News Reexamining the Terrorist Nature of WWII and the Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima

[cesiumfrog]

Sept. 11 attacks, 5000 people? or 50,000 as in the terrorist attack on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945?

lest we forget

 

[Integral]

... or 50,000 as in the terrorist attack on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945? ...

One must neglect about 10 orders of magntude of history to make such a biased statement.

 

[cesiumfrog]

One must neglect about 10 orders of magntude of history to make such a biased statement.

What do you mean by that? ("An order of magnitude more civilians were killed at Hiroshima than 9/11." Which direction is that statement biased in? Which particular subset of history are you criticising the neglect of?)

 

[leright]

What do you mean by that? ("An order of magnitude more civilians were killed at Hiroshima than 9/11." Which direction is that statement biased in? Which particular subset of history are you criticising the neglect of?)

well, I think he was referring to the use of the phrase "terrorist attack". However, whether or not the atomic bombings were in fact "terrorist attacks" is a subjective discussion for another thread.

However, I do in a way consider it a terrorist attack, since civilians were killed.

 

[rbj]

well, I think he was referring to the use of the phrase "terrorist attack". However, whether or not the atomic bombings were in fact "terrorist attacks" is a subjective discussion for another thread.

However, I do in a way consider it a terrorist attack, since civilians were killed.

and the purpose was to shock (by use of terrorizing and an appalling quantity of death and destruction) a population, nation, and government into recognition of some reality that said population, nation, and/or government was previously simply unable to fathom. (and no, they don't just "hate us because they hate our freedoms." at least the Japanese government was able to, after Nagasaki, to come to terms with the fact that "it's over." perhaps the Abomination could take a que from Hirohito.)

it's not just that civilians were killed. civilians were targeted. the military value of Hiroshima was nothing. as was Dresden or Canterbury.

 

[Integral]

In order to be even sort of on topic with my post I had to do a order of magnitude comparison,

What history has been neglected OMG! . You may recall that there was a DECLARED war in progress. I would bet by making a very strong statement with the dropping of the atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki that we SAVED Japanese civilian lives. That is in comparison to what would have occurred had we proceeded with Operation Olympic, the invasion of the Japanese main land. The loss of lives and the damage to the Japanese infrastructure would been orders of magnitude higher had we proceeded with the invasion.

If you want to call the use of atomic weapons on civilian population an act of terrorism, then what of the Battle of Britain? The bombing of Dresden, the Japanese invasion and conquest of Mongolia? By your standards most of WWII was an act of terrorism. The fact is that attacks on the civilian population had become standard by 1945.

It is ludicrous to compare national acts of war to individual acts of terrorism, this shows that some people simply do not have a understanding of history and the interaction of nations for the last 500yrs.

I see this type of comment as simply a cheap shot at the USA, throwing it into a math thread is simply unacceptable.

my error was in replying to it rather then simply deleting it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

And, let's not forget that the Japanese started the war by attacking us when there was no declared war. So the real act of terror, if you will, was the attack on Pearl Harbor.

We warned Japan about our bomb but they chose to ignore the warning. Then they chose to bet that we only had one. Finally, Truman believed that many more people would die - Americans and Japanese - if we were forced to invade Japan.

 

[Andre]

WW II was only a continuation of the great war that started 1914, with a truce from 1918 - 1939 and indeed attack on civilians was the norm, bombarding cities. it has been routine ever since the first Gotha bombers raided London in 1917.

Apart from that, in hindsight, one could muse about what would have happened if those two bombs had not been dropped. Would the amount of casualties in the prolonged hostilities indeed have surpassed those of the two bombs? But most importantly, lacking the fear of H-bombs, would we now have generated the bulk of our energy from nuclear plants and have no wars about oil and global warming?

 

[Mallignamius]

I read in a communication book, "Looking In - Looking Out," an account about the Mokusatsu Mistake. This interpretation suggested that Japan knew it was going nowhere and was interested in the Potsdam Declaration, but was uncomfortable with responding to it too quickly for several reasons (such as ongoing negotiations with Russia). The term mokusatsu literally means "to kill with silence." Suzuki Kantaro is said to have chosen that word to mean "to withold comment." But unfortunately Radio Tokyo quickly translated the report and chose the meaning, "to ignore."

Nagasaki and Hiroshima might not have fallen if this account is at all accurate.

EDIT:Wow. Wiki has a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mokusatsu" of it.

 

[leright]

In order to be even sort of on topic with my post I had to do a order of magnitude comparison,

What history has been neglected OMG! . You may recall that there was a DECLARED war in progress. I would bet by making a very strong statement with the dropping of the atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki that we SAVED Japanese civilian lives. That is in comparison to what would have occurred had we proceeded with Operation Olympic, the invasion of the Japanese main land. The loss of lives and the damage to the Japanese infrastructure would been orders of magnitude higher had we proceeded with the invasion.

If you want to call the use of atomic weapons on civilian population an act of terrorism, then what of the Battle of Britain? The bombing of Dresden, the Japanese invasion and conquest of Mongolia? By your standards most of WWII was an act of terrorism. The fact is that attacks on the civilian population had become standard by 1945.

It is ludicrous to compare national acts of war to individual acts of terrorism, this shows that some people simply do not have a understanding of history and the interaction of nations for the last 500yrs.

I see this type of comment as simply a cheap shot at the USA, throwing it into a math thread is simply unacceptable.

my error was in replying to it rather then simply deleting it.

I understand that the atomic bombing abruptly ended the war and if it weren't for the atomic bomb many more civilian lives would have been lost throughout the course of the war. However, regardless of whether it is in a time of war or not, a bombing targeted at civilians, atomic or otherwise, I would consider an act of terrorism.

Was it a necessary act of terrorism in order to minimize loss of life? Possibly.

 

[leright]

Finally, Truman believed that many more people would die - Americans and Japanese - if we were forced to invade Japan.

But would it be mostly loss of military personnel or civilians if Truman instead decided to invade Japan?

 

[Mallignamius]

There are easily a hundred definitions for the term "terrorism." I don't see the point of this. The 9-11 attacks and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were all instrumented under different pressures and goals. There is no reason to align the two under the same blanket definition.

 

[siddharth]

I would bet by making a very strong statement with the dropping of the atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki that we SAVED Japanese civilian lives. That is in comparison to what would have occurred had we proceeded with Operation Olympic, the invasion of the Japanese main land. The loss of lives and the damage to the Japanese infrastructure would been orders of magnitude higher had we proceeded with the invasion.

On the other hand, Japan may have surrendered anyway. From a report by the US strategic bombing survey

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

(http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS-PTO-Summary.html#teotab)

Although, as Astronuc pointed out here, if the US had continued firestorming the cities, it may have resulted in a loss of more civilian lives.

 

[durt]

There are easily a hundred definitions for the term "terrorism." I don't see the point of this. The 9-11 attacks and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were all instrumented under different pressures and goals. There is no reason to align the two under the same blanket definition.

Yes, I agree. Right or wrong, nuking Japan was an attempt to end the war. I doubt the hijackers intended to end anything other than the lives of as many people as possible.

 

[Integral]

I do not understand the confusion which some apparently have between acts of declared war between sovereign nations and and acts of a individual terrorist.

What nation does a "terrorist" represent? This is what separates war between nations and acts of criminals. While a terrorist claims some political agenda s/he/it are not acting as a representative of a national government. They are individuals attempting to scare a population into compliance with what may be very fuzzy goals. In essence very little separates a terrorist from a criminal.

I see a HUGE difference between acts of terrorism and a declared war. I have a hard time understanding why so many seem to ignore the difference.

 

[cesiumfrog]

So the real act of terror, if you will, was the attack on Pearl Harbor.

The difference is, Pearl Harbour was an attack against a military base rather than a civilian city.

Even conventional air raids over cities, ostensibly, target factories being employed for military purposes. Hospitals and homes may be destroyed, but they are not the target (moreover, hitting a hospital with a conventional bomb implies that the bomb missed and accidentally failed to achieve its target objective, hence is avoided by even the aggressor). That is how dropping the atomic bombs differed from conventional warfare.

It could be argued, pragmatically, that conventional air raids are ordered with the expectation of a particular degree of collateral damage, and that Hiroshima was merely one of the more extreme points along a continuous grey slippery slope. I think the truth is that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were deliberately intended by inflicting shock to draw a more rapid end to the war (i.e. inducing "terror" in the civilian population was a specific objective, not a side-effect of overwhelmingly disabling military capabilities a la Pearl Harbour).

As for whether war had been declared, that's a pretty rich argument to make in favour of USA, so soon after its attack and invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan!

Finally, there was the mention of forgetting "10 orders of magnitude of history to make such a biased statement". Looking at so much history, would it not be trivial for an unbiased mind to find a reasonable motive for the Sept. 11 attacks? (By reasonable, I mean at least better than the hypocritical and mistaken justification given for the more recent bloodshed).

 

[Integral]

...

As for whether war had been declared, that's a pretty rich argument to make in favour of USA, so soon after its attack and invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan!

Finally, there was the mention of forgetting "10 orders of magnitude of history to make such a biased statement". Looking at so much history, would it not be trivial for an unbiased mind to find a reasonable motive for the Sept. 11 attacks? (By reasonable, I mean at least better than the hypocritical and mistaken justification given for the more recent bloodshed).

Read the title of the thread, do not take any of my comments out of context and apply them to the current disaster started by GWB. If you wish to start a thread about Iraq, do so. But please do not go off topic in this thread.

 

[Art]

I see a HUGE difference between acts of terrorism and a declared war. I have a hard time understanding why so many seem to ignore the difference.

The Nuremberg Trials suggests there is not such a great difference in law and accountability between individual terrorist acts and those committed by governments during a declared war so I am curious as to where do you see a huge difference?

 

[russ_watters]

I do not understand the confusion which some apparently have between acts of declared war between sovereign nations and and acts of a individual terrorist.

There are easily a hundred definitions for the term "terrorism."

It isn't confusion, Integral, it is a refusal to accept the concept that definitions in general are largely consistent and objective. People do this so they can apply certain words where-ever they want for emotional appeal. It is a conscious decision and a (fallacious) debate tactic.

That said, the word "terrorism" was not in widespread use at the time, so the definition was not as clear as it is today -- but that, as you pointed out, just requires one to understand the history, which really isn't all that complicated.

This is not a difficult issue. People just refuse to deal with it objectively for the purpose of finding an excuse to call the US terrorists.

 

[jonegil]

all wars are acts of terrorism

 

[Art]

It isn't confusion, Integral, it is a refusal to accept the concept that definitions in general are largely consistent and objective. People do this so they can apply words where-ever they want. It is a conscious decision and a (fallacious) debate tactic.

The fact there is no consistent defintion of terrorism (think Reagan's Contra Freedom Fighters) is the reason why people use the term perjoratively to denounce one's opponents with the intention of illigitimising them and thus illigitimising any political point they may be trying to make and so avoiding discourse on what may be perfectly legitimate grievences.

That said, the word "terrorism" was not in widespread use at the time, so the definition was not as clear as it is today -- but that, as you pointed out, just requires one to understand the history, which really isn't all that complicated.

By Integral's definition the French Resistance movement during WW2 would fall into the category of terrorists, I don't believe history or most people for that matter see them that way.

This is not a difficult issue. People just refuse to deal with it objectively for the purpose of finding an excuse to call the US terrorists.

During WW2 every side committed terrorist attrocities which could be classified as war crimes eg Dresden was mentioned in a previous post. After the war only the German's were punished under the 'rules' of Victor's Justice but I think it is fair to debate whether some of the actions of the allied forces also should have merited censor. Not quite sure how you construe that to be anti-US Why not anti-Russian or anti-British?

 

[susperia_knvb]

i just think wars should be avoided at all costs. wwII an act of terrorism? i don't no. it really depends upon your definition, some people will class some things as terror attacks whereas others wont.
Now I am no history student... but to me wwII (from what i know year10 and friends) began with the re-occupation of czeckoslovakia (i don't no the spelling i am sorry) and that is terrorism. any aggressive act like that is terror. America into iraq = terror.
but one thing does puzzle me. how can the arabs still support groups like Hamas and co. when they are attacking their own people!

 

[Integral]

The Nuremberg Trials suggests there is not such a great difference in law and accountability between individual terrorist acts and those committed by governments during a declared war so I am curious as to where do you see a huge difference?

I do not see where this causes any difficulty. When people representing nations break laws they are persecuted, what has this got to do with terrorism? I see no issues.

 

[Integral]

all wars are acts of terrorism

Utter and complete nonsense.

War is not a desirable state, but I cannot see how such a statement makes any sense, except in a smoke induced delusion.

 

[Integral]

...
By Integral's definition the French Resistance movement during WW2 would fall into the category of terrorists, I don't believe history or most people for that matter see them that way.

...

Wrong, they were fighting for and in the name of pre occupation France. Thus they are NOT terrorist by my definition.

During WW2 every side committed terrorist atrocities which could be classified as war crimes eg Dresden was mentioned in a previous post. After the war only the German's were punished under the 'rules' of Victor's Justice but I think it is fair to debate whether some of the actions of the allied forces also should have merited censor. Not quite sure how you construe that to be anti-US Why not anti-Russian or anti-British?

Once again we have a failure to recognize the difference between individual acts and nations at war. Further it totally ignores the state of the world form 1933- 1945. Get a sense of history please.

No one disputes the ugly reality of war, but to call it terrorism is to lose all sense of what that word means in our world today.

Of course Russ my be correct, those who

 

[Art]

Wrong, they were fighting for and in the name of pre occupation France. Thus they are NOT terrorist by my definition.

France had the French Vichy gov't in place at the time elected by the National Assembly on July 10, 1940 and who were allied to Germany. This was not a passive subjugated gov't, remember for example French troops fought willingly and fiercely against allied forces in N Africa, so by your definition the French Resistance would be terrorist as not only did they fight the Germans but they also fought against their own legitimate government.

 

[Integral]

France had the French Vichy gov't in place at the time elected by the National Assembly on July 10, 1940 and who were allied to Germany. This was not a passive subjugated gov't, remember for example French troops fought willingly and fiercely against allied forces in N Africa, so by your definition the French Resistance would be terrorist as not only did they fight the Germans but they also fought against their own legitimate government.

I guess you are a bit slow. The French resistance was fighting for FRANCE, just ask them, that is what they will say.

Of course, like you the Germans of the era would disagree, Puts you in pretty good company.

 

[marlon]

And, let's not forget that the Japanese started the war by attacking us when there was no declared war. So the real act of terror, if you will, was the attack on Pearl Harbor.

True but i do think that there is a difference in bombing a military base in stead of a city full of civilians. I am quite sure you can see the nuance in that. IMO, the USA were out of line in their retaliation towards Japan. You should have reacted in a different way, warning or not.

Having said that, indeed i agree that making any reference to "acts of terrorism" is utter nonsense when one is discussing WW2.

I do not understand the confusion which some apparently have between acts of declared war between sovereign nations and and acts of a individual terrorist.

What nation does a "terrorist" represent? This is what separates war between nations and acts of criminals. While a terrorist claims some political agenda s/he/it are not acting as a representative of a national government. They are individuals attempting to scare a population into compliance with what may be very fuzzy goals. In essence very little separates a terrorist from a criminal.

Truer words were never spoken.

 

[Art]

I guess you are a bit slow. The French resistance was fighting for FRANCE, just ask them, that is what they will say.

Of course, like you the Germans of the era would disagree, Puts you in pretty good company.

Not bad, an ad-hominem and a strawman argument all contained in just a few lines

I suspect my knowledge of WW2 would put you to shame and as for me agreeing with the German view of the French Resistance, what tripe. I was as you well know politely pointing out the inconsistancy of your argument.

If you can't defend the rather preposterous position you chose to adopt without resorting to childish ad-hominems then perhaps you should have thought out your opinion more clearly before committing it to print and embarrassing yourself.

 

[cesiumfrog]

Read the title of the thread, do not take any of my comments out of context and apply them to the current disaster started by GWB. If you wish to start a thread about Iraq, do so. But please do not go off topic in this thread.

Integral, it was you who moved my posts into this thread, and assigned the straw-argument title after the fact! I don't claim WWII overall was an act of terrorism, but the atomic bombings certainly were. (And "10 orders of magnitude" was a pretty exaggerated claim to make whilst accusing others of being the biased ones.)

People do this so they can apply certain words where-ever they want for emotional appeal. [...] People just refuse to deal with it objectively for the purpose of finding an excuse to call the US terrorists.

The US has started a fad of calling people terrorists, for just the kind of reason you note (any complex understanding of the motivation of Sept.11 makes one a "terrorist-supporter"). Among other effects of such name games, it seems countries can be invaded and prisoners denied rights that treaties would protect if the war was declared for what it is. This is why people in other parts of the world are so quick to point out examples showing how subjective such terms are.

I guess you are a bit slow. The French resistance was fighting for FRANCE, just ask them, that is what they will say.

Insults aside, I'm sure any "terrorist" would claim to be fighting for a higher purpose (whether it's a nation, a fraction, theocracy or whatever seems a bit academic; clearly during the time of French occupation it cannot be said that the government over France was giving the orders to the resistance), purely individual motives would be characterised simply as crime (murder).

 

[russ_watters]

The US has started a fad of calling people terrorists...

No. The US uses THE objective definition of the word and applies it correctly. Ie:

Among other effects of such name games, it seems countries can be invaded and prisoners denied rights that treaties would protect if the war was declared for what it is. This is why people in other parts of the world are so quick to point out examples showing how subjective such terms are.

True or not, those things have nothing whatsoever to do with the definition of terrorism.

 

[Integral]

Not bad, an ad-hominem and a strawman argument all contained in just a few lines

I suspect my knowledge of WW2 would put you to shame and as for me agreeing with the German view of the French Resistance, what tripe. I was as you well know politely pointing out the inconsistancy of your argument.

If you can't defend the rather preposterous position you chose to adopt without resorting to childish ad-hominems then perhaps you should have thought out your opinion more clearly before committing it to print and embarrassing yourself.

Ok, so you are in the camp that WWII was just a bunch of terrorist. Once again this make the term petty meaningless. So what have you gained? What is your point?

I maintain that there is a clear and definite difference between nations at war and acts of terrorism.

It is not clear to me what my "preposterous position" is. Other then what I have stated over and over again, there is a difference between WWII and a modern terrorist.

You are making some pretty big claims here, I see little evidence to support them ("I suspect my knowledge of WW2 would put you to shame")

 

[jonegil]

Utter and complete nonsense.

War is not a desirable state, but I cannot see how such a statement makes any sense, except in a smoke induced delusion.

Terrorism is a term used to describe violence or the perception or threat of imminent violence.
War is a prolonged state of violent, large-scale conflict involving two or more groups of people.

So, war is terrorism in a larger-scale(space and time)
how can you say that what i said is non-sense??..either you don't know what is war and terrorism or you are another bush supporter

 

[Integral]

Integral, it was you who moved my posts into this thread, and assigned the straw-argument title after the fact! I don't claim WWII overall was an act of terrorism, but the atomic bombings certainly were. (And "10 orders of magnitude" was a pretty exaggerated claim to make whilst accusing others of being the biased ones.)

The US has started a fad of calling people terrorists, for just the kind of reason you note (any complex understanding of the motivation of Sept.11 makes one a "terrorist-supporter"). Among other effects of such name games, it seems countries can be invaded and prisoners denied rights that treaties would protect if the war was declared for what it is. This is why people in other parts of the world are so quick to point out examples showing how subjective such terms are.

Insults aside, I'm sure any "terrorist" would claim to be fighting for a higher purpose (whether it's a nation, a fraction, theocracy or whatever seems a bit academic; clearly during the time of French occupation it cannot be said that the government over France was giving the orders to the resistance), purely individual motives would be characterised simply as crime (murder).

Seems that YOU are the one calling everyone a terrorist, again totally ignoring history in the process, how ever many orders of magnitude you wish to call it. You are ignoring a HUGE amount of history to make that claim.

 

[Integral]

Terrorism is a term used to describe violence or the perception or threat of imminent violence.
War is a prolonged state of violent, large-scale conflict involving two or more groups of people.

So, war is terrorism in a larger-scale(space and time)
how can you say that what i said is non-sense??..either you don't know what is war and terrorism or you are another bush supporter

ENOUGH with the insults.
by your definitions "Terrorist" had no meaning what so ever.

 

[jonegil]

I do not understand the confusion which some apparently have between acts of declared war between sovereign nations and and acts of a individual terrorist.

What nation does a "terrorist" represent? This is what separates war between nations and acts of criminals. While a terrorist claims some political agenda s/he/it are not acting as a representative of a national government. They are individuals attempting to scare a population into compliance with what may be very fuzzy goals. In essence very little separates a terrorist from a criminal.

I see a HUGE difference between acts of terrorism and a declared war. I have a hard time understanding why so many seem to ignore the difference.

Germany invaded Poland without declaring war
Germany invaded Russia without declaring war
USA invaded Panama without declaring war...(the list is huge)
Hezzbollah acts as a representative of Iran for instance, no doubt about it

 

[IMP]

Well, the Founding Fathers of this country were called "terrorists" too. The British crown called the first few presidents of this country "terrorists". What's in a name?

 

[jonegil]

ENOUGH with the insults.
by your definitions "Terrorist" had no meaning what so ever.

Don't worry Integral this is just a heated discussion, I ain't insulting you

 

[Astronuc]

all wars are acts of terrorism

There is some validity in that. War certainly involves acts of terror, e.g. bombing of civilian targets, military occupation, . . . .

As for the OP, Germany began with annexation of Austria and invasion of the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia, then invasion of Poland and other countries.

In the Pacific, Japan moved against American interests in the Pacific. The US entered WWII defensively after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.

While Pearl Harbor had a military base, some military facilities are interspersed with civilan areas, and civilians (non-combatants) do work at military facilities, and civilians were killed.

Lets not forget the Luftwaffe bombed London, Coventry, and many other civilian targets in an attempt to break the spirit of the people. The Allies likewise bombed Berlin and other German cities. And the Japanese terroized the Phillipines, China (e.g. Nanking), Korea, . . . The Japanese military was also try to launch bombs and biological weapons on the US via balloons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II

World War II (abbreviated WWII or WW2), or the Second World War, was a worldwide military conflict which lasted from 1939 to 1945. World War II was the amalgamation of two conflicts, one starting in Asia as the Second Sino-Japanese War and the other beginning in Europe with the Invasion of Poland.

This global conflict split a majority of the world's nations into two opposing camps: the Allies and the Axis. Spanning much of the globe, World War II resulted in the deaths of over 60 million people, of which about half were Soviet, making it the deadliest conflict in human history.[1]

World War II was the most widespread war in history, and countries involved mobilized more than 100 million military personnel. Total war erased the distinction between civil and military resources and saw the complete mobilization of a nation's economic, industrial, and scientific capabilities for the purposes of the war effort; nearly two-thirds of those killed in the war were civilians. The Holocaust, which was largely conducted in Eastern Europe, was the systematic killing of nearly 11 million political, social and racial minorities (Gypsies, the disabled, etc.). Six million of these victims were Jews persecuted by the Nazis.

Please avoid personal slights in the debate on this subject. Also provide evidence or facts to support assertions, and avoid generalizations.

I know several people who lost most of their families during WWII. One friend whose father and uncle are the only survivors of a large family. War is horrible.

 

[marlon]

Germany invaded Poland without declaring war

Yes but that was a decision taken by the people that represented Germany politically , ie the government. This was not the action of a small group of people that represent and are supported by a small fraction of a country's population.

marlon

 

[russ_watters]

The fact there is no consistent defintion of terrorism (think Reagan's Contra Freedom Fighters)

That's simply not true and you know it. We've had this discussion a dozen times and the dictionary definition is clear (if slightly lacking in nuance). Regarding the contras - terrorism is a tactic and terrorists are people who use the tactic. So you tell me: did the Contras engage in acts of terrorism, by the standard definition? (give examples)

It is precisely because people apply the word to a group without regard for the fact that the word is a description of a tactic that shows they are purposely misusing the word. Even if you disagree on the nuances of the tactics (and I am more than willing to debate specific examples) - the definition of "terrorist" simply references the word "terrorism". Removing "terrorism" from "terrorists" is a step beyond the obfuscation on which the thread is based...

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I don't think there can be an exact definition of terrorist. It has been said that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. I do know that anyone who terrorizes ME is a terrorist in MY book. While the leaders of my own country often make me nervous, it would be exaggeration to say they terrorize me.

The nuclear attacks on Japan were part of a larger program of so-called 'strategic bombing' whose effectiveness in the war effort was controversial even before Hiroshima, and even when the stated purpose was to eliminate ball-bearing factories.

 

[K.J.Healey]

I agree that this is all a semantics argument. I think everyone agrees the point of dropping atomic bombs was to end a war by making a current enemy more fearful of us.
Is that "terrorism"? Sure, why not? So is endlessly making "documentaries" on TLC about the "End of the WORLD" and what WILL happen when we run out of oil after we heat the climate 100 degrees in 10 years and a giant wave of water hits new york while an asteroid is heading to Earth carrying about 50k muslim extremists infected with west nile and a few thousand sexual predators infected with a new more deadly strand of bird flu who may or may not be talking to your children on Myspace. Be Afraid! It makes for great ratings.


Also, does anyone agree that "attempts of terrorism" and terrorism are the same? I was thinking about it, and could it be called an act of terrorism to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theatre and everyone screams and runs out trampling some 86yr old lady? What about if you yell "FIRE!" and everyone ignores you while someone tells you to sit down and watch the movie? Is it only terrorism if someone becomes more afraid?

 

[Art]

Ok, so you are in the camp that WWII was just a bunch of terrorist. Once again this make the term petty meaningless. So what have you gained? What is your point?

Again please refrain from creating strawman arguments, it's irritating.

I have already detailed my point pretty clearly but in case you missed it I'll quote myself

The fact there is no consistent defintion of terrorism (think Reagan's Contra Freedom Fighters) is the reason why people use the term perjoratively to denounce one's opponents with the intention of illigitimising them and thus illigitimising any political point they may be trying to make and so avoiding discourse on what may be perfectly legitimate grievences.

And so yes my point is the term terrorist is meaningless and it's overuse extends conflict as it prevents any dialogue to resolve differences under the guise of 'we don't negotiate with terrorists'

I maintain that there is a clear and definite difference between nations at war and acts of terrorism.

I've already provided examples of 'terrorists' who were not labelled such and were lauded as the good guys. There are also many examples of nations which have been labelled as terrorist states and the use of the term 'state sponsored terrorism' is still very much in vogue to describe countries one does not agree with. So if it is clear to you please detail exactly what these differences are.

It is not clear to me what my "preposterous position" is. Other then what I have stated over and over again, there is a difference between WWII and a modern terrorist.

There are some acts which outrage all right thinking people, eg. the jewish holocaust, the armenian holocaust, Stalin's show trials; and in more recent times 9/11 and 7/7 along with the Birmingham pub bombings etc.

The discussion here is whether or not the dropping of the nuclear bombs on Japan should or should not fall into the category of an act that outrages public opinion.

To try to define the right or wrong of an act in terms of defining the status of the instigator is in my opinion a cop out and yet another reason why the term terrorist should be struck from the language as by defining oneself as a non-terrorist it seems all acts no matter how savage are okay.

Is there really any difference to the enormity of the horror whether 50,000 people are killed by a so called 'terrorist' organisation or by a 'legitimate' state? Certainly not to the victims there's not.

You are making some pretty big claims here, I see little evidence to support them ("I suspect my knowledge of WW2 would put you to shame")

In response to your comment

Get a sense of history please.

I already have a sense of history thank you.

 

[rewebster]

Personally, I think the word 'terrorist' (or 'terrierist', as bush likes to say) is defined by the perspective of, whether or not, it is being perpetrated against YOU (and those with which you align*) or not.



align*--you can personally align with anyone/anything according to your own personal morality-based 'light-cone' perspective

 

[Art]

That's simply not true and you know it. We've had this discussion a dozen times and the dictionary definition is clear (if slightly lacking in nuance).

Terrorism expert Walter Laqueur in 1999 counted over 100 definitions and concludes that

the "only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence".

so much for a clear consensus

In November 2004, a UN panel described terrorism as any act:

"intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act."

Such as dropping nukes on cities perhaps?

And from Bruce Hoffman's book, Defining Terrorism

On one point, at least, everyone agrees: terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. 'What is called terrorism,' Brian Jenkins has written, `'thus seems to depend on one's point of view. Use of the term implies a moral judgment; and if one party can successfully attach the label terrorist to its opponent, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint.' Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization `terrorist' becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism

It looks like expert opinion is with me.

ps If you wish to discuss the contras please start a new thread and I'll be glad to provide you with reports from Amnesty Int'l, Human Rights Watch, the Roman Catholic church and even the US Congress detailing attrocities carried out by them.

 

[rewebster]

I would tend to agree more with the Hoffman quote than the UN quote (there's a lot of 'or' 's in that statement), in that dropping leaflets and phone calls can be 'threatening' and a 'terrorist' act, but not "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm".


---"dropping nukes" even in a desert or an arctic region can be considered by some to be 'threatening'/(terrorist like)---

A 'bully' in a school playground can be labeled a terrorist--as can an over-zealous post (I am NOT pointing to ANYONE with that comment--just making an example---so, please, no one get bent out of shape here)

------------------------------------------------------


"intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act."


let's see:


"intended to cause death, serious bodily harm to civilians (or non-combatants), and/or with the purpose of intimidating a population (compelling a government or an international organization) to do or abstain from doing any act."

that sounds better to me

 

[Smurf]

You Called Me A Terrorist! I'm going to nuke your desert now!

 

[drankin]

This thread is toast.

Japan attacked the US by bombing Pearl Harbor, a military target. We declared war and fought them in the Pacific for some time. The bombs were not dropped in direct retaliation for the bombing of Pearl Harbor. That's an ignorant assumption. The bombs were dropped in an effort to win the war. And guess what, it worked. The problem now-a-days is that no one wants to WIN a war.

 

[rewebster]

This thread is toast.

...The problem now-a-days is that no one wants to WIN a war.

Do you mean, like Korea or Viet Nam?