So wait was Hiroshina and nagasaki terrorism?

[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

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.

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

CaveJohnson1

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.

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.

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.

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

sonicare

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

[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

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

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

[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

[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

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.

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

sonicare

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?

[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

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.

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

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

kuraimen

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

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

sonicare

Is starting a war of choicean act of terrorism?

[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.

Is starting a war of choicean act of terrorism?

sonicare

[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

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

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

Is starting a war of choicean act of terrorism?

Inconsistancy

[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

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

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

burn

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

Is starting a war of choicean act of terrorism?

sonicare

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.

[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

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

sonicare

[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

[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

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.

The end doesnt justify the means. sonicare

[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

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.

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.)

[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.)

[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.)

[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

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.

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? >.>

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

[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

[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

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.

[QUOTE="DigitalExile"]

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

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.

[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.

[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.

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.