Message boards :
Politics :
Terrorism... or not
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
fpiaw Send message Joined: 29 Dec 99 Posts: 236 Credit: 1,203,409 RAC: 0 |
By your definition of a terrorist I have two questions for you. 1.) Is north korea a terrorist and therefore bush was wrong to remove them from the list of terrorist countries? They use their power to create fear in their people and other countries in the world. They love to target innocents. 2.) *note I support almost everything we did in WW2* that said by your definition we were terrorist in WW2. One of our tactics was to bomb areas in Germany and Japan to create fear in the general population(target innocents). So they would not support their own leaders. Do you believe that we were justified in using terrorism in WW2? Chris. I have yet to see a credible explanation of terrorist. |
Aristoteles Doukas Send message Joined: 11 Apr 08 Posts: 1091 Credit: 2,140,913 RAC: 0 |
The difference is that our Military doesn't target civilians on purpose i have served in army, and , surprise, they are collective of idiots. sorry, that how it goes- have you? |
Aristoteles Doukas Send message Joined: 11 Apr 08 Posts: 1091 Credit: 2,140,913 RAC: 0 |
[quote]By your definition of a terrorist I have two questions for you. 1.) Is north korea a terrorist and therefore bush was wrong to remove them from the list of terrorist countries? They use their power to create fear in their people and other countries in the world. They love to target innocents. 2.) *note I support almost everything we did in WW2* that said by your definition we were terrorist in WW2. One of our tactics was to bomb areas in Germany and Japan to create fear in the general population(target innocents). So they would not support their own leaders. Do you believe that we were justified in using terrorism in WW2? Chris. i like you |
zoom3+1=4 Send message Joined: 30 Nov 03 Posts: 65736 Credit: 55,293,173 RAC: 49 |
The difference is that our Military doesn't target civilians on purpose I said I had already, My Dad(He didn't believe in being called a Father as He thought that the word Father was for a Priest only) and My Uncle served back in WWII, My Brother served in the US Navy for just over 20 Years, He would have retired after 30 years, But His specialty was being phased out, So just over 20 was going to have to do, As soon as He retired He had 23 years to live(Lung Cancer and Emphysema and the Cancer spread to His brain in the last Year). The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's |
Parasite Send message Joined: 24 Jul 08 Posts: 23 Credit: 2,443 RAC: 0 |
The difference is that our Military doesn't target civilians on purpose Actually Terror comes in many forms and the Military does it just as often as any other. The example below is but one of many. The Germans were defeated the city was UNARMED and mostly civilian population. The point is not to disrespect your point of view or the Military but to prove a point that even the Military massacres civilians when ordered to by their Governments. Care to justify this? February 14-15, 1945: Night indiscriminate bombing against the city of Dresden. 805 RAF bombers dropped fire bombs causing a huge Fire Hurricane. Between 35.000 and 135.000 civilians are estimated to be killed. Many people think this massacre was not justified due to the war situation (The german defeat was only a matter of days). No massacre is ever justified of course. |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30637 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
The difference is that our Military doesn't target civilians on purpose Neither side was innocent. Firebombing is just obscene, but then all war is. However whatever one side does, the other will retaliate with. I suppose it does end it faster. |
zoom3+1=4 Send message Joined: 30 Nov 03 Posts: 65736 Credit: 55,293,173 RAC: 49 |
The difference is that our Military doesn't target civilians on purpose And as You pointed out those were RAF bombers, Here's a reason and why It had to be done(And that was 12 days, But at the time this was unknown to the Allied High Command as hindsight is always 20/20 the Future can be very murky): Bombing of Dresden in World War II wrote:
Note some bridges and other structures were not hit, Why? As there were only so many Heavy Bombers(Lancasters gained worldwide renown as the "Dam Buster" used in the 1943 Operation Chastise raids on Germany's Ruhr Valley dams.) available to the Brits, It's not like The Brits had an Inexhaustible supply of Planes or People as the Brits Bombed at Night, The USAAF bombed only during the Day and did not bomb Dresden. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II How many more People would have died that were still in Nazi hands had this hub not been crushed utterly. Millions of People had already died at the hands of the Nazis, Why? For being no more than who they were and what they believed in, Or for their opinion, Or If they were disabled, Or If they were Gypsies(Roma) or Jews, Or even anybody who objected to the Thefts of Artworks and Gold by the Nazis, And their was No German resistance was ever allowed to exist as the Gestapo was utterly ruthless in their torture methods, If You spoke out, Were of a political party that was forbidden after the Enabling Act was approved or for any other reason, One was either sent to a Labor Camp to be worked to death or directly to a death camp to be exterminated, The Nazis had ordered after the Battle of the Bulge that POWs be executed as they were a drain on the war effort and Some SS Units at the Malmedy Massacre did just this and POWs there were massacred after they had already surrendered, This at least was not done elsewhere after this to other POWs in the Camps. The Nazis were truly Evil and were not Christians as they believed they were the Master Race and all others would be either enslaved or exterminated. Irans Revolutionary Guard=SS Troops(Schutzstaffel(German for "Protective Squadron")) The Brits made one other error in WWII, Specifically: "Operation Market Garden" or as Hollywood called It "A Bridge too Far". Oh and I did find a Reference to the Holocaust in WWII here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust Jews, Slavs, Ethnic Poles, South and East Slavs, Soviet POWs, Roma, Disabled and mentally ill, Homosexuals, Freemasons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Political activists(German communists, socialists and trade unionists were among the earliest domestic opponents of Nazism) were rounded up and exterminated or worked to death in Labor camps. The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's |
Scary Capitalist Send message Joined: 21 May 01 Posts: 7404 Credit: 97,085 RAC: 0 |
I really don't know why Jeffey has a right to post anything about this topic which presumes notionally the right of free religion when recently he responded to the news story about christians being beaten in England for proselytizing ina moslem neighborhood with the comment, "what are they doing in a moslem neighborhood anyway?" I'm an atheist. Naturally I defended the right of the christians to speak anywhere they choose. People's tolerance for intolerance and violence is astounding.... Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data! I did NOT authorize this belly writing! |
Parasite Send message Joined: 24 Jul 08 Posts: 23 Credit: 2,443 RAC: 0 |
U.S. authorities apply different labels to crimes committed by two extremists -- one Muslim, the other Jewish. To bring this back on topic, I don't see much difference between Hate crime and Terrorist in this instance both are guilty of the same basic crime. A hatred and intolorance of someone who doesn't believe the same thing they believe. As for the example I used with Dresden. Proponents of the "war crime" position argue that the devastation known to be caused by firebombing was greater than anything that could be justified by military necessity alone, and that this establishes their case on a prima facie basis. The Allies were aware of the effects of firebombing, as British cities had been subject to them during the Blitz.[129] "War crime" proponents say that Dresden did not have a military garrison, that most of the industry was in the outskirts and not in the targeted city centre,[130] and that the cultural significance of the city should have precluded the Allies from bombing it. British historian Anthony Beevor wrote that Dresden was considered relatively safe, having been spared previous RAF night attacks, and that at the time of the raids there were up to 300,000 refugees in the city seeking sanctuary from the fighting on the Eastern Front.[131] In Fire Sites, German revisionist historian Jörg Friedrich agrees that the RAF's relentless bombing campaign against German cities in the last months of the war served no military purpose.[132] The bombing served no real Military purpose, The Nazi's had lost anyone watching the advances Allied troops were making could see that, You didn't need to be a General or have hindsight to see the outcome, Germany was pushed back on all fronts and the end was near. The bombing was nothing more than a vicious retaliation strike to further punish the Germans for all that had happened in the war. Add to that Military intelligence KNEW the city was filled with refugees who wanted nothing more to do with the war and were not even armed. And that isn't much different than what we call Terrorist bombings today. There were other ways to have handled the German troops without utterly destroying a civilian target that at that late stage of the war couldn't have changed the outcome of the war even with its intacked industry. |
Jeffrey Send message Joined: 21 Nov 03 Posts: 4793 Credit: 26,029 RAC: 0 |
To bring this back on topic Why bother? Ya'll missed the point anyway... ;) Remember the rules: 1. Accuse your enemy of doing what you intend to do... 2. Do the exact opposite of what you said you would do... 3. Blame your enemy for doing what you have just done... Now go read the first two paragraphs again... It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . . |
Aristoteles Doukas Send message Joined: 11 Apr 08 Posts: 1091 Credit: 2,140,913 RAC: 0 |
U.S. authorities apply different labels to crimes committed by two extremists -- one Muslim, the other Jewish. second time i thank you for tolerate post, nice to see some niceties in here |
Rush Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 3131 Credit: 302,569 RAC: 0 |
By your definition of a terrorist I have two questions for you. It gets really dicey when you start ascribing things to countries as a whole, because they do so many things, some of which can be 180 degrees removed from other things that they do. Yes, I think that the DPRK has often sought to sponsor acts of terrorism. As far whether Dubya is right or wrong to use incentives to change the DPRK's behavior, well, that's just an opinion call. 2.) *note I support almost everything we did in WW2* that said by your definition we were terrorist in WW2. One of our tactics was to bomb areas in Germany and Japan to create fear in the general population(target innocents). So they would not support their own leaders. Do you believe that we were justified in using terrorism in WW2? I think you're trying to shoehorn the definition of terrorism into a war. Regardless of all the feelgood rhetoric concerning war and how wars should be fought and all that BS, wars are fought to be won. That isn't blowing up buses and trains in London, or 9/11, both of which match all the criteria noted previously. It's war. All out war. In a war, the populace is held ultimately responsible for the existence of it's gov't, regardless of all the "rules" that make people feel better about them. Terrorism applies then in some contexts, but not in others. Cordially, Rush elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com Remove the obvious... |
fpiaw Send message Joined: 29 Dec 99 Posts: 236 Credit: 1,203,409 RAC: 0 |
Thanks for your answers. However, I take issue with the answer to question 2. The people attacking our country ... the people that our politicians say we are at war with (the war on terror) do not have a country. They don't have standard army or methods of attacking. You say that "in war the populace is held ultimately responsible for the existence of it's gov't". This is what the terrorist are saying to us. They are saying "Because your government supports our enemies we are hold the populace responsible." A concept that you agree with and to a degree I agree with. This is how they justify bombing buildings in New York and subways in London. This is the same reasoning that you used to say that we could attack buildings in Germany and Japan. Going as far as to nuke two cities in Japan(which by the way I supported for many reasons). The fact is that we needed to win WW2 and that is why we did "terrorism" in WW2. And that is why they are doing it today. They are at war with us and are holding our people ultimately responsible for the existence of our gov't and it actions. I'm sorry to say that the terrorists have a point here. Now can't we all just get along and crush the terrorists instead of invading the wrong countries and creating more. Chris. By your definition of a terrorist I have two questions for you. |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30637 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
Thanks for your answers. The people of Japan were willing to commit suicide for their God. The people who do suicide bombings today are obviously willing to do the same. The world still hasn't learned the lesson. |
zoom3+1=4 Send message Joined: 30 Nov 03 Posts: 65736 Credit: 55,293,173 RAC: 49 |
Thanks for your answers. agreed. The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's |
fpiaw Send message Joined: 29 Dec 99 Posts: 236 Credit: 1,203,409 RAC: 0 |
Interesting point. I feel that nations and faiths do suicide bombings or attacks out of desperation when they don't have other resources to fight with. Japan did the majority of them when their war resources ran out. If Japan and Germany had beaten American's army in WW2 and were invading Kansas I feel that a few or maybe of lot of us Americans would have done suicide bombings or attacks. Don't you? Charge into emeny forces with no real chance to live ... just to weaken them in some chance that other Americans can live longer? Chris. Thanks for your answers. |
Jeffrey Send message Joined: 21 Nov 03 Posts: 4793 Credit: 26,029 RAC: 0 |
The people of Japan were willing to commit suicide for their God. The Japanese did it out of loyalty to their country, the 'terrorists' do it to fight persecution and oppression... ;) (Maybe you should stop blaming God long enough to look yourself in the mirror.) It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . . |
champ Send message Joined: 12 Mar 03 Posts: 3642 Credit: 1,489,147 RAC: 0 |
Thanks for your answers. They did not for their God. They have done for their Country an Tenno. |
Rush Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 3131 Credit: 302,569 RAC: 0 |
Thanks for your answers. You're all over the place here. American B52s are clearly marked. The planes that firebombed Dresden were clearly marked. The civilian populace (not to mention the military) were well within their rights to seek to shoot them down. But what you're doing is expanding a relatively small concept (terrorist, or terrorism) to apply to open warfare. That doesn't work because war, especially world war, is the ultimate attempt to completely and utterly disassemble the conventions of civilization. Similarly, military attacks can and are designed to bring about the goal of doing so. That the mentally muddled try to justify bombings in New York and London the same way is just silly. Such tactics do not work and never have. This is the same reasoning that you used to say that we could attack buildings in Germany and Japan. Going as far as to nuke two cities in Japan(which by the way I supported for many reasons). The fact is that we needed to win WW2 and that is why we did "terrorism" in WW2. Again, the concept of terrorism is too small to be expanded to encompass all-out wars where an attempt is being made to utterly destroy a country or a culture. And that is why they are doing it today. They are at war with us and are holding our people ultimately responsible for the existence of our gov't and it actions. That they use such justifications does not mean that they have a valid point. Look at the idiocy posted on these boards as an example--just because people say stupid things does not mean that they are true. The people you are referring to deliberately hide to do things to cause fear, to support an ideological agenda, that deliberately target innocents, and that cannot hope to bring about their desired result. Attempting to win a world war, with clearly marked weapons and soldiers, as the non-aggressor, that can and did bring about the desired result is a much different concept. I'm sorry to say that the terrorists have a point here. To you, maybe. I think they are just so frustrated with impotence that they use these miserable tactics to make themselves feel better that they've done something. Kinda like all the back-patters here, just not as bomby or killy. Now can't we all just get along and crush the terrorists instead of invading the wrong countries and creating more. This is once again just an opinion call. Killing "terrorists" over there is like shooting fish in a barrel. The more fanatic ones make it a point to travel over there, where they get to play the fish in the barrel. While you may be of the mind that that "creat[es] more" of them, well, terrorists have existed long before the U.S. went into Iraq, and they will exist long after. Key point: they will exist because they always have and they always will. Dubya may annoy the crap out of a few more of them, but no matter who wins this election the net result is more status quo. And there will plenty of terrorists regardless. Cordially, Rush elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com Remove the obvious... |
zoom3+1=4 Send message Joined: 30 Nov 03 Posts: 65736 Credit: 55,293,173 RAC: 49 |
Thanks for your answers. Champ before the End of WWII in the Pacific Emperor Hirohito was considered a Living God, At the Surrender He became a Constitutional Monarch. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_the_Japanese_consider_their_emperor_a_living_god The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.