RE: Definition of terrorism
May 1, 2009 at 4:36 am
(This post was last modified: May 1, 2009 at 4:40 am by Kyuuketsuki.)
(May 1, 2009 at 3:30 am)g-mark Wrote: True. and...........
Then you are a conspiracy theorist (in that respect at least).
Kyu
(May 1, 2009 at 3:51 am)leo-rcc Wrote: So you say the Nuclear bombs were not an act of terror but the V1 and V2 were? How are they different? And what about Dresden? Guernica?
Because the V1 and V2 were designed more to cause terror, their capacity to damage, their precision were minimal ... other weapons could have damaged their targets better therefore thy were essentially weapons of terror. The nuclear bombs, at least in the first instance, were not and were used to SAVE lives (those of US soldiers) and to bring the war to a much more rapid conclusion than otherwise is likely to have happened.
Like it or not (whether you agree with me or not) that point of view makes sense ... it just happens not to be one you prefer.
I haven't mentioned Dresden or the other place.
Kyu
Angry Atheism
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings!
Come over to the dark side, we have cookies!
Kyuuketsuki, AngryAtheism Owner & Administrator
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings!
Come over to the dark side, we have cookies!
Kyuuketsuki, AngryAtheism Owner & Administrator
