- #1
cesiumfrog
- 2,010
- 5
lest we forgetrbj said:Sept. 11 attacks, 5000 people? or 50,000 as in the terrorist attack on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945?
Last edited:
lest we forgetrbj said:Sept. 11 attacks, 5000 people? or 50,000 as in the terrorist attack on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945?
rbj said:... or 50,000 as in the terrorist attack on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945? ...
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?)Integral said:One must neglect about 10 orders of magntude of history to make such a biased statement.
cesiumfrog said: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 said: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.
Integral said: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 said:Finally, Truman believed that many more people would die - Americans and Japanese - if we were forced to invade Japan.
Integral said: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.
(http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS-PTO-Summary.html#teotab)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.
Mallignamius said: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.
Ivan Seeking said:So the real act of terror, if you will, was the attack on Pearl Harbor.
cesiumfrog said:...
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).
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?Integral said: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.
Integral said: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.
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.Mallignamius said:There are easily a hundred definitions for the term "terrorism."
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.russ_watters said: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.
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.russ_watters said: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.
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?russ_watters said: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.
Art said: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?
jonegil said:all wars are acts of terrorism
Art said:...
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.
...
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?
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 said:Wrong, they were fighting for and in the name of pre occupation France. Thus they are NOT terrorist by my definition.
Art said: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.
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.Ivan Seeking said: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.
Truer words were never spoken.Integral said: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.
Not bad, an ad-hominem and a strawman argument all contained in just a few linesIntegral said: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.
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.)Integral said: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.
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.russ_watters said: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.
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).Integral said:I guess you are a bit slow. The French resistance was fighting for FRANCE, just ask them, that is what they will say.
No. The US uses THE objective definition of the word and applies it correctly. Ie:cesiumfrog said:The US has started a fad of calling people terrorists...
True or not, those things have nothing whatsoever to do with the definition of terrorism.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.
Art said: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.
Integral said: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.
cesiumfrog said: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).
jonegil said: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