. I think a war of choice, however, is a bad choice. :)

A war, by it's nature, will invariably lead to civilian deaths and terrorizes all invovled populations.

Avatar image for deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51

57548

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#574 deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
Member since 2004 • 57548 Posts
[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"] Again, the Allies were not going to accept Japanese surrender terms, but only unconditional surrender, which the Japanese rebuffed once the Potsdam Declaration was given.kuraimen
Well maybe they should to avoid murdering 200 thousand civilians. Accepting some terms would have been the moral high ground instead they chose the lowest of the low.

Well, the lesson learned from WW one was anything less than an unconditional surrender leads to more world war.
Avatar image for CaveJohnson1
CaveJohnson1

1714

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#575 CaveJohnson1
Member since 2011 • 1714 Posts

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] I don't see any mongol here defending a massacre by their people.kuraimen

I dont see any thread condemning them.

If this were a Mongolian board and mongol people kept defending such act I'm sure there would be.

Just like somebody is defending a country we are at war with.

burn

Avatar image for Inconsistancy
Inconsistancy

8094

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#576 Inconsistancy
Member since 2004 • 8094 Posts

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"][QUOTE="sonicare"]

Is starting a war of choicean act of terrorism?

sonicare

If your intent is to kill civilians, especially to demoralize or terrorize(...), then it is. I think a war of choice, however, is a bad choice. :)

A war, by it's nature, will invariably lead to civilian deaths and terrorizes all invovled populations.

But that's not the intent, necessarily. But that's why I think it's a bad choice, even killing military members shouldn't be taken too lightly, they're actual people after all.
Avatar image for deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51

57548

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

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

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the nuclear bombings of 2 cities should have happened or that it was a good thing. I think it was a horrible thing and should have been avoided. With what I know today, I would not have used that option. But these were people living 70 years ago during a war that cost well over 100 million lives. The bombs did end the worst war the world has ever seen. Some people claim they saved lives. I dont. Those bombs killed 200k people. Thats what they did. Certainly an invasion of mainland japan may have lead to millions of people dying, but you cant say a bomb saved lives. That's just not true.

Avatar image for deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51

57548

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

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

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"] If your intent is to kill civilians, especially to demoralize or terrorize(...), then it is. I think a war of choice, however, is a bad choice. :)Inconsistancy

A war, by it's nature, will invariably lead to civilian deaths and terrorizes all invovled populations.

But that's not the intent, necessarily. But that's why I think it's a bad choice, even killing military members shouldn't be taken too lightly, they're actual people after all.

Yeah, somehow people think its ok if soldiers die. I dont either. They are no more and no less than people. Most soldiers I know dont want to die either and many people in that war were conscripts. They were being used as tools by their respective countries governments or oligarchies.

Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#579 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="sonicare"] Some people claim nothing ever happened.

sonicare

Well irregardless, acts of such magnitude should be comdemned equally and nobody should be making apologies about them. That's why the H&N bombings get so much steam because people actually dare defend them.

It's not so much that people defend them as they seem to be given a special category of their own. No one seems to care about the tens of millions of civilians killed in WW2 by conventional means. The only ones of import are those killed in the nuclear bombings according to the self righteous pundits of these threads. I say that based upon the disproportionate amount of attention they garner. I suppose it could be the shock/fear of nuclear weapons as opposed to conventional weapons, but both kill. Conventional weapons have just done more of it so maybe people simply accept or belittle them.

I think a lot of people care about the millions of civilians killed during WW2. The Holocaust is probably the most talked and analyzed event in history and pretty much everyone acknowledges that it was a despicable act. It just pisses me off when people think that we somehow should accept another despicable act because it was done by others in a different situation. And I've gotten into similar arguments with Holocaust denialists who somehow think people should accept their excuses and sources as fact (yes they are some of the people more prepared and informed out there which makes their case look strong yet it doesn't mean it's not ridiculous) The hell with it, I think things like that should be condemned strongly no matter where they come from.
Avatar image for deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51

57548

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

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

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] Well irregardless, acts of such magnitude should be comdemned equally and nobody should be making apologies about them. That's why the H&N bombings get so much steam because people actually dare defend them.kuraimen

It's not so much that people defend them as they seem to be given a special category of their own. No one seems to care about the tens of millions of civilians killed in WW2 by conventional means. The only ones of import are those killed in the nuclear bombings according to the self righteous pundits of these threads. I say that based upon the disproportionate amount of attention they garner. I suppose it could be the shock/fear of nuclear weapons as opposed to conventional weapons, but both kill. Conventional weapons have just done more of it so maybe people simply accept or belittle them.

I think a lot of people care about the millions of civilians killed during WW2. The Holocaust is probably the most talked and analyzed event in history and pretty much everyone acknowledges that it was a despicable act. It just pisses me off when people think that we somehow should accept another despicable act because it was done by others in a different situation. And I've gotten into similar arguments with Holocaust denialists who somehow think people should accept their excuses and sources as fact (yes they are some of the people more prepared and informed out there which makes their case look strong yet it doesn't mean it's not ridiculous) The hell with it, I think things like that should be condemned strongly no matter where they come from.

Growing up, I used to be more patriotic and would blindly defend the nuclear bombings. I just accepted them as something that ended the war. But certainly now, I view them differently. I can understand why someo people may try to justify them - claiming they ended the war - but I don't. The end doesnt justify the means. I wish we had never used them.

Avatar image for WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77

12605

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#581 WhiteKnight77
Member since 2003 • 12605 Posts

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"] Again, the Allies were not going to accept Japanese surrender terms, but only unconditional surrender, which the Japanese rebuffed once the Potsdam Declaration was given.sonicare
Well maybe they should to avoid murdering 200 thousand civilians. Accepting some terms would have been the moral high ground instead they chose the lowest of the low.

Well, the lesson learned from WW one was anything less than an unconditional surrender leads to more world war.

This is exactly the reason why the Allies (and this included one those he claims was against the use of atomic weapons went after with Hitler and Germany and it's funny that he had the US military industrial complex build more of them, imagine that) wanted unconditional surrender, to avoid a repeat and a WWIII.

Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#582 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts
The end doesnt justify the means. sonicare
Fair enough. That is basically my principle and the basis of everything this argument is about for me.
Avatar image for Ace6301
Ace6301

21389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#583 Ace6301
Member since 2005 • 21389 Posts

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="sonicare"] It's not so much that people defend them as they seem to be given a special category of their own. No one seems to care about the tens of millions of civilians killed in WW2 by conventional means. The only ones of import are those killed in the nuclear bombings according to the self righteous pundits of these threads. I say that based upon the disproportionate amount of attention they garner. I suppose it could be the shock/fear of nuclear weapons as opposed to conventional weapons, but both kill. Conventional weapons have just done more of it so maybe people simply accept or belittle them.

sonicare

I think a lot of people care about the millions of civilians killed during WW2. The Holocaust is probably the most talked and analyzed event in history and pretty much everyone acknowledges that it was a despicable act. It just pisses me off when people think that we somehow should accept another despicable act because it was done by others in a different situation. And I've gotten into similar arguments with Holocaust denialists who somehow think people should accept their excuses and sources as fact (yes they are some of the people more prepared and informed out there which makes their case look strong yet it doesn't mean it's not ridiculous) The hell with it, I think things like that should be condemned strongly no matter where they come from.

Growing up, I used to be more patriotic and would blindly defend the nuclear bombings. I just accepted them as something that ended the war. But certainly now, I view them differently. I can understand why someo people may try to justify them - claiming they ended the war - but I don't. The end doesnt justify the means. I wish we had never used them.

While I also wish nukes had never been used, or even invented, I understand the importance to history and the benefits. I'm not a big fan of when people just say the end doesn't justify the means. It's too much of a blanket statement, because sometimes they do. Sometimes you have to put pride and morals aside just to get by. I'd amend it to you should never approach a situation thinking the ends justify the means as it tends to lead people down paths that aren't too pleasant. This is especially true for anyone living in the west and enjoying our way of life. Every day people do terrible things so that we can live the way we like to. It's not right but I doubt anyone here would be willing to give up the way they live. I find it odd that people argue that dropping the nukes was such an abhorrent thing yet these same people will generally agree that WWII was something that had to happen for the good of humanity and that the steps the allies took to procure victory are justified by how terrible Hitler was. Odder still some who oppose these wars and the actions contained therein will pass judgement on people just for being from a certain country (Kuraimen I'm looking at you) despite nationalism and such thinkings are largely what caused this unpleasant chain of events to unfold. I think war in general is disgusting and I'd like nothing more than to see it gone. However as long as it exists we have to understand that sometimes terrible things have to be done if we want to progress.
Avatar image for Palantas
Palantas

15329

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#584 Palantas
Member since 2002 • 15329 Posts

Are the last 100 or so posts everyone arguing with kuraimen as usual?

I think a lot of people care about the millions of civilians killed during WW2. The Holocaust is probably the most talked and analyzed event in history and pretty much everyone acknowledges that it was a despicable act. It just pisses me off when people think that we somehow should accept another despicable act because it was done by others in a different situation. And I've gotten into similar arguments with Holocaust denialists, et cetera...kuraimen

kuraimen, are you comparing the nuclear attacks to the Holocaust again? Didn't we already go over this in the thread? The only things these events have in common is A.) People died, and B.) It pisses you off.

Avatar image for Palantas
Palantas

15329

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#585 Palantas
Member since 2002 • 15329 Posts

I find it odd that people argue that dropping the nukes was such an abhorrent thing yet these same people will generally agree that WWII was something that had to happen for the good of humanity and that the steps the allies took to procure victory are justified by how terrible Hitler was.Ace6301

I asked kuraimen earlier if he was opposed to all the strategic bombing in World War II. He didn't get back with me. (And if he did, it got lost amongst the arguments he's having with everyone else.)

Avatar image for Ace6301
Ace6301

21389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#586 Ace6301
Member since 2005 • 21389 Posts

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]I find it odd that people argue that dropping the nukes was such an abhorrent thing yet these same people will generally agree that WWII was something that had to happen for the good of humanity and that the steps the allies took to procure victory are justified by how terrible Hitler was.Palantas

I asked kuraimen earlier if he was opposed to all the strategic bombing in World War II. He didn't get back with me. (And if he did, it got lost amongst the arguments he's having with everyone else.)

I haven't read the last 100 posts or so because I've been busy with Skyrim but when Dresden was brought up (I think by wiseboi) I was the only one who commented on it. This isn't even getting into the fire bombings in Japan. Lets just say there was lots of wooden buildings back then.
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180303

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#587 LJS9502_basic  Online
Member since 2003 • 180303 Posts

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]I find it odd that people argue that dropping the nukes was such an abhorrent thing yet these same people will generally agree that WWII was something that had to happen for the good of humanity and that the steps the allies took to procure victory are justified by how terrible Hitler was.Palantas

I asked kuraimen earlier if he was opposed to all the strategic bombing in World War II. He didn't get back with me. (And if he did, it got lost amongst the arguments he's having with everyone else.)

He does that a lot. I don't think I've ever seen him answer a direct question.
Avatar image for Palantas
Palantas

15329

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#588 Palantas
Member since 2002 • 15329 Posts

[QUOTE="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.

kuraimen

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

It is a highly debatable subject? Well what happened to this:

Definition of terrorism: is the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion. The H&N bombs fall precisely on that definition. It says nothing about being involved in a war or not.kuraimen

Kuraimen at work:

  1. Describe a definition and then argues in favor of it extensively (see page 20).
  2. Then in response to someone else's definition argues that there is no solid definition.

A+ work.

Avatar image for DigitalExile
DigitalExile

16046

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#589 DigitalExile
Member since 2008 • 16046 Posts

Terrorism is undertaken by organisations/groups or individuals, not Governments. (If a Government gives an organisation authority to undertake an attack it's still an act of war, not terrorism) Why did this discussion go on so long? >.>

Avatar image for Ace6301
Ace6301

21389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#590 Ace6301
Member since 2005 • 21389 Posts

Terrorism is undertaken by organisations/groups or individuals, not Governments. (If a Government gives an organisation authority to undertake an attack it's still an act of war, not terrorism) Why did this discussion go on so long? >.>

DigitalExile
But a government is an organization and group.
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180303

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#591 LJS9502_basic  Online
Member since 2003 • 180303 Posts
[QUOTE="kuraimen"] 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.

It would help you understood the difference between domestic laws and international laws. News flash the Japanese did drop bombs on American soil....just not the same kind. Which resulted in the declaration of war which resulted in the engagements between the two countries and the eventual surrender of Japan. But it's disingenuous to confuse domestic with international regulations.
Avatar image for DigitalExile
DigitalExile

16046

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#592 DigitalExile
Member since 2008 • 16046 Posts

[QUOTE="DigitalExile"]

Terrorism is undertaken by organisations/groups or individuals, not Governments. (If a Government gives an organisation authority to undertake an attack it's still an act of war, not terrorism) Why did this discussion go on so long? >.>

Ace6301

But a government is an organization and group.

Now I see why this thread went on so long... arguing semantics. Well okay. "Organisations or groups seperate to government or the military." Happy? >_>

Avatar image for Ace6301
Ace6301

21389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#593 Ace6301
Member since 2005 • 21389 Posts

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="DigitalExile"]

Terrorism is undertaken by organisations/groups or individuals, not Governments. (If a Government gives an organisation authority to undertake an attack it's still an act of war, not terrorism) Why did this discussion go on so long? >.>

DigitalExile

But a government is an organization and group.

Now I see why this thread went on so long... arguing semantics. Well okay. "Organisations or groups seperate to government or the military." Happy? >_>

Well you see that's the problem. Everyone defines terrorism differently. Throw a bit of patriotism and national hate into the mix and bam. Flame war.
Avatar image for Palantas
Palantas

15329

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#594 Palantas
Member since 2002 • 15329 Posts

Well you see that's the problem. Everyone defines terrorism differently. Throw a bit of patriotism and national hate into the mix and bam. Flame war.Ace6301

I'm not confident that OT's upcoming rules change will improve this.

Avatar image for DigitalExile
DigitalExile

16046

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#595 DigitalExile
Member since 2008 • 16046 Posts

[QUOTE="DigitalExile"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] But a government is an organization and group. Ace6301

Now I see why this thread went on so long... arguing semantics. Well okay. "Organisations or groups seperate to government or the military." Happy? >_>

Well you see that's the problem. Everyone defines terrorism differently. Throw a bit of patriotism and national hate into the mix and bam. Flame war.

Well as far as I know (you'll have to excuse my ignorance) any act of aggression by, or sanctioned by, a government or military power is an act of war. Individuals or groups acting independently of their government or military are terrorists. @that other guy: even if Japan dropped bombs on America to "scare" people it wouldn't be terrorism it would still be an act of war. Even when two countries are in the middle of a conflict groups acting independently of their government can still be terrorists.

I would say the only exception to this would be if a foreign force illegally occupied a nation. I don't know if Iraq falls into this because I'm not sure how the Government there reacted to US/allied forces coming into the country (excluding Saddam supporters), but if you think of resistance fighters in France, if they attacked German forces they wouldn't be commiting acts of terrorism because Germany declared war on France. I think at this point the definition gets muddled up if the political leaders of a country lets another power into its borders (Iraq) but the population doesn't want them there - but this wasn't the case for Japan, or Dresden. Japan and Germany were both actively and openly at war with the US and Britain and Europe thus any attacks made against each other, by their respective military powers whether against military or civilian targets was an act of war. In these instances we should not be arguing about terrorism, but whether they can be considered war crimes or not depending on the validity of the targets as military/war effort targets.

Avatar image for WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77

12605

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#596 WhiteKnight77
Member since 2003 • 12605 Posts

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]I find it odd that people argue that dropping the nukes was such an abhorrent thing yet these same people will generally agree that WWII was something that had to happen for the good of humanity and that the steps the allies took to procure victory are justified by how terrible Hitler was.Palantas

I asked kuraimen earlier if he was opposed to all the strategic bombing in World War II. He didn't get back with me. (And if he did, it got lost amongst the arguments he's having with everyone else.)

As I told LJ earlier, he tends to ignore questions. Even when he does answer them, he is rather vague or defensive.

Avatar image for Ace6301
Ace6301

21389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#597 Ace6301
Member since 2005 • 21389 Posts

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]Well you see that's the problem. Everyone defines terrorism differently. Throw a bit of patriotism and national hate into the mix and bam. Flame war.Palantas

I'm not confident that OT's upcoming rules change will improve this.

Perhaps it will show people that being respectable can lead to a more intellectually challenging argument than just calling someone an idiot. Haha, unlikely. I already checked and people here fall for insults far too easily.
Avatar image for WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77

12605

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#598 WhiteKnight77
Member since 2003 • 12605 Posts

Japan and Germany were both actively and openly at war with the US and Britain and Europe thus any attacks made against each other, by their respective military powers whether against military or civilian targets was an act of war. In these instances we should not be arguing about terrorism, but whether they can be considered war crimes or not depending on the validity of the targets as military/war effort targets.DigitalExile

Exactly. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki are no different than Hamburg or Dresden (many people forget that Hamburg was also firebombed over the course of several days and nights). All four of those cities featured industry or military installations or ports or other communication networks. All are militarily important. Their destruction by different means is not really noteworthy outside of the fact that the Japanese were subjected to the first atomic bombs.

Avatar image for wolverine4262
wolverine4262

20832

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#599 wolverine4262
Member since 2004 • 20832 Posts
Atrocities were committed by all players in World War 2. The Allied bombing of Dresden, Japan's campaign in Asia, Russia's invasion of Poland, and of course the Holocaust. Why must the singular act that ENDED the war, be the one that is most reviled? Im not exactly defending the atomic bombings, just trying to put things into perspective. I dont think there is really any point in addressing the topic directly. Calling the atomic bombings an act of terrorism exhibits either naivete toward war or a huge misunderstanding in those two words meanings...
Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
-Sun_Tzu-

17384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#600 -Sun_Tzu-
Member since 2007 • 17384 Posts
I wouldn't call it terrorism, especially today where the term is very loaded. It was clearly unnecessary in my opinion though. Japan had already been trying to reach a peace agreement. There was no real military significance for it, but the US wanted to flex its muscle with its brand new toy with the Soviets watching.