Definition of terrorism

[Kyuuketsuki]

Which conspiracy is this pal. Can you explain mate.

You appear to believe there is some kind of great UFO cover-up.

Kyu

p.s. (re: the above star wars thing) ridiculing your opponent only works if you have made your case well enough in the first place and, sadly for you, you haven't.

[g-mark]

True. and...........

[leo-rcc]

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

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?

[Giff]

Vietnam is also a great exmaple. I don't see napalm bombiing as a something else then a state terrorism.

[Kyuuketsuki]

True. and...........

Then you are a conspiracy theorist (in that respect at least).

Kyu

---

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

[Sam]

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?

These where two completley different weapons, the V1 & V2 rockets where used en-mass without being more than liberally pointed in the direction of England (and other targets) whereas the nuclear bombing where applied to strategic targets.

The simple facts are that while the loss of life was appauling the act itself acheived legitimate aims, and was not aimed to terrorise the general population.

Sam

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

So you believe that terrorism can be justified, depending on the circumstances?

Terrorism is never a moral act,but like war itself, it can ALWAYS be justified by the perpetrators.It's the victims who get upset.

IF you accept as war as moral or even justified on pragmatic grounds alone,ultimately terrorism will always be used by one's own side at some stage. It is rarely if ever called terrorism by one's own side.



Terrorism ALWAYS works,it's a matter of degree. 9/11 was arguably the most influentual act of terrorism in recorded history.The effectiveness of terror as a weapon was recognised and taught by Sun Tzu,in "The Art Of War" written between 476-221BCE and in Europe over 1500 years later by Nicolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) in "The Prince".


Terror has long been used by totalitarian regimes in war and as a form of social control. During WW2 terrorism was used by both sides.The most notorious example on the English side was the fire bombing of the city of Dresden on 13 February 1945, 12 weeks before the surrender of Germany.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_...rld_War_II

Was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki terrorism? Of course,in part,but there were layers.One political motive was to keep Russia out of Japan (Russia only declared war on Japan on August 8 1945, 2 days AFTER the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima)

[Giff]

nuclear bombing where applied to strategic targets

Not military strategic if you think that. They where not big cities and the purpose was to scare Japan to surrender. Which is a form a terrorism.

Also it was nota quick a painful death that most of those who died experienced. The story I heared frm survivors from Hiroshima is touching. Such things can't be justified specially not when it comes to death of children.

"Strategic targets" is not a good argument for jusifing a nuclear attack.

[leo-rcc]

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.

So now you make an arbitrary distinction between based on their effectiveness.

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.

By use of fear, what is the definition of terror.

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.

Preference has nothing to do with it. You change definitions of terrorism because you seem to think that because something helped save lives for one side it suddenly is no longer to be regarded as a terrorist method. It isn't.

I haven't mentioned Dresden or the other place.

No I did, these were questions to you. Because you said if it is done in a war it is not an act of terrorism, and Dresden and Guernica certainly were an act of terrorism. Terrorism is a methodology, not an ideology. The outcome of a terrorist attack no matter how large the scale does not alter the fact that it is a terrorist attack.

[Kyuuketsuki]

So now you make an arbitrary distinction between based on their effectiveness.

I don't accept the distinction is arbitrary.

By use of fear, what is the definition of terror.

The way you are using your definition you could declare ALL war to be terrorism and probably throw in the police and the law courts as well.

Preference has nothing to do with it. You change definitions of terrorism because you seem to think that because something helped save lives for one side it suddenly is no longer to be regarded as a terrorist method. It isn't.

And you are using the definition of terror in an inconsistent fashion.

No I did, these were questions to you. Because you said if it is done in a war it is not an act of terrorism, and Dresden and Guernica certainly were an act of terrorism. Terrorism is a methodology, not an ideology. The outcome of a terrorist attack no matter how large the scale does not alter the fact that it is a terrorist attack.

You used them to Giff and I'm not interested in debating them (I don't even know what the second is).

Kyu