RE: Definition of terrorism
May 1, 2009 at 7:44 am
(This post was last modified: May 1, 2009 at 7:49 am by Giff.)
Quote:I agree BUT I think it was acceptable because of the balancing risk to US soldiesr. IF the truth be known I think the two cities were a test ... the US army wasn't engaged in terror as such and yes US lives were saved but what they really wanted to know was what effect a nuclear strike would have on a real target. I can't justify that but it is my opinion but I still don't accept it was terrorism.Then acctually the debate can be whether or not a military action were civilan suffer, which often is the case, is a sort of dircet or indirect terrorism. However it's a sort war crime and crime towards human rights. Also the atomic bomb is highly unethical and imoral.
Quote:Should be perhaps, rarely is.
Exactly that's why I think they should acctually try not to bomb civilians. It doesn't mather if there might be rebel in the city. Also a war against someone who practising guerilla warfare can never been won.
Quote:He didn't enforce it he just pissed the British off.
I didn't say he enforced. That what I said peace can't be created with violence. A great example of making peace wihtout viloence or making a peaceful protest is Gandhis method. That's an excellent form of achieving a goal, which this case independence. Which India never you have achivied if the tried it with violence and military force.