(April 30, 2009 at 1:07 pm)g-mark Wrote: So you believe that terrorism can be justified, depending on the circumstances?

Interesting. Can morality be taken into account when a country is at war.

As Japan started the conflict, you could justify yourself with this argumant. On the other hand, you could argue that killing civilians is immoral. How would you determine which is the the correct or morally correct position.

If you were Japanese, you would agrgue one way.

If you were American, you would argue the other.

However, back to the point.

Kyu Wrote:For reasons already given I don't accept it applies to the use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima & Nagasaki.

Therefore, this statement can only be relative to yourself, and whoever else agrees with it, depending on your point of view.

I think killing civlians can never be justified. espcially when you look at the Hrisoshima bombings. Also USa where allready helping China in their war against Japans and Japan saw the new base of Peral Harbor as an aggression towards them, that's why the attacked it. Since it was a threat. They didn't attack for no apperent reason.

---

Quote:The case of large scale bombing of cities at war time has been ongoing since the advent of modern military aviation, personally I do not find these acts to be of a terrorist nature; the aim is to eliminate enemy hot-spots and bases which in theatres like Iraq are interwoven within the fabric of city it is also important to remember that paramilitary forces usually live within the main population and cannot be distinguished as easily as regular army forces so historically these kinds of operation lead to higher civillian casulaties.

Sam

Even though I get your point do I still say civilian casulties can never be jusitfied as I was writing in the previous post. As they say war never have winners, only losers.

Also to seeing children that either have been killed or seriously injured by bombings have affected me very much. After seeing such things have made me strongly against war and I don't care who attack. It's still wrong attacking civilians. I find a war where they bomb cities to be a sort of terrorism. Also in some cases do they not even care if there is any miltary targets or sometimes do they just take chance that their might be rebell leader in the area.

(April 30, 2009 at 1:23 pm)Giff Wrote: I think killing civlians can never be justified. espcially when you look at the Hrisoshima bombings. Also USa where allready helping China in their war against Japans and Japan saw the new base of Peral Harbor as an aggression towards them, that's why the attacked it. Since it was a threat. They didn't attack for no apperent reason.

It's all well and good saying that Pearl Harbour was a threat to them, but the fact of the matter is that International policy is based on this kind of thing ... for instance Korea has nuclear material, it's a valid threat so by your logic we should be allowed to attack? also America was not at war with Japan, there was not formal declaration of hostilities and this attack came completely unprovoked.

Another point is that at this point Japanese civillians where still resolutley loyal to thier emperor and the war, on the outer Islands of Japan, farmers would attack soldiers on site and fight to the death so it can still be argued that the Nuclear attacks saved lives overall.

Sam

And on the story goes.

(April 30, 2009 at 12:33 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(April 30, 2009 at 12:06 pm)g-mark Wrote: The used the A-Bomb to coerce Japan to surrender.

For reasons already given I don't accept it applies to the use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima & Nagasaki.

Kyu

Your non acceptance doesn't make it incorrect though. The use of the nuclear weapons on Japan made the decision for the emperor to surrender a lot easier because he feared the consequences for his people. That is the essense of terrorism, no matter what the motive is.

(April 30, 2009 at 7:53 am)Giff Wrote: This is not as simple as it might be. We all have a perception or misspercetion of what terrorism is.

Most people have, not nesseraily here, have the perception of that terrorist is a muslim guy killing people for no apperent reason and just plain evil.

However no one have relly tried, there some acctually, that have tried to understand why they do it.

But I will wnat to know first of all, is tehre any clear definition of terrorism? Because in some cases can that be relative. During the WWII was the Danish or Frensh rebells freedom fighters for there country and that's what most would see them. Which I also saw them like. But those or who sympathise for the Nazis and in particuallry the nazis themselves, the germans, saw them as terrorists.

The same thing can be said about in the Veitnam war about Viet Cong. Fro some where they freedom fighters for some simple rebells, which we today would see as terrorists.

In Iraq today those who fight the troops over there is concidered terrorists, however they don't nessesaraily have to do with the killings of cilivians which some rebell groups do over there. Which of course don't get much support from the public. So is those who fight the troops terrorists or just rebells? It ofte depend which side your ask and who yo ask.

The 9/11 was a terrible act. Very terrible. That is classified as a terrorist act. Maybe that's is one of the real event that you can clearly say is a terrorism. They killed civlians wanted to create fear, which they casued, and perhaps that's is terrorism. Killing for no real reason or for very strange and far fetched reasons? To kill people for religious reasons is perhaps the only correct defintion of terrprism. Like the subway killings in japans so on.

Some tried to understand why this group did what they did during the 9/11. They appereantly didn't like america, maybe hate is a better word, but why did they do it. What was the motive? It was offically about religion and they wanted to punish america and the western world for som reason. However since Osama who from the beginning was a very intellegent man maybe had some kind of plan more then fear? I have hard to belive that he only intended to kill people and create fear. However his mind might have been deluded by religi8ous bullshit and perhaps thought it was rational to do. It's hard to know. Maybe he thought attacking an ecnomic target would make the economy unstable? Who knows?

Anyhow the act that american and many other western countries did after that was engaging Afghanistand and Iraq. As a war against terrorism, but also liberating the people. However the number of civilian causualties have never been so high as this war. We are talking % where most of those who have gotten killed (so far) is mostly civlians. Think the munber is like 80%. Is a milityary bombing of a city not as much terrorism as the 9/11 bombing. Or is the definition of terrorism also have to do with the motive or just killing civilians? Since the american troops has as ans objective to create fear in the cities by bombing them, isn't that the same thing as during 9/11?

What do you guys think?

Big subject Giff!
Don't think you can be clearly define terrorism. Sure you can quote what the dictionary says, but then you come up against interpretation. In a country the ruling power will classify any faction that engages in armed insurrection as " terrorists ", particularly so when the ruling power is an invading power. However, the insurrectionists do not see it that way, they see themselves as " freedom fighters ", " patriots " or some other label. I think you can apply this logic easily to some of the conflicts you highlight.
9/11 was probably a bit different in that ( assuming the conspiracy theory about America being responsible is untrue ) I would say it was an act of revenge, which in turn prompted America and her allies into another act of revenge i.e. the illegal invasion of Iraq, which produced the usual response by the " terrorists " of that country against the occupying forces.
Another aspect to consider is that the " terrorists " are usually the little guy fighting the big guy. So, the litle guy can't engage in an all-out war and expect to win, but he can hope to triumph by demoralising the big guy and undermining support for the big guy'#s actions...Vietnam is a good example).
The big guy too can't escape, he too can be acused of the use of terror n the way that innocent civilians from the second world war onwards have been massacred in the various conflicts that have taken place.
In conclusion I think that it depends what side you're on as to who is the terorist.

(April 30, 2009 at 1:07 pm)g-mark Wrote: So you believe that terrorism can be justified, depending on the circumstances?

No I explicitly denied it was terrorism.

(April 30, 2009 at 1:07 pm)g-mark Wrote: Interesting. Can morality be taken into account when a country is at war.

Countries don't have morals, they have interests.

(April 30, 2009 at 1:07 pm)g-mark Wrote: As Japan started the conflict, you could justify yourself with this argumant. On the other hand, you could argue that killing civilians is immoral. How would you determine which is the the correct or morally correct position. If you were Japanese, you would argue one way. If you were American, you would argue the other.

Neither ... as I don't believe there is an absolute right or wrong in any situation, it appears I am a moral relativist.

(April 30, 2009 at 1:07 pm)g-mark Wrote:

Kyu Wrote:For reasons already given I don't accept it applies to the use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima & Nagasaki.

Therefore, this statement can only be relative to yourself, and whoever else agrees with it, depending on your point of view.

Er whut? If you're saying that my view only counts to me and others who agree then of course but that is also true of you and those who agree with you ... bit of a pointless observation really.

Kyu

---

(April 30, 2009 at 1:23 pm)Giff Wrote: I think killing civlians can never be justified. espcially when you look at the Hrisoshima bombings. Also USa where allready helping China in their war against Japans and Japan saw the new base of Peral Harbor as an aggression towards them, that's why the attacked it. Since it was a threat. They didn't attack for no apperent reason.

Actually no, they didn't "see it as an aggression to them" they realised that with a powerful naval base at Pearl the US would seriously hamper their imperialist expansion plans. Perhaps the US was aggressive economically (I don't know) but the Japanese started war in the southern hemisphere and did so because they wanted to expand. To be fair to Japan it was/still is a small country with inadequate resources and needed to produce manufactured goods in order to survive in an increasing technological world but in some ways the war did them a favour ... look how they dominate much of the worlds tech goods market these days.

Kyu

---

(April 30, 2009 at 2:59 pm)leo-rcc Wrote:

(April 30, 2009 at 12:33 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: For reasons already given I don't accept it applies to the use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima & Nagasaki.

Your non acceptance doesn't make it incorrect though. The use of the nuclear weapons on Japan made the decision for the emperor to surrender a lot easier because he feared the consequences for his people. That is the essense of terrorism, no matter what the motive is.

Likewise your belief that it IS terrorism doesn't make that correct either. I do not accept that those bombings were terrorist actions because they were firstly at war, it was Japan that started the war and there were a lot of US soldiers lives at risk (lives that arguably WERE saved).

Kyu

In a galaxy far away....................there was a clear planet. This planet was inhabited by many species, the intellectually dominant species, humans, were a interesting form of complex life. Many believed they understood everything, but they slowly destroyed their planet and acted as so called 'gods'. They were naive, desructive, sceptic, unaccepting, war like, and overall not very advanced. This species reached their 'point' in time as many other have, but they were unwiling to change or see the truth for their own intellect stopped them. The End.

Quote:Likewise your belief that it IS terrorism doesn't make that correct either. I do not accept that those bombings were terrorist actions because they were firstly at war, it was Japan that started the war and there were a lot of US soldiers lives at risk (lives that arguably WERE saved).

Kyu

It has be regarded to be state terrorism and a war crime. Also killing soliders is diffrent from killing civilians.

(May 1, 2009 at 1:59 am)g-mark Wrote: In a galaxy far away....................there was a clear planet. This planet was inhabited by many species, the intellectually dominant species, humans, were a interesting form of complex life. Many believed they understood everything, but they slowly destroyed their planet and acted as so called 'gods'. They were naive, desructive, sceptic, unaccepting, war like, and overall not very advanced. This species reached their 'point' in time as many other have, but they were unwiling to change or see the truth for their own intellect stopped them. The End.

Yeah well ... you appear to be a conspiracy theorist!

'nuff said mate!

Kyu

Which conspiracy is this pal. Can you explain mate.