Terror Can Be Noble

[dcentity2000]

I regard the A-bombs dropped on Japan as technical acts of terrorism; would you, today, warrant the strikes at primarily civilian targets, such as the blitz or modern day car bombs?

Terrorism is an intention to cause terror to further your goal, be it destruction (Osama), independence (Arafat, America) or both (IRA, ETA). The bombs terrified the enemy into submission through mass death.

It worked and perhaps when the only course of action open to you is terror, terror itself can be the right action.



Rich::

 

[VampHeartless]

Originally posted by dcentity2000
I regard the A-bombs dropped on Japan as technical acts of terrorism; would you, today, warrant the strikes at primarily civilian targets, such as the blitz or modern day car bombs?

Terrorism is an intention to cause terror to further your goal, be it destruction (Osama), independence (Arafat, America) or both (IRA, ETA). The bombs terrified the enemy into submission through mass death.

It worked and perhaps when the only course of action open to you is terror, terror itself can be the right action.



Rich::

The US was convicted of WAR crimes for both of these bombings...although we never faced reprecussions.

 

[rcyannacci]

Originally posted by jrydberg
Equating a bit of wartime intimidation from a bygone era with modern terrorism is just plain absurd IMO. One can just as easily say that Union troops in the Civil War were terrorists. They didn't "terrorize" civilians in either case.

Wow! This is opening up a big can of worms. Union troops definitely did terrorize civilians in the South- Sherman's march maybe?

In many ways I agree that it is beyond difficult to compare examples from a previous century before the advent of modern (or even postmodern) warfare. The scale changes drastically when bombs can wipe out thousands and a plane can topple a skyscraper.

But I think there are also ways for us to consider our history critically and learn from past mistakes. Wholesale rejection of past atrocities commited on behalf of America (this is not directed at jrydberg specifically, but the general tone of the thread) is the type of patriotism that will ultimately hurt America, not help it.

 

[Teejay32]

Terrorism is a tool of the weak and outnumbered. It rarely has lofty goals. I don't know why there is interest in putting a noble sheen on it in the first place.

 

[chadfromdallas]

Originally posted by Teejay32
Terrorism is a tool of the weak and outnumbered.

Only the weak and outnumbered?

I don't think so.

/pokes Shock and Awe

 

[dcentity2000]

My point is that half the reasons people condemn the bad guys for is simply a double bladed sword; ie. the same actions, usually when the movement succeeds to the poster's benefit, are given a positive spin when it suits.

The American Revolution, the English Civil War, the Great Revolution of Russia, every one of these was founded on violence as was Arafat's campaign and Bin Laden's campaign. The only difference is the intention of the outcome or the type of person that each leader is.



Rich::

 

[BuckNaked]

Originally posted by VampHeartless
The US was convicted of WAR crimes for both of these bombings...although we never faced reprecussions.

Really? When and by whom?

Link please.

 

[dcentity2000]

Actually, I think he's right...

Google it; you'll probably find it If you do, post the link



Rich::

 

[BuckNaked]

Originally posted by dcentity2000
Actually, I think he's right...

Google it; you'll probably find it If you do, post the link



Rich::

Actually, I think he's wrong. And he made the statement of fact, so surely he must have something with which to back up that statement. I'm not going to look it up for him.

 

[dcentity2000]

Originally posted by BuckNaked
Actually, I think he's wrong. And he made the statement of fact, so surely he must have something with which to back up that statement. I'm not going to look it up for him.

that's not nice! You doubt, you look; if you don't want to make the effort, you shouldn't make the effort to reply, surely? If I doubted a fellow DISer, especially when another agrees, I'd make every effort to substantiate my contrarian reply.



Rich::

 

[Teejay32]

Originally posted by chadfromdallas
Only the weak and outnumbered?

I don't think so.

/pokes Shock and Awe

It's true though. Shock and Awe may be a lot of things, 95% of them deplorable, but it wasn't 'terrorism' and neither were the attacks on Japanese cities. Union soldiers burning swaths through Georgia - acts of war. Attacks on the US by the British - acts of war. (What the British think of the colonists' actions is their own business.)

Terrorism should not be synonymous with civilians getting killed.

 

[BuckNaked]

Originally posted by dcentity2000


that's not nice! You doubt, you look; if you don't want to make the effort, you shouldn't make the effort to reply, surely? If I doubted a fellow DISer, especially when another agrees, I'd make every effort to substantiate my contrarian reply.



Rich::

Sorry, but that's not the way I see it. When someone states something as fact, they should be prepared to back it up with something other than the opinion of someone that agrees with them.

I'm well aware that there are many people that believe that the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki constituted war crimes. But a conviction, which VampHeartless said exists, can only be the result of a trial. So where was this trial? When was it? By whom were the allegations prosecuted? Who made up the panel that made the decision to convict?

In short, I can't prove that it didn't happen, (can't prove a negative) but he (and you) should surely be able to prove that it did, especially since you are both so convinced that this "conviction" exists.

 

[dcentity2000]

I said I thought he was right; don't exaggerate please

A conviction may not be a legal decision; it is most commonly used to convey a major solid belief of the status quo which I think did occur. Further to this, I have a vague sensation that a trial was requested, but given the political climate (post war pseudo-apocalypse) it never amounted to anything.

Perhaps it should have.



Rich::

 

[BuckNaked]

So in other words, there is no real conviction, as was alleged.

 

[shortbun]

Originally posted by jrydberg
Equating a bit of wartime intimidation from a bygone era with modern terrorism is just plain absurd IMO. One can just as easily say that Union troops in the Civil War were terrorists. They didn't "terrorize" civilians in either case.

I thought they went through and burned homes indescriminantly
leaving families homeless. I think in war, there is always
behavior that crosses the line to terror.

I also think that calling someone a terrorist because they do
not agree with your goals is becoming in vogue. I'm not talking
about Arrafat.

 

[dcentity2000]

Originally posted by BuckNaked
So in other words, there is no real conviction, as was alleged.

Not in your one dimensional interpretation of the word, no.

Primary entry for conviction:

"Entry:__
conviction

Function:__
noun

Definition:__
belief

Synonyms:__
confidence, creed, doctrine, dogma, eye, faith, feeling, judgment call, mind, opinion, persuasion, principle, reliance, say so, sentiment, slant, tenet, view"


So in the usual use of the word, there most certainly was and still is to this day. Should you wish to verify this, http://www.thesaurus.com is a good source. See if belief comes up before criminal sentence. Bet you $100 it does



Rich::

 

[VampHeartless]

War Crimes during WWII

It was known as the Shimoda case. US was basically responsible for repaying Japan for War Crimes it committed under international law.

 

[JimB.]

US was basically responsible for repaying Japan for War Crimes it committed under international law.

You need to read a bit closer. The Shimoda case was brought by Japanese civilians against the Japanese government for recompense for the "illegality" of the atomic bombings. On Dec 7, 1964, a 3 judge panel ruled against the plaintiffs. No $$ were paid.

 

[Teejay32]

At best it's a ruling that the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were unlawful, and that's almost a minor point in the wider context of the real case. Japan waived all claims of damages toward the US in 1951.

Why did agree to waive all claims...probably because Japan was the greater miscreant in the grand scheme of things.

 

[BuckNaked]

Nice link to the Shimoda case. A civil (as opposed to criminal, as in "war crimes") found that the bombings were illegal, yet no damages were awarded. Not even close to a war crimes conviction.

Take a look at Nuremberg - THAT'S a war crimes tribunal.