[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Yes I think it is probably the biggest terroristic act in the history of mankind.sonicareI give that to the holocaust. I would call that a genocidal act though.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
I'd imagine the Japaneses when they saw the mushroom clouds were as much terrorized (If not more) as the Americans when they say the WTC fall.
But i've never experienced political 'terrorism', what do I know?
Oh you Eastern Khalijis. You should visit Qassim or Al-Nadhim/Suwaidi in Riyadh. ;) :PI'd imagine the Japaneses when they saw the mushroom clouds were as much terrorized (If not more) as the Americans when they say the WTC fall.
But i've never experienced political 'terrorism', what do I know?
TehFuneral
OT: like it or not, it was a terrorist act no matter what. The problem here lies with the justification. Which kinda makes you think a little more about modern-day Islamic-terrorism...
When nations fight it's called "war" not "terrorism."
For the record, Pearl Harbor wasn't terrorism. The United States had allied with nations who were against Japan, and Pearl Harbor is a MILITARY OUTPOST. Was it a surprise? Yes. But we had declared war (at this point) with Japans enemies.MorningJuturna
I agree with this.
EDIT:
Almost any military action can fall under the ****fication as terrorism. Pearl Harbor was a terrorist act. Germany's terror bombing against the dutch was terrorist. The allied bombing campaign against the germans was terrorism. The russian campaign against the german countryside was terrorism. Japan's actions in China were terrorism. Etc.
sonicare
Firing a machinegun at three enemy soldiers in a trench is terrorism. You know, because that'll make them terrified.
Oh you Eastern Khalijis. You should visit Qassim or Al-Nadhim/Suwaidi in Riyadh. ;) :P[QUOTE="TehFuneral"]
I'd imagine the Japaneses when they saw the mushroom clouds were as much terrorized (If not more) as the Americans when they say the WTC fall.
But i've never experienced political 'terrorism', what do I know?
Victorious_Fize
What lies in there? ;O
Terrorism is just the new buzzword for war. I think Terrorism just needs a new press agent to overhaul its image.spazzx625It is a term redefined over and over to suit political interests. One day it is terrorism, the next day is fighting for freedom and against oppression. It's like calling murdering innocent people "collateral damage" or calling torture "harsh interrogation techniques". Euphemisms go hand to hand with the hypocrisy of politicians.
I on the other hand, can't believe the lengths some people will go to just to defend the country they are from even when it's blatantly obvious they're wrong. I'm not talking just about Americans, i'm talking about everyone everywhere. Most of the users here are Americans i guess, so that's one reason why people here try so hard to make the US look like the good guys EVERY SINGLE TIME![QUOTE="MikadoNY"]What other choice would their have been? LOL at the insane amount of s*** people would say just to blame America. I also like how no one replied to the two good posts and just overlooked them in this thread. Guess when you know you lost the argument, ignore that post and argue with someone else.Stavrogin_
But, visit some other forums, French, Russian, Serbian, Italian etc etc, you'll see people defending their countries and blaming others even when it's so goddamn obvious their country is not guilt free.
Stupid patriotism and nationalism brainwashed (almost) everyone... :(
Most people are going to defend their own country. From what I've seen this forum is probably 60/40 American. The reason why Americans defend our country is because every non-American tries to make us seem like the devil. I'll be the first to say America was wrong in most situations, but I honestly believe what we did was the best option. Was it right? No. But it's war. Is there ever a right option? As others have said, Japan would have not surrendered.[QUOTE="Treflis"]No, but it did breach the Geneva convention.LJS9502_basicWhich didn't exist until after the war....so no...it didn't. Incorrect. Geneva conventions existed long before WWII. Whether the attack violated it or not I'm not sure though. As far as classing the bombing as terrorism it does fit the literal term as it was the use of terror to coerce a side into giving into demands. It was also an attack on civilians. I'm not going to bother arguing whether it was justified or not but it was terrorism as far as the actual term goes. I never got why people are so uppity about defending their countries past actions, every country has made mistakes. It's not like saying that nuking civilians was a terrible thing to do is going to somehow cheapen the US.
[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]I on the other hand, can't believe the lengths some people will go to just to defend the country they are from even when it's blatantly obvious they're wrong. I'm not talking just about Americans, i'm talking about everyone everywhere. Most of the users here are Americans i guess, so that's one reason why people here try so hard to make the US look like the good guys EVERY SINGLE TIME![QUOTE="MikadoNY"]What other choice would their have been? LOL at the insane amount of s*** people would say just to blame America. I also like how no one replied to the two good posts and just overlooked them in this thread. Guess when you know you lost the argument, ignore that post and argue with someone else.MikadoNY
But, visit some other forums, French, Russian, Serbian, Italian etc etc, you'll see people defending their countries and blaming others even when it's so goddamn obvious their country is not guilt free.
Stupid patriotism and nationalism brainwashed (almost) everyone... :(
Most people are going to defend their own country. From what I've seen this forum is probably 60/40 American. The reason why Americans defend our country is because every non-American tries to make us seem like the devil. I'll be the first to say America was wrong in most situations, but I honestly believe what we did was the best option. Was it right? No. But it's war. Is there ever a right option? As others have said, Japan would have not surrendered. Exactly this. Hell, japan didnt flinch when the first nuke went off, it took a 2nd one to make them give up[QUOTE="MikadoNY"][QUOTE="Stavrogin_"] I on the other hand, can't believe the lengths some people will go to just to defend the country they are from even when it's blatantly obvious they're wrong. I'm not talking just about Americans, i'm talking about everyone everywhere. Most of the users here are Americans i guess, so that's one reason why people here try so hard to make the US look like the good guys EVERY SINGLE TIME!Most people are going to defend their own country. From what I've seen this forum is probably 60/40 American. The reason why Americans defend our country is because every non-American tries to make us seem like the devil. I'll be the first to say America was wrong in most situations, but I honestly believe what we did was the best option. Was it right? No. But it's war. Is there ever a right option? As others have said, Japan would have not surrendered. Exactly this. Hell, japan didnt flinch when the first nuke went off, it took a 2nd one to make them give up Not entirely true. The first nuke scared the **** out of them but most people agree they were under the assumption that the US couldn't manage that again. Obviously when it happened again they saw they were wrong and the US could just wipe them off the map if they were so inclined. Really doesn't help that they had the entire Red Army marching on them after the first bomb went off. I know the Japanese said they would fight to the last woman and child but lets face it, they wouldn't have. But yes I agree that while it was a terrible thing to do it was arguably the "right" thing to do. The way thing worked out has in the long run has worked out pretty well for everyone and it taught us all a valuable lesson on why nukes = bad.But, visit some other forums, French, Russian, Serbian, Italian etc etc, you'll see people defending their countries and blaming others even when it's so goddamn obvious their country is not guilt free.
Stupid patriotism and nationalism brainwashed (almost) everyone... :(
wis3boi
Most people are going to defend their own country. From what I've seen this forum is probably 60/40 American. The reason why Americans defend our country is because every non-American tries to make us seem like the devil...MikadoNY
Ironically, some groups/nations feel America is making them look like devils.
I consider it in the same kind of absurdity as if some people would consider things like the Holocaust and 9/11 "right things".kuraimen
The Holocaust and 9/11 both failed to accomplish any of their perpetator's goals, and almost certainly worked against them. The nuclear attack in '45 accomplished its perpetator's goals, in quite a dramatic fashion.
[QUOTE="mayceV"] Yes it kinda was, Why didn't they go on the ground? that was an option if they didn't want to kill thousnads. However they chose to kill them to finish the war quicker. So you're basically saying If I declare war on a country wait it out then i can nuke'm? It'd be terrorism if I drop a bomb on civlians why is it any diffrent if i did it in a war enviroment? War is between militaries why was the bomb not dropped on a military target rather two massive civilian centers? Its like saying I have the right to drop a nuke on NY if the war was getting exauhsting. It is to deal a Psychological blow to the Japanese telling hey I'm here i killed 200,000 civilians and I'll do it again if you don't meet my demands. 2nd bomb 150,000 annihilated. What if say Hamas or Iran did that to a country it was at war with( say the both magically got nukes)? Wasdie
Please do some research on the culture of Japan during the 1930s and 1940s. We didn't invade because of the amount of dead we would cause by invading.
The Japanese people had been brainwashed for years, surrender to them was something worse than death. Dying for the emperor was the highest honor you could achive. To show this devotion, after each battle on the islands leading up to Japan, 99% of the Japanese army would have to be destroyed, they did not surrender. To make it worse, the civilians shared the same mentality. On Okinawa mothers were throwing their babies off of a cliff before jumping off themselves, all so they could avoid surrender. This wasn't an isolated incident, this was common practice by the Japanese.
Taking a further look into Japan you'll see they were training nearly everybody to resist until they were dead. Children at school had dedicated PT and hand-to-hand combat training, cities were fortified pretty heavily with outer defenses, and the beaches of Japan made Fortress Europe look like legos. The conservative exterminate at the time was that no less than 1 million Americans would be killed in the fighting. Considering what they had seen in past battles, the Japanese people would be slaughtered by the hundreds of thousands as dying for their god (the empreor) was more honorable than surrender.
Japan as we know it today would not exist. What is worse is that Russia would have invaded from the North before the USA could secure the mainland. Do some research on how the Russian invasion of Germany went. You'll quickly realize how bad it could have really been in Japan.
You should do some homework before making these claims. You're taking everything out of context to prove a very misguided and silly point.
Yeah this is true. After the emperor broadcasted the surrender message, there was an attempted coup to continue the war. Needless to say, it was successful.[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. Take into account Japan's undying will to fight on and the fact the US lives would be at stake as well. More people would die overall had they not dropped them. Unless you prefer more mass murder to mass murder, I don't get what your point is. Was Japan attacking Pearl Harbor a pure act of terrorism? Or was it an act of war? There's a difference.
[QUOTE="mayceV"][QUOTE="mrmusicman247"]I'm pretty sure it was retaliation.Saturos3091...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. Take into account Japan's undying will to fight on and the fact the US lives would be at stake as well. More people would die overall had they not dropped them. Unless you prefer more mass murder to mass murder, I don't get what your point is. Was Japan attacking Pearl Harbor a pure act of terrorism? Or was it an act of war? There's a difference. it was actually an act of subterfuge (we'd call it terrorism now I guess) which ended up being an act of war. It wasn't Japans intent to go to war with the US but it's what they got. A miscalculated act of terrorism that ended up in a war. Also the two are not mutually exclusive. Morally though there's no high ground here. The US maybe had it at first but it's hard to claim the moral high ground when you vaporize civilians.
[QUOTE="kuraimen"]I consider it in the same kind of absurdity as if some people would consider things like the Holocaust and 9/11 "right things".Palantas
The Holocaust and 9/11 both failed to accomplish any of their perpetator's goals, and almost certainly worked against them. The nuclear attack in '45 accomplished its perpetator's goals, in quite a dramatic fashion.
Well you could say the taught the world many important lessons. And I think you could argue that 9/11 managed to destabilize the US enough by luring it intop two unwinnable wars which is in part basically what OBL & Co. wanted.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Treflis"]No, but it did breach the Geneva convention.Ace6301Which didn't exist until after the war....so no...it didn't. Incorrect. Geneva conventions existed long before WWII. Whether the attack violated it or not I'm not sure though. As far as classing the bombing as terrorism it does fit the literal term as it was the use of terror to coerce a side into giving into demands. It was also an attack on civilians. I'm not going to bother arguing whether it was justified or not but it was terrorism as far as the actual term goes. I never got why people are so uppity about defending their countries past actions, every country has made mistakes. It's not like saying that nuking civilians was a terrible thing to do is going to somehow cheapen the US. Uh not that part of which we've been discussing in this thread...to wit.... The singular term Geneva Convention denotes the agreements of 1949, negotiated in the aftermath of the Second World War (1939–45), which updated the terms of the first three treaties (1864, 1906, 1929), and added a fourth treaty. The articles of the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949) extensively defined the basic rights of prisoners (civil and military) during war; established protections for the wounded; and established protections for the civilians in and around a war zone.
Note what is highligted......and thus it occured AFTER WW2.
Well you could say the taught the world many important lessons. And I think you could argue that 9/11 managed to destabilize the US enough by luring it intop two unwinnable wars which is in part basically what OBL & Co. wanted.kuraimen
Yeah, someone could say that. I wouldn't, because that's ridiculous. The US isn't destabilized. History will tell if the war in Iraq was won (though it probably won't be), and Afghanistan is only "unwinnable" due to the way we fight wars today (meaning we won't take the necessary steps to win, like in 1945). As to what Osama bin Laden wanted, are you telling me he wanted more Western presence in Muslim countries?
Oh, and hey kuraimen, are you doing that thing again where you respond to only half the objections made to your ideas? Did you just forget about your flawed comparison between the nuclear attack on Japan and the Holocaust? Here, I'll remind you:
The Holocaust and 9/11 both failed to accomplish any of their perpetator's goals, and almost certainly worked against them. The nuclear attack in '45 accomplished its perpetator's goals, in quite a dramatic fashion.
I
The Holocaust greatly disrupted Germany's efforts in the East, and wasted immense efforts that could have been spent on the war. It actively worked against their war effort. This is the exact opposite of what the nuclear bombings did. These events are in no way comparable, and I suspect you only included it to get an emotional reaction out of people. Sorry kuraimen, we're not that stupid. Comparisons have to be based on similarity in principles, not similarity in the emotions they create.
I see you're arguing with Ace. kuraimen, your ability to get into arguments in the same thread, with different people who between themselves never agree on anything is quite impressive.
The fact that things turned out better than expected is not a good justification for such an awful act.
kuraimen
Why not?
So I don't buy the excuse that "it saved lives", I think that's a very lame excuse.
kuraimen
Why not?
[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Well you could say the taught the world many important lessons. And I think you could argue that 9/11 managed to destabilize the US enough by luring it intop two unwinnable wars which is in part basically what OBL & Co. wanted.Palantas
Yeah, someone could say that. I wouldn't, because that's ridiculous. The US isn't destabilized. History will tell if the war in Iraq was won (though it probably won't be), and Afghanistan is only "unwinnable" due to the way we fight wars today (meaning we won't take the necessary steps to win, like in 1945). As to what Osama bin Laden wanted, are you telling me he wanted more Western presence in Muslim countries?
Oh, and hey kuraimen, are you doing that thing again where you respond to only half the objections made to your ideas? Did you just forget about your flawed comparison between the nuclear attack on Japan and the Holocaust? Here, I'll remind you:
The Holocaust and 9/11 both failed to accomplish any of their perpetator's goals, and almost certainly worked against them. The nuclear attack in '45 accomplished its perpetator's goals, in quite a dramatic fashion.
I
The Holocaust greatly disrupted Germany's efforts in the East, and wasted immense efforts that could have been spent on the war. It actively worked against their war effort. This is the exact opposite of what the nuclear bombings did. These events are in no way comparable, and I suspect you only included it to get an emotional reaction out of people. Sorry kuraimen, we're not that stupid. Comparisons have to be based on similarity in principles, not similarity in the emotions they create.
Well I think the idea that nuking Japan helped "save lives" is equally ridiculous and that's why I would never support or say that.Well I think the idea that nuking Japan helped "save lives" is equally ridiculous and that's why I would never support or say that.kuraimen
Fine. Since you're offering no defense to your position, are you admitting that your comparison between the nuclear attacks and 9/11 and the Holocaust is flawed?
[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Well I think the idea that nuking Japan helped "save lives" is equally ridiculous and that's why I would never support or say that.Palantas
Fine. Since you're offering no defense to your position, are you admitting that your comparison between the nuclear attacks and 9/11 and the Holocaust is flawed?
No it's not flawed, it served to make my point.No it's not flawed, it served to make my point.
kuraimen
I'm sorry, kuraimen, we have to write correct comparisons for them to make a point. If you feel your comparison is not flawed, then I'm sure you'll have no trouble answering the many challenges I raised against it:
[quote="kuraimen"]
Well you could say the taught the world many important lessons. And I think you could argue that 9/11 managed to destabilize the US enough by luring it intop two unwinnable wars which is in part basically what OBL & Co. wanted.I
Yeah, someone could say that. I wouldn't, because that's ridiculous. The US isn't destabilized. History will tell if the war in Iraq was won (though it probably won't be), and Afghanistan is only "unwinnable" due to the way we fight wars today (meaning we won't take the necessary steps to win, like in 1945). As to what Osama bin Laden wanted, are you telling me he wanted more Western presence in Muslim countries?
Oh, and hey kuraimen, are you doing that thing again where you respond to only half the objections made to your ideas? Did you just forget about your flawed comparison between the nuclear attack on Japan and the Holocaust? Here, I'll remind you:
The Holocaust and 9/11 both failed to accomplish any of their perpetator's goals, and almost certainly worked against them. The nuclear attack in '45 accomplished its perpetator's goals, in quite a dramatic fashion.
I
The Holocaust greatly disrupted Germany's efforts in the East, and wasted immense efforts that could have been spent on the war. It actively worked against their war effort. This is the exact opposite of what the nuclear bombings did. These events are in no way comparable, and I suspect you only included it to get an emotional reaction out of people. Sorry kuraimen, we're not that stupid. Comparisons have to be based on similarity in principles, not similarity in the emotions they create.
And explain why you wrote this red herring when I originally wrote the above challenge:
Well I think the idea that nuking Japan helped "save lives" is equally ridiculous and that's why I would never support or say that.kuraimen
I was not challenging the "nukes saved lives" idea in the above post. I was challenging your flawed comparison...obviously.
[quote="kuraimen"]
I'm sorry, kuraimen, we have to write correct comparisons for them to make a point. If you feel your comparison is not flawed, then I'm sure you'll have no trouble answering the many challenges I raised against it:
[quote="I"]
The Holocaust greatly disrupted Germany's efforts in the East, and wasted immense efforts that could have been spent on the war. It actively worked against their war effort. This is the exact opposite of what the nuclear bombings did. These events are in no way comparable, and I suspect you only included it to get an emotional reaction out of people. Sorry kuraimen, we're not that stupid. Comparisons have to be based on similarity in principles, not similarity in the emotions they create.
Palantas
And explain why you wrote this red herring when I originally wrote the above challenge:
Well I think the idea that nuking Japan helped "save lives" is equally ridiculous and that's why I would never support or say that.kuraimen
I was not challenging the "nukes saved lives" idea in the above post. I was challenging your flawed comparison...obviously.
Well the person I was quoting said that you can't compare the Holocaust or 9/11 because it was not the right thing to do like nuking Japan was. I said that some people could actually think that it was the right thing to do by actually making ridiculous justifications like the ones above. You then said that you found those justifications ridiculous, I find justifying nuking Japan as the right thing because someone thinks it saved lives ridiculous.
So the comparison actually helped make my point
I think there were and are enough governemnt, army officials and historians that agree that it was not the best thing to do and that it was basically unecessary to end the war so I'll go with them.kuraimen
Not the government, army officials, and historians who agreed it was the best thing to do...and did it, and things turned out well (for the US). Well, I think I'll go with those guys, because their opinions fit better with my preconceived notions.
[QUOTE="kuraimen"]I think there were and are enough governemnt, army officials and historians that agree that it was not the best thing to do and that it was basically unecessary to end the war so I'll go with them.Palantas
Not the government, army officials, and historians who agreed it was the best thing to do...and did it, and things turned out well (for the US). Well, I think I'll go with those guys, because their opinions fit better with my preconceived notions.
Well that's what happens. People go with whom they trust more and with the reasoning that fits more their world view. I trust more the people who were and are against it (many of whom were government and army officials at the time) because I won't be able to ever justify how killing 200 thousand innocent people is the best or right course of action in my mind.It's not terrorism if you've been at an open, conventional war with the country for 4 years prior.
Wasdie
Is that the official number? Like if i look up terrorism the definitions will say, "no act is considered terrorism if the two sides have been at war for no less than four years."
[QUOTE="Palantas"][QUOTE="kuraimen"]I think there were and are enough governemnt, army officials and historians that agree that it was not the best thing to do and that it was basically unecessary to end the war so I'll go with them.kuraimen
Not the government, army officials, and historians who agreed it was the best thing to do...and did it, and things turned out well (for the US). Well, I think I'll go with those guys, because their opinions fit better with my preconceived notions.
Well that's what happens. People go with whom they trust more and with the reasoning that fits more their world view. I trust more the people who were and are against it (many of whom were government and army officials at the time) because I won't be able to ever justify how killing 200 thousand innocent people is the best or right course of action in my mind. Bias doesn't equate to right though. As for war......it tends to have a death toll don't you think?Well that's what happens. People go with whom they trust more and with the reasoning that fits more their world view. I trust more the people who were and are against it (many of whom were government and army officials at the time) because I won't be able to ever justify how killing 200 thousand innocent people is the best or right course of action in my mind.kuraimen
You're opposed to all of the strategic air campaigns in World War II, correct?
[QUOTE="Wasdie"]
It's not terrorism if you've been at an open, conventional war with the country for 4 years prior.
GTALoco
Is that the official number? Like if i look up terrorism the definitions will say, "no act is considered terrorism if the two sides have been at war for no less than four years."
Hehe, I like this.
[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Palantas"]Well that's what happens. People go with whom they trust more and with the reasoning that fits more their world view. I trust more the people who were and are against it (many of whom were government and army officials at the time) because I won't be able to ever justify how killing 200 thousand innocent people is the best or right course of action in my mind. Bias doesn't equate to right though. As for war......it tends to have a death toll don't you think?Not the government, army officials, and historians who agreed it was the best thing to do...and did it, and things turned out well (for the US). Well, I think I'll go with those guys, because their opinions fit better with my preconceived notions.
LJS9502_basic
What?
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment