Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by sinewave, Apr 13, 2006.
And all the bombs dropped by the U.S. that killed innocents? Is that the goal of the U.S. military as well? Nagasaki? Hiroshima? You want to talk about who's killed more innocent people?
I'm not saying that what they're doing is right, but I am saying "quit being such a hypocrite".
Theres pretty much a different definition of terrorism in every dictionary.
I'm sure I could find one to serve my argument, but that would be stupid.
I don't think you understand what I'm saying.
Terrorism, the way I understand it involves the coercion of government officials by threatening and/or killing innocent civilians.
When a suicide bomber blows up a military convoy that is not a terrorist action, but a military one. It's war. I don't have a problem with that morally.
Soldiers, do what they do.
But when a suicide bomber blows up a market that is terrorism and is most definately morally wrong.
If you're talking about putting fear into the populace for your "cause", I'd go so far to say that this is wrong also.
Terrorism = Evil
Military Action = Not evil
So opining on someone trying to kill innocents, and how its bad, makes me a "hypocrite"???
Its silly how you compare the USA trying to end the bloodiest War in mankinds history [and saving their own soldiers in a war THEY started] to different religous groups killing other religous groups to try and create civil war.
So, by this logic, the difference between good and evil is a uniform?
But, what IF this suicide bomber blows up a military convoy with supplies for IRaqi cities/schools/hospitals or is trying to repair power lines? Would that be not evil? Kinda a grey area there
Once again I dont think you understand
Uniform has nothing to do with it.
So now their goal is try and create a civil war? Why would they want to do that?
Ya I think he/she is missing the idea
We should just stop people from dying...then...no more suicide bombers...easy. Of course then there is always that brooding over-population problem....
Ummm are you kidding? Thats been their goal for a long time, ever since they stopped targetting [for the most part] Americans.
Sorry, misread. Still, by the definition in your above post the bombs dropped on Japan during WWII were acts of terrorism were they not? The coercion of government officials by the killing of innocent civilians?
That doesn't answer my question of "why?" For what reason do they want to start a civil war?
Hiroshima was "the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan" and "city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops."
And Nagasakin was chosen because it "had been one of the largest sea portsin southern Japan and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordinance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials"
So how is that terrorism? Yes we killed lots of JApanes civillians with an atomic bomb, almost as much as one bombing on Tokyo did in only 2 hours.
Yeah it was glorified terrorism.
But I'm sure killing civilians was probably part of the goal to make a statement.
I'm not siding with the Japanese, because I stand by my country, but nuking them twice was wrong.
I swear I am the last person on here who reads the news.
"al-Zarqawi, leader of Al-Qaida in Iraq, made his intentions clear in a letter obtained and released last year by the U.S. government saying that causing sectarian fighting between Shiite and Sunni was the best way to undermine American policy in Iraq."
What I'm saying is that you can't have it both ways. You can't have your cake and throw stones in glass houses without sinking ships. And you can't define terrorism as a terrorist nation.
I wonder why didnt they surrender immediately after the first one?
Also, a military target alone was NOT chosen due "to the chance of missing a small target not surrounded by a larger urban area. The psychological effects on Japan were of great importance to the committee members. They also agreed that the initial use of the weapon should be sufficiently spectacular for its importance to be internationally recognized."
We had to convince the crazy Imperial Japan Military leaders they and their people faced total destruction at the cost of no American lives for them to surrender. If only Japans military leaders listen to their civilian counterparts it wouldnt have had to happen.
So that's their ultimate goal? Not killing civilians as was the point of this discussion. I rest my case.
Whats your point? How was dropping the bomb an act of terrorism? I listing our reasons the cities were chosen, how in your opinion is it still terrorism? If you think that was terrorism then you would also think any collateral damage is intentional terrorism??
Well it was done for a massive psychological effect as you said.
That sounds pretty much like terrorism.
Perhaps they were strategic just as the Trade Towers and Pentagon have very strategic components to them. The Trade Towers being the economic epicenter and the Pentagon being the military epicenter. However the bombs were also used as a symbolic jesture to make the Japanese fully known of our power. Just like the terrorists were displaying their power to us when the destroyed our towers and military complex. Furthermore after numerous tests of the atomic bomb it would be ignorant to think they had not considered and understood the civilian causualities that would be incurred during both operations.
Remember the heroes of any given conflict are the side you are most sympathetic with, the terrorists or villians being the otherside. Almost any act of violence can be justified if the right langauge and circumstances are used.
What? Their ultimate goal is no America or free Iraqi government.
I never said their ultimate goal is killing innocents.
You seemed to not understand why they wanted a "civil war", why that was their "goal" like you said "why would they want to do that?".
I simply showed you the obvious, just informing you since you seemed to not know why.