Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Without the terrorism of Nelson Mandela and the ANC, it’s unlikely apartheid would’ve ended in South Africa.when there are no other means left to fight back against an oppressor it’s justified. " And after recent and current events in Gaza can future Palestinian attacks on Israel really be categorised as terrorism | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don’t hold the view that justifies war because it is ‘legal’. I don’t agree with that Wikipedia definition of terrorism, The list of banned terrorist groups includes kurdish self defence, animal rights and many others that only target infrastructure or defend themselves from oppression. Without the terrorism of Nelson Mandela and the ANC, it’s unlikely apartheid would’ve ended in South Africa.when there are no other means left to fight back against an oppressor it’s justified. When is doing nothing , ignoring what’s happening and letting people be killed ever justified ? " Are you saying that the definition is wrong (then what's your definition), that terrorism is sometimes okay, or both? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don’t hold the view that justifies war because it is ‘legal’. I don’t agree with that Wikipedia definition of terrorism, The list of banned terrorist groups includes kurdish self defence, animal rights and many others that only target infrastructure or defend themselves from oppression. Without the terrorism of Nelson Mandela and the ANC, it’s unlikely apartheid would’ve ended in South Africa.when there are no other means left to fight back against an oppressor it’s justified. When is doing nothing , ignoring what’s happening and letting people be killed ever justified ? " The thing you have to remember about the ANC is they never targeted civilians, they only ever targeted infrastructure! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"From Wikipedia: Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims. The term is used in this regard primarily to refer to intentional violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants. Let's try a hypothetical to illustrate: Iran has very limited useful military options left of it wants to pursue war with Israel and/or the USA. Let's say that, in a few weeks, they have no more missiles or ships. Do they retain the right to retaliate against these countries? If they were to send suicide bombers to Mossad HQ or the Pentagon, then fair enough - that's war with a military objective. But what if they sent suicide bombers to Times Square, a music festival in Israel, or a UK synagogue that once raised funds for tree planting in the West Bank? Could that be justified as "well, there was nothing else they could do and they were owed retaliation"? Or do we expect losers to just... Lose gracefully? If terrorism achieves its aims, can it be justified?" If a group target inferstructure and / or the military but non combatants get killed in the process, does that come under war or terrorism? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"All terrorism is abhorrent, state sponsored or not. It's been sad to see on these forums so many people cheering on state sponsored terrorism, as defined by the OP "the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims.". " Defined by Wikipedia, *quoted* by the OP. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don’t hold the view that justifies war because it is ‘legal’. I don’t agree with that Wikipedia definition of terrorism, The list of banned terrorist groups includes kurdish self defence, animal rights and many others that only target infrastructure or defend themselves from oppression. Without the terrorism of Nelson Mandela and the ANC, it’s unlikely apartheid would’ve ended in South Africa.when there are no other means left to fight back against an oppressor it’s justified. When is doing nothing , ignoring what’s happening and letting people be killed ever justified ? The thing you have to remember about the ANC is they never targeted civilians, they only ever targeted infrastructure! " That was their aim but they certainly targeted civilians directly and indirectly. Car bombings, necklacing, planting land mines. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"All terrorism is abhorrent, state sponsored or not. It's been sad to see on these forums so many people cheering on state sponsored terrorism, as defined by the OP "the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims.". " Where is your defining line between legitimate war and terrorism action? Or do condemn both? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"All terrorism is abhorrent, state sponsored or not. It's been sad to see on these forums so many people cheering on state sponsored terrorism, as defined by the OP "the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims.". Where is your defining line between legitimate war and terrorism action? Or do condemn both? " I've only commented on terrorism. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"All terrorism is abhorrent, state sponsored or not. It's been sad to see on these forums so many people cheering on state sponsored terrorism, as defined by the OP "the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims.". Where is your defining line between legitimate war and terrorism action? Or do condemn both? I've only commented on terrorism." I’m not sure if it’s me not understanding or if it’s your replies being cryptic 🤷 What terrorism are you saying people are cheering on? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"All terrorism is abhorrent, state sponsored or not. It's been sad to see on these forums so many people cheering on state sponsored terrorism, as defined by the OP "the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims.". Where is your defining line between legitimate war and terrorism action? Or do condemn both? I've only commented on terrorism. I’m not sure if it’s me not understanding or if it’s your replies being cryptic 🤷 What terrorism are you saying people are cheering on?" Specifically "the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"All terrorism is abhorrent, state sponsored or not. It's been sad to see on these forums so many people cheering on state sponsored terrorism, as defined by the OP "the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims.". Where is your defining line between legitimate war and terrorism action? Or do condemn both? I've only commented on terrorism. I’m not sure if it’s me not understanding or if it’s your replies being cryptic 🤷 What terrorism are you saying people are cheering on? Specifically "the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims." " Which state are you referring to as sponsoring terrorism? Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Specifically "the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims." " If pedantry is what you're going for, then, by that definition, a fellow down at the pub would be a terrorist if he poked someone in the chest whilst making a political point. Clearly that's ridiculous. By the same token, any collateral damage in any war, police action, etc. could, technically, fall into that definition of terrorism (depending on how you define "against"). The intention behind using the Wikipedia definition was to use a more human comprehensible definition. Perhaps that was a mistake. Oh, well. We live and learn. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"All terrorism is abhorrent, state sponsored or not. It's been sad to see on these forums so many people cheering on state sponsored terrorism, as defined by the OP "the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims.". Where is your defining line between legitimate war and terrorism action? Or do condemn both? I've only commented on terrorism. I’m not sure if it’s me not understanding or if it’s your replies being cryptic 🤷 What terrorism are you saying people are cheering on? Specifically "the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims." Which state are you referring to as sponsoring terrorism? Mrs x" For example… and I am playing devils advocate because the United Nations brought it up You could argue that the mossad “pager” attack in Lebanon was an act of “state sponsored terrorism” by Israel in that fact that it was indistinguishable applied to all people part of a group whether they were at the military top or at the bottom as civilian members | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"From Wikipedia: Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims" It depends on who the non-combatant is. The people in charge of government departments covering up scandals and injustice are non combatants. Putting their own interests and protecting their institution would certainly deserve some vicious restitution. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don’t hold the view that justifies war because it is ‘legal’. I don’t agree with that Wikipedia definition of terrorism, The list of banned terrorist groups includes kurdish self defence, animal rights and many others that only target infrastructure or defend themselves from oppression. Without the terrorism of Nelson Mandela and the ANC, it’s unlikely apartheid would’ve ended in South Africa.when there are no other means left to fight back against an oppressor it’s justified. When is doing nothing , ignoring what’s happening and letting people be killed ever justified ? The thing you have to remember about the ANC is they never targeted civilians, they only ever targeted infrastructure! " This was my point, but they were still a banned terrorist organisation. And I think people did die possibly accidentally but I’m pretty sure they were deaths caused by the ANC. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No, what happened to good old fashioned line up in a field and charging at one another. Terrorism is a cowards way of fighting back plus the usually hide behind innocent people like Hamas and Hezbollah. " What would you do if foreigners came in and started bulldozing your houses, stealing your land and killing your friends and family? Would you just say oh okay I guess there’s some agreement written in the 1960s by the UK that allows this , that sucks but the laws the law, we mustn’t complain ! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don’t hold the view that justifies war because it is ‘legal’. I don’t agree with that Wikipedia definition of terrorism, The list of banned terrorist groups includes kurdish self defence, animal rights and many others that only target infrastructure or defend themselves from oppression. Without the terrorism of Nelson Mandela and the ANC, it’s unlikely apartheid would’ve ended in South Africa.when there are no other means left to fight back against an oppressor it’s justified. When is doing nothing , ignoring what’s happening and letting people be killed ever justified ? The thing you have to remember about the ANC is they never targeted civilians, they only ever targeted infrastructure! " So how did they manage to kill over 100 civilians from the mid 70s until the late 80s? 40 whites, 60 blacks. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don’t hold the view that justifies war because it is ‘legal’. I don’t agree with that Wikipedia definition of terrorism, The list of banned terrorist groups includes kurdish self defence, animal rights and many others that only target infrastructure or defend themselves from oppression. Without the terrorism of Nelson Mandela and the ANC, it’s unlikely apartheid would’ve ended in South Africa.when there are no other means left to fight back against an oppressor it’s justified. When is doing nothing , ignoring what’s happening and letting people be killed ever justified ? The thing you have to remember about the ANC is they never targeted civilians, they only ever targeted infrastructure! So how did they manage to kill over 100 civilians from the mid 70s until the late 80s? 40 whites, 60 blacks. Mrs x" Gloss over that please, use the poetic license that is granted due to Mandela  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"From Wikipedia: Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims. The term is used in this regard primarily to refer to intentional violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants. Let's try a hypothetical to illustrate: Iran has very limited useful military options left of it wants to pursue war with Israel and/or the USA. Let's say that, in a few weeks, they have no more missiles or ships. Do they retain the right to retaliate against these countries? If they were to send suicide bombers to Mossad HQ or the Pentagon, then fair enough - that's war with a military objective. But what if they sent suicide bombers to Times Square, a music festival in Israel, or a UK synagogue that once raised funds for tree planting in the West Bank? Could that be justified as "well, there was nothing else they could do and they were owed retaliation"? Or do we expect losers to just... Lose gracefully? If terrorism achieves its aims, can it be justified?" It's a tough one. Off he main countries that label groups terrorists quickly, 3 come to mind quickly America, India and Israel. In the creation of these 3 countries, the groups that were at the root movement of their creation. They all used violence and killed civilians in the attempt to remove the occupiers in the case of America and India, or the incumbent people in the case of Israel. I don't think anyone can say how they would react if they had their home destroyed, land taken, family killed and women members r*ped etc. You get the picture. Am sure in these movements there were people who, having suffered some of the above, didn't care if the killed the enemies civilians or were eager to do so. While some that hadn't suffered so personally against it on principle. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It's a tough one. Off he main countries that label groups terrorists quickly, 3 come to mind quickly America, India and Israel. In the creation of these 3 countries, the groups that were at the root movement of their creation. They all used violence and killed civilians in the attempt to remove the occupiers in the case of America and India, or the incumbent people in the case of Israel. I don't think anyone can say how they would react if they had their home destroyed, land taken, family killed and women members r*ped etc. You get the picture. Am sure in these movements there were people who, having suffered some of the above, didn't care if the killed the enemies civilians or were eager to do so. While some that hadn't suffered so personally against it on principle. " Vengeance isn't terrorism, though. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It's a tough one. Off he main countries that label groups terrorists quickly, 3 come to mind quickly America, India and Israel. In the creation of these 3 countries, the groups that were at the root movement of their creation. They all used violence and killed civilians in the attempt to remove the occupiers in the case of America and India, or the incumbent people in the case of Israel. I don't think anyone can say how they would react if they had their home destroyed, land taken, family killed and women members r*ped etc. You get the picture. Am sure in these movements there were people who, having suffered some of the above, didn't care if the killed the enemies civilians or were eager to do so. While some that hadn't suffered so personally against it on principle. Vengeance isn't terrorism, though." If it's carried out as part of a political cause, then the other side automatically will call it terrorism. As a lot these revenge attacks will carried against random targets in the other side and not actually the people who carried out the original crime, then can it be proper revenge. Even if it isn't part of a political cause, the other side will call it terrorism. Usually the more powerful side control the narrative, so it will be easy to propagate the terrorism angle. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" " What in the name of wizardry, disappearance, nothing to see here, is this all about 🤣 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No, what happened to good old fashioned line up in a field and charging at one another. Terrorism is a cowards way of fighting back plus the usually hide behind innocent people like Hamas and Hezbollah. What would you do if foreigners came in and started bulldozing your houses, stealing your land and killing your friends and family? Would you just say oh okay I guess there’s some agreement written in the 1960s by the UK that allows this , that sucks but the laws the law, we mustn’t complain ! " Its happened to Jews for millenia. For thousands of years Jews have had their property and material wealth st@len, their lands confiscated, their homes destroyed and their friends and family killed. Not in individual, small groups but wholesale slaughter of them as a people. So why dont you ask them, the Jews, what they think about foreigners doing this to them. Oh yeah that's right you can't because it doesn't fit in with your anti Jewish sentiment or the fact that throughout history Jews normally have played tge role of persecuted and not persecutors, Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don’t hold the view that justifies war because it is ‘legal’. I don’t agree with that Wikipedia definition of terrorism, The list of banned terrorist groups includes kurdish self defence, animal rights and many others that only target infrastructure or defend themselves from oppression. Without the terrorism of Nelson Mandela and the ANC, it’s unlikely apartheid would’ve ended in South Africa.when there are no other means left to fight back against an oppressor it’s justified. When is doing nothing , ignoring what’s happening and letting people be killed ever justified ? The thing you have to remember about the ANC is they never targeted civilians, they only ever targeted infrastructure! So how did they manage to kill over 100 civilians from the mid 70s until the late 80s? 40 whites, 60 blacks. Mrs x Gloss over that please, use the poetic license that is granted due to Mandela "So I'm not to mention the Pretoria bombing then? Ok the ANC are like South Africa's version of the Scouts, helping litter old ladies cross the road and baking cakes for their Cake Sales haha, Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No, what happened to good old fashioned line up in a field and charging at one another. Terrorism is a cowards way of fighting back plus the usually hide behind innocent people like Hamas and Hezbollah. What would you do if foreigners came in and started bulldozing your houses, stealing your land and killing your friends and family? Would you just say oh okay I guess there’s some agreement written in the 1960s by the UK that allows this , that sucks but the laws the law, we mustn’t complain ! Its happened to Jews for millenia. For thousands of years Jews have had their property and material wealth st@len, their lands confiscated, their homes destroyed and their friends and family killed. Not in individual, small groups but wholesale slaughter of them as a people. So why dont you ask them, the Jews, what they think about foreigners doing this to them. Oh yeah that's right you can't because it doesn't fit in with your anti Jewish sentiment or the fact that throughout history Jews normally have played tge role of persecuted and not persecutors, Mrs x" Saying it’s happened to other people doesn’t really answer the question though does it the question was? What would you do not did you know that bad stuff happened to other people. I know that bad stuff has happened to other people we have a 10,000-year-old history of violence and conflict which I’m very familiar with. Anyway, back to the question what would you do if people came and stole your land? Borrowed your property and killed your family and friends? Would you just shrug and accept it? Or would you fight back? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No, what happened to good old fashioned line up in a field and charging at one another. Terrorism is a cowards way of fighting back plus the usually hide behind innocent people like Hamas and Hezbollah. What would you do if foreigners came in and started bulldozing your houses, stealing your land and killing your friends and family? Would you just say oh okay I guess there’s some agreement written in the 1960s by the UK that allows this , that sucks but the laws the law, we mustn’t complain ! Its happened to Jews for millenia. For thousands of years Jews have had their property and material wealth st@len, their lands confiscated, their homes destroyed and their friends and family killed. Not in individual, small groups but wholesale slaughter of them as a people. So why dont you ask them, the Jews, what they think about foreigners doing this to them. Oh yeah that's right you can't because it doesn't fit in with your anti Jewish sentiment or the fact that throughout history Jews normally have played tge role of persecuted and not persecutors, Mrs x Saying it’s happened to other people doesn’t really answer the question though does it the question was? What would you do not did you know that bad stuff happened to other people. I know that bad stuff has happened to other people we have a 10,000-year-old history of violence and conflict which I’m very familiar with. Anyway, back to the question what would you do if people came and stole your land? Borrowed your property and killed your family and friends? Would you just shrug and accept it? Or would you fight back?" My point is nobody knows what they'll do until it happens to them, you may think you do but until it actually happens you dont. Even the simple choice of how yo fight back is not as straight forward as it seems. Are you proficient using modern weapons, i know im not. I dont know how to fire a gun. If you really want a proper answer to this, then ask those affected. So you should ask them, the Jews, they are experts on the matter because I cannot think of a group of people this has happened more to than them. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don’t hold the view that justifies war because it is ‘legal’. I don’t agree with that Wikipedia definition of terrorism, The list of banned terrorist groups includes kurdish self defence, animal rights and many others that only target infrastructure or defend themselves from oppression. Without the terrorism of Nelson Mandela and the ANC, it’s unlikely apartheid would’ve ended in South Africa.when there are no other means left to fight back against an oppressor it’s justified. When is doing nothing , ignoring what’s happening and letting people be killed ever justified ? The thing you have to remember about the ANC is they never targeted civilians, they only ever targeted infrastructure! So how did they manage to kill over 100 civilians from the mid 70s until the late 80s? 40 whites, 60 blacks. Mrs x" let's most definately include state terrorism in the op's question in that case. The National Party used it's death squads to cremate the evidence of their k!dnapping, torture and execution of thousands of non-combatant civilians at Buffleskloof alone and the high tens of thousands across other locations. the government's terror campaign was employed to surpress dissent against it's far-right racist ideology. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don’t hold the view that justifies war because it is ‘legal’. I don’t agree with that Wikipedia definition of terrorism, The list of banned terrorist groups includes kurdish self defence, animal rights and many others that only target infrastructure or defend themselves from oppression. Without the terrorism of Nelson Mandela and the ANC, it’s unlikely apartheid would’ve ended in South Africa.when there are no other means left to fight back against an oppressor it’s justified. When is doing nothing , ignoring what’s happening and letting people be killed ever justified ? The thing you have to remember about the ANC is they never targeted civilians, they only ever targeted infrastructure! So how did they manage to kill over 100 civilians from the mid 70s until the late 80s? 40 whites, 60 blacks. Mrs x let's most definately include state terrorism in the op's question in that case. The National Party used it's death squads to cremate the evidence of their k!dnapping, torture and execution of thousands of non-combatant civilians at Buffleskloof alone and the high tens of thousands across other locations. the government's terror campaign was employed to surpress dissent against it's far-right racist ideology. " You've got me wrong, im not saying the regime in South Africa was abhorrent, it did terrible things and was rightly removed for holding power. However that still does not mean the ANC were responsible for innocent deaths and acts of terror because they were. And you should be aware that the military wing of the ANC, the MK was called for, championed and set up by Mandela. He is not as 'clean' as his supporters would have you believe. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" let's most definately include state terrorism in the op's question in that case." Why expand the definition, when other, more specific, terms exist, with at least as negative connotation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No, what happened to good old fashioned line up in a field and charging at one another. Terrorism is a cowards way of fighting back plus the usually hide behind innocent people like Hamas and Hezbollah. What would you do if foreigners came in and started bulldozing your houses, stealing your land and killing your friends and family? Would you just say oh okay I guess there’s some agreement written in the 1960s by the UK that allows this , that sucks but the laws the law, we mustn’t complain ! " Your point here is both spot-on and disingenuous. It's spot-on because it's the narrative driving terrorism against Israel. It's disingenuous because it frames the issue into a twisted reality without context, through selective emphasis and omission. A bit like a kangaroo court that sentences someone because they hit someone else, without the context of defending themselves against five other people beating up on them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The OP posted the wiki opening definition which I think is a good one. But there is no univerally accepted definition because it's a politically charged concept. For instance in UK law, terrorism has a much wider and arguably more authoritarian definition. Is there a danger that the word terrorism is used to categorize things that most people wouldn't think of as terrorism? The use of terrorism leglislation allows certain legal protections to be abandoned, how do we balance this erosion of legal rights against security concerns? In the Terrorism Act 2000 the word "serious" does a lot of heavy lifting. What does serious mean? For instance an act that is "designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system." could be a form of terrorism if other articles apply. Removing a battery from a phone seriously disrupts an electronic system. Can such an act really qualify as an act of terrorism? Technically the language of the leglislation means that even the threat of removing a battery from a phone if this is intended to influence the government and the threat is made for the purpose of advancing an ideological cause could be considered a terrorist act. Such poor drafting can be abused. In historical terms how do we view things like the deliberate attacking of mostly civilian targets in WWII such as the bombing of Dresden, Hamburg, Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Were these acts of terrorism? In warfare how much collateral damage is acceptable? How do we decide when the potential risk to civilian life is outweighed by the potential gains in war ends? There are countless borderline historical cases and philosophical scenarios where moral judgments are not straighforward. "  Agreed.
The problem with expanding a definition is that it eventually becomes increasingly meaningless. It's often done to conflate moral equivalence by lumping things together.
R@pe is a good example. If people start extending the definition to patting someone on the bottom without consent (for which there are other terms), then when more serious (NOT to say that ANY unwanted touching isn't serious) cases are reported, people roll their eyes. It works the other way as well, where milder terms get used for more serious issues, but usually with less negative impact. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" let's most definately include state terrorism in the op's question in that case. Why expand the definition, when other, more specific, terms exist, with at least as negative connotation. " I'm by no means expanding the definition. you yourself have chosen to redact the quote you used from wikipedia and as a result you have limited the definition, for what purpose one can only speculate. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The OP posted the wiki opening definition which I think is a good one. But there is no univerally accepted definition because it's a politically charged concept. For instance in UK law, terrorism has a much wider and arguably more authoritarian definition. Is there a danger that the word terrorism is used to categorize things that most people wouldn't think of as terrorism? The use of terrorism leglislation allows certain legal protections to be abandoned, how do we balance this erosion of legal rights against security concerns? In the Terrorism Act 2000 the word "serious" does a lot of heavy lifting. What does serious mean? For instance an act that is "designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system." could be a form of terrorism if other articles apply. Removing a battery from a phone seriously disrupts an electronic system. Can such an act really qualify as an act of terrorism? Technically the language of the leglislation means that even the threat of removing a battery from a phone if this is intended to influence the government and the threat is made for the purpose of advancing an ideological cause could be considered a terrorist act. Such poor drafting can be abused. In historical terms how do we view things like the deliberate attacking of mostly civilian targets in WWII such as the bombing of Dresden, Hamburg, Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Were these acts of terrorism? In warfare how much collateral damage is acceptable? How do we decide when the potential risk to civilian life is outweighed by the potential gains in war ends? There are countless borderline historical cases and philosophical scenarios where moral judgments are not straighforward. " The bombings during WW2 was definitely not terrorism. Hiroshima and Nagasaki ultimately saved millions of lives. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The OP posted the wiki opening definition which I think is a good one. But there is no univerally accepted definition because it's a politically charged concept. For instance in UK law, terrorism has a much wider and arguably more authoritarian definition. Is there a danger that the word terrorism is used to categorize things that most people wouldn't think of as terrorism? The use of terrorism leglislation allows certain legal protections to be abandoned, how do we balance this erosion of legal rights against security concerns? In the Terrorism Act 2000 the word "serious" does a lot of heavy lifting. What does serious mean? For instance an act that is "designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system." could be a form of terrorism if other articles apply. Removing a battery from a phone seriously disrupts an electronic system. Can such an act really qualify as an act of terrorism? Technically the language of the leglislation means that even the threat of removing a battery from a phone if this is intended to influence the government and the threat is made for the purpose of advancing an ideological cause could be considered a terrorist act. Such poor drafting can be abused. In historical terms how do we view things like the deliberate attacking of mostly civilian targets in WWII such as the bombing of Dresden, Hamburg, Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Were these acts of terrorism? In warfare how much collateral damage is acceptable? How do we decide when the potential risk to civilian life is outweighed by the potential gains in war ends? There are countless borderline historical cases and philosophical scenarios where moral judgments are not straighforward. Agreed.
The problem with expanding a definition is that it eventually becomes increasingly meaningless. It's often done to conflate moral equivalence by lumping things together.
R@pe is a good example. If people start extending the definition to patting someone on the bottom without consent (for which there are other terms), then when more serious (NOT to say that ANY unwanted touching isn't serious) cases are reported, people roll their eyes. It works the other way as well, where milder terms get used for more serious issues, but usually with less negative impact."Grape has a very specific definition in law, so it may not be the best comparison for terrorism, where the wording is more open to interpretation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" let's most definately include state terrorism in the op's question in that case. Why expand the definition, when other, more specific, terms exist, with at least as negative connotation. I'm by no means expanding the definition. you yourself have chosen to redact the quote you used from wikipedia and as a result you have limited the definition, for what purpose one can only speculate." Fair point. The original reply to your post was going to be a knee jerk one. Further reading around the term terrorism has taught me that there is no consensus on the definition and that many entities have different, including mutually exclusive, elements. As such, you make a good point, however be assured that there was no dark purpose to any clarification to the definition posted (not redaction). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The bombings during WW2 was definitely not terrorism. Hiroshima and Nagasaki ultimately saved millions of lives. Mrs x" Ok so let's look at the nuclear attack against Japan as one example. Do you accept that the people killed were overwhelmingly non-combatants? Estimates are that 150,000 civilians were killed and 10,000 soldiers. It's not knowable if any lives were saved by decisions made by the Japanese government after the attack but let's say one million might have been. So we then end up making a judgment based on balancing two things. Near certainty that we are going to kill about 150,000 non-combatants versus an assessment that this might save say one million people. Just for the sake of argument let's assume that one million lives were in fact saved. The definition of terrorism we are using in this thread is... "Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims. The term is used in this regard primarily to refer to intentional violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants." Wasn't the motivation for killing 150,000 non-combatants to make the Japanese government change their military strategy? So how is this not terrorism? Do you disagree with the definition? Do you think that military strategy doesn't come under the terms of political or ideological aims? Or that the destroyed cities presented some tactical threat? Or what? Isn't your argument that terrorism in this case was justified? Justified by a utilitarian argument that many times more lives may have been (or were in fact) saved than lost? The ends justifies the means, in other words. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" let's most definately include state terrorism in the op's question in that case. Why expand the definition, when other, more specific, terms exist, with at least as negative connotation. I'm by no means expanding the definition. you yourself have chosen to redact the quote you used from wikipedia and as a result you have limited the definition, for what purpose one can only speculate. Fair point. The original reply to your post was going to be a knee jerk one. Further reading around the term terrorism has taught me that there is no consensus on the definition and that many entities have different, including mutually exclusive, elements. As such, you make a good point, however be assured that there was no dark purpose to any clarification to the definition posted (not redaction)." noted | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The bombings during WW2 was definitely not terrorism. Hiroshima and Nagasaki ultimately saved millions of lives. Mrs x Ok so let's look at the nuclear attack against Japan as one example. Do you accept that the people killed were overwhelmingly non-combatants? Estimates are that 150,000 civilians were killed and 10,000 soldiers. It's not knowable if any lives were saved by decisions made by the Japanese government after the attack but let's say one million might have been. So we then end up making a judgment based on balancing two things. Near certainty that we are going to kill about 150,000 non-combatants versus an assessment that this might save say one million people. Just for the sake of argument let's assume that one million lives were in fact saved. The definition of terrorism we are using in this thread is... Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims. The term is used in this regard primarily to refer to intentional violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants. Wasn't the motivation for killing 150,000 non-combatants to make the Japanese government change their military strategy? So how is this not terrorism? Do you disagree with the definition? Do you think that military strategy doesn't come under the terms of political or ideological aims? Or that the destroyed cities presented some tactical threat? Or what? Isn't your argument that terrorism in this case was justified? Justified by a utilitarian argument that many times more lives may have been (or were in fact) saved than lost? The ends justifies the means, in other words." If you include military statergy then all wars are acts of terrorism and that's simply not true. I believe you are pushing an agenda to argue this but its fundamentally weak and flawed. The bombing at Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved millions of lives, both American and Japanese, it was not terrorism, Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The bombing at Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved millions of lives, both American and Japanese " since the release of scores of government documents over the last few decades, that theory has now been completely debunked. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The bombings during WW2 was definitely not terrorism. Hiroshima and Nagasaki ultimately saved millions of lives. Mrs x Ok so let's look at the nuclear attack against Japan as one example. Do you accept that the people killed were overwhelmingly non-combatants? Estimates are that 150,000 civilians were killed and 10,000 soldiers. It's not knowable if any lives were saved by decisions made by the Japanese government after the attack but let's say one million might have been. So we then end up making a judgment based on balancing two things. Near certainty that we are going to kill about 150,000 non-combatants versus an assessment that this might save say one million people. Just for the sake of argument let's assume that one million lives were in fact saved. The definition of terrorism we are using in this thread is... Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims. The term is used in this regard primarily to refer to intentional violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants. Wasn't the motivation for killing 150,000 non-combatants to make the Japanese government change their military strategy? So how is this not terrorism? Do you disagree with the definition? Do you think that military strategy doesn't come under the terms of political or ideological aims? Or that the destroyed cities presented some tactical threat? Or what? Isn't your argument that terrorism in this case was justified? Justified by a utilitarian argument that many times more lives may have been (or were in fact) saved than lost? The ends justifies the means, in other words." Maybe the japanese should of thought about the consequences when bombing pearl harbour then when the u.s was still a neutral country? T | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you include military statergy then all wars are acts of terrorism and that's simply not true. I believe you are pushing an agenda to argue this but its fundamentally weak and flawed. The bombing at Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved millions of lives, both American and Japanese, it was not terrorism, Mrs x" The difference between this and regular warfare was that the targets were non-combatants. In Nagasaki for instance 150 soliders were killed compared with between 60,000 and 80,000 civilians. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you include military statergy then all wars are acts of terrorism and that's simply not true. I believe you are pushing an agenda to argue this but its fundamentally weak and flawed. The bombing at Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved millions of lives, both American and Japanese, it was not terrorism, Mrs x The difference between this and regular warfare was that the targets were non-combatants. In Nagasaki for instance 150 soliders were killed compared with between 60,000 and 80,000 civilians. " You do know the reasons behind the figures at Nagasaki. Stop being disingenuous and tell the truth. If you do ill gladly talk about it but there's no point when you are adhering to a false narrative to 'prove' your flawed argument. Tell everyone why the numbers were what they were. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You do know the reasons behind the figures at Nagasaki. Stop being disingenuous and tell the truth. If you do ill gladly talk about it but there's no point when you are adhering to a false narrative to 'prove' your flawed argument. Tell everyone why the numbers were what they were. Mrs x" I genuinely haven't got clue what you are talking about. Please enlighten me. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You do know the reasons behind the figures at Nagasaki. Stop being disingenuous and tell the truth. If you do ill gladly talk about it but there's no point when you are adhering to a false narrative to 'prove' your flawed argument. Tell everyone why the numbers were what they were. Mrs x I genuinely haven't got clue what you are talking about. Please enlighten me." Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen because they had significant military infrastructure. Nagasaki was also a port, giving it additional military significance. Both cities were also chosen because they'd escaped major bombing previously and this would aid in assessing the destructive capabilities of the bombing. Nagasaki wasn't even the primary target, it might have been the third choice but it definitely wasn't the first choice. The reason it was bomb was due to bad weather and cloud cover because the American bombardier couldn't locate tge initial target due to poor visibility and cloud cover. This was similar at Nagasaki but there was a small window of opportunity which they took. The reaso s for the much smaller numbers of casualties was because they actually missed their target. Fat Boy was dropped into a valley on the edge of the city. It was the landscape that reduced the effectiveness of the bomb, combined with fewer of the population being in this location. But both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were of military significance. So stop lying and saying its different than other incidents in that it only targeted civillians. So now you are enlightened stop with this false narrative, tell the truth it sets free, Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen because they had significant military infrastructure. Nagasaki was also a port, giving it additional military significance. Both cities were also chosen because they'd escaped major bombing previously and this would aid in assessing the destructive capabilities of the bombing. Nagasaki wasn't even the primary target, it might have been the third choice but it definitely wasn't the first choice. The reason it was bomb was due to bad weather and cloud cover because the American bombardier couldn't locate tge initial target due to poor visibility and cloud cover. This was similar at Nagasaki but there was a small window of opportunity which they took. The reaso s for the much smaller numbers of casualties was because they actually missed their target. Fat Boy was dropped into a valley on the edge of the city. It was the landscape that reduced the effectiveness of the bomb, combined with fewer of the population being in this location. But both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were of military significance. So stop lying and saying its different than other incidents in that it only targeted civillians. So now you are enlightened stop with this false narrative, tell the truth it sets free, Mrs x" Even though the Nagasaki bomb detonated 3 km short of the intended target it was still dropped without any derogation from orders and it killed between 60,000 and 80,000 civilians and 150 soldiers. These are facts. If the bomb was dropped exactly on target then the number of civilians killed would have been higher still but the number of combatants killed wouldn't have been massively higher because unlike Hiroshima there wasn't a large military garrison there. But let's agree that the numbers were skewed at Nagasaki. I wasn't trying to manipulate the numbers as I had already said that 10,000 combatants were killed. Here's the paragraph... "Do you accept that the people killed were overwhelmingly non-combatants? Estimates are that 150,000 civilians were killed and 10,000 soldiers." So let's turn to the numbers killed at Hiroshima. 10,000 soldiers, 80,000 to 156,000 civilians. So between 8 and 15.6 times more non-combatants were killed than combatants. The Target Committee stated... " It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released." Neither city was of tactical importance. The bombing was designed to cause as much death and destruction as possible so that people the world over would fear the wrath of the USA. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen because they had significant military infrastructure. Nagasaki was also a port, giving it additional military significance. Both cities were also chosen because they'd escaped major bombing previously and this would aid in assessing the destructive capabilities of the bombing. Nagasaki wasn't even the primary target, it might have been the third choice but it definitely wasn't the first choice. The reason it was bomb was due to bad weather and cloud cover because the American bombardier couldn't locate tge initial target due to poor visibility and cloud cover. This was similar at Nagasaki but there was a small window of opportunity which they took. The reaso s for the much smaller numbers of casualties was because they actually missed their target. Fat Boy was dropped into a valley on the edge of the city. It was the landscape that reduced the effectiveness of the bomb, combined with fewer of the population being in this location. But both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were of military significance. So stop lying and saying its different than other incidents in that it only targeted civillians. So now you are enlightened stop with this false narrative, tell the truth it sets free, Mrs x Even though the Nagasaki bomb detonated 3 km short of the intended target it was still dropped without any derogation from orders and it killed between 60,000 and 80,000 civilians and 150 soldiers. These are facts. If the bomb was dropped exactly on target then the number of civilians killed would have been higher still but the number of combatants killed wouldn't have been massively higher because unlike Hiroshima there wasn't a large military garrison there. But let's agree that the numbers were skewed at Nagasaki. I wasn't trying to manipulate the numbers as I had already said that 10,000 combatants were killed. Here's the paragraph... Do you accept that the people killed were overwhelmingly non-combatants? Estimates are that 150,000 civilians were killed and 10,000 soldiers. So let's turn to the numbers killed at Hiroshima. 10,000 soldiers, 80,000 to 156,000 civilians. So between 8 and 15.6 times more non-combatants were killed than combatants. The Target Committee stated... It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released. Neither city was of tactical importance. The bombing was designed to cause as much death and destruction as possible so that people the world over would fear the wrath of the USA." Again you are being disingenuous. But I expect nothing less. As for the Target Committee saying, " It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released". How you can say neither city was tactically important is beyond naivety, its borderline ridiculous. The tactics were designed to create such an overwhelming sense of awe from the detention of one bomb. So as I said before, both these cities were chosen due to the little damage they had suffered previously. They wanted the enemy to see exactly what these devastating weapons could do. They achieved this military objective by using these 'tactics', they achieved it spectacularly well, the tactical importance of both sites was fully realised when Japan subsequently surrendered. And as for your silly ascertain that these bombs were only used against civillians, even the language from the Targetting Committee disproves this when they said that one of the factors in choosing these targets was to obtain ... "the greatest psychological effect against Japan'. Against Japan, not the Japanese people. Against the country of Japan, their enemy in a war they started. It was the military and government that surrendered, not the people and that was the aim of America. Otherwise they wouldn't have stopped nuking the citizens, if that was what they were targeting. So both cities were tactically very important and achieved Americas aims spectacularly at the first time of asking. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims. The term is used in this regard primarily to refer to intentional violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants." The nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims. Yes, about 6% of casualities were soldiers but they weren't the primary target. One might even call them collateral damage. You concede "the tactics were designed to create such an overwhelming sense of awe from the detention of one bomb". In other words to inflict terror. And it worked, the Japanese government surrendered and maybe, just maybe, a million lives were saved. But it was still terrorism. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Let's look again at the definition of terrorism under discussion... Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims. The term is used in this regard primarily to refer to intentional violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants. The nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims. Yes, about 6% of casualities were soldiers but they weren't the primary target. One might even call them collateral damage. You concede "the tactics were designed to create such an overwhelming sense of awe from the detention of one bomb". In other words to inflict terror. And it worked, the Japanese government surrendered and maybe, just maybe, a million lives were saved. But it was still terrorism. " You like putting words in other people's mouths. I said 'awe' bit like Shick & Awe, the MILITARY tactics used in the first Gulf War. The bombing of Japan had MILITARY objectives, so is not an act of terrorism. It was not political or ideological but Military. You conceded that military personal were killed in both bombing gs yet very strangely keep trying to say they only bombed civillians. So is terrorism concerned with numbers killed, not how or why? You have some odd thoughts on lots of subjects but this is up there. Waiting for your next attempt at spinning the narrative. So just one final thought, are the pilots and aircrew that dropped the bombs terrorists, are they guilty of terrorism. What about the crews that bombed Dresden, Cologne and Berlin are they terrorists too. I find it very insulting that you are trying to double down on this ludicrous argument of yours. Surely these men, boys really, are heroes who bravely did what was needed, paying the ultimate sacrifice at times, so that you can call them murderers from the comfort of your own sofa. Go and spout your vitriol at any British Legion, Remembrance Sunday might be a good day for this and see what reception you get. These young boys paid the price so that you dont have to, maybe show some respect for what they did rather than calling g them terrorists, Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Let's look again at the definition of terrorism under discussion... Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims. The term is used in this regard primarily to refer to intentional violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants. The nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims. Yes, about 6% of casualities were soldiers but they weren't the primary target. One might even call them collateral damage. You concede "the tactics were designed to create such an overwhelming sense of awe from the detention of one bomb". In other words to inflict terror. And it worked, the Japanese government surrendered and maybe, just maybe, a million lives were saved. But it was still terrorism." Then I suppose this begs a new question. If the political or ideological aims in question are the avoidance of further, even greater death and destruction, most of which will be non-combatants (as is the case in all warfare), is terrorism the right choice/ correct path? I know everyone always looks at the nukes in Japan, but I believe the firebombings of other cities, including Tokyo, were much worse. Ultimately, again, intention matters. As well as the outcome (which may or may not be as desired). And maybe my previous answer to the topic was too black and white? 🤔 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You’re putting the cart before the horse, though. Both cities were of tactical importance, because it was the tactical objective to force Japan into surrender, thus ending the war, preventing further ground campaigns against Japan, both from the USA and the impending Soviets, a campaign which would have been FAR more costly in terms of life." You're doing the same as the other poster, making a utilitarian argument in favour of terrorism. "You’re framing it as though USA used then ending of WWII for the purposes of causing global fear. Instead of the truth, which was using global fear for the purpose of ending WWII. Intention matters." Look again at the quote from the Target Committee... "...making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released." The global fear caused by the USA's use of nuclear weapons wasn't intended to end the war in Europe because it was already over at this point. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You're doing the same as the other poster, making a utilitarian argument in favour of terrorism." Not quite. Regardless of the definition, I’m arguing that ultimately it’s the intentions that matter. "The global fear caused by the USA's use of nuclear weapons wasn't intended to end the war in Europe because it was already over at this point." Correct. WORLD War II extended beyond just Europe and the Western Front. Strange that you would refer only to Europe in the context of the discussion specifically about Japan…  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You like putting words in other people's mouths. I said 'awe' bit like Shick & Awe, the MILITARY tactics used in the first Gulf War." I understood the reference to "shock and awe". "The bombing of Japan had MILITARY objectives, so is not an act of terrorism. It was not political or ideological but Military." This is why I asked earlier "Do you think that military strategy doesn't come under the terms of political or ideological aims? ". So if you are now using that argument could you explain why military strategy doesn't have any political or ideological aspect? "You conceded that military personal were killed in both bombing gs yet very strangely keep trying to say they only bombed civillians. So is terrorism concerned with numbers killed, not how or why?" If a bomb kills 15 civilians and 1 soldier is it a military action or terrorism? I'd say on balance it's terrorism. If the ratio was the other way around then on balance I'd say it was military action. It's not science so much as about trying to see the underlying purpose of the operation. Accidents happen but when the ratio is 15:1 the wrong way it doesn't look like an accident. "So just one final thought, are the pilots and aircrew that dropped the bombs terrorists, are they guilty of terrorism." Not by the moral and legal standards of the time. If they did these things today then yes I would classify them as terrorists. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You like putting words in other people's mouths. I said 'awe' bit like Shick & Awe, the MILITARY tactics used in the first Gulf War. I understood the reference to "shock and awe". The bombing of Japan had MILITARY objectives, so is not an act of terrorism. It was not political or ideological but Military. This is why I asked earlier "Do you think that military strategy doesn't come under the terms of political or ideological aims? ". So if you are now using that argument could you explain why military strategy doesn't have any political or ideological aspect? You conceded that military personal were killed in both bombing gs yet very strangely keep trying to say they only bombed civillians. So is terrorism concerned with numbers killed, not how or why? If a bomb kills 15 civilians and 1 soldier is it a military action or terrorism? I'd say on balance it's terrorism. If the ratio was the other way around then on balance I'd say it was military action. It's not science so much as about trying to see the underlying purpose of the operation. Accidents happen but when the ratio is 15:1 the wrong way it doesn't look like an accident. So just one final thought, are the pilots and aircrew that dropped the bombs terrorists, are they guilty of terrorism. Not by the moral and legal standards of the time. If they did these things today then yes I would classify them as terrorists." You really are a class act. You are safe here, spouting rubbish. Go to any airforce base and say the same thing, you should be ashamed of yourself, Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Then I suppose this begs a new question. If the political or ideological aims in question are the avoidance of further, even greater death and destruction, most of which will be non-combatants (as is the case in all warfare), is terrorism the right choice/ correct path? I know everyone always looks at the nukes in Japan, but I believe the firebombings of other cities, including Tokyo, were much worse. Ultimately, again, intention matters. As well as the outcome (which may or may not be as desired). And maybe my previous answer to the topic was too black and white? 🤔" This discussion is very interesting, it's widened out into the short/long thing I hinted at in my first post. Thanks for everyone's (mostly) polite interaction. I'll be back tomorrow if the thread is still open. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A hypothetical: You have a bomb maker/planter ready to die for his cause, but you know he wouldn't let his kids die for it. You are with him and his two children. He won't believe that his children are threatened unless you kill one to show you're serious. For the purposes of argument, let's assume that is all correct. At what point, if any, do you shoot one of the innocent children: To save one person, a hundred people, a thousand people, a million people, or never?" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8zv8j563po "...Iranian security officials contacting their families have claimed that, in a wartime context, they are justified in targeting family members as hostages. They have also labelled the journalists as "mohareb" — a term meaning 'one who wages war against God' — a charge that, under Iranian law, can carry the death penalty." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A hypothetical: You have a bomb maker/planter ready to die for his cause, but you know he wouldn't let his kids die for it. You are with him and his two children. He won't believe that his children are threatened unless you kill one to show you're serious. For the purposes of argument, let's assume that is all correct. At what point, if any, do you shoot one of the innocent children: To save one person, a hundred people, a thousand people, a million people, or never? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8zv8j563po "...Iranian security officials contacting their families have claimed that, in a wartime context, they are justified in targeting family members as hostages. They have also labelled the journalists as "mohareb" — a term meaning 'one who wages war against God' — a charge that, under Iranian law, can carry the death penalty."" Ayatollah declared fatwa on Salman Rushdie for writing a book. I wouldn't take the Iranian view of morality that seriously. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You really are a class act. You are safe here, spouting rubbish. Go to any airforce base and say the same thing, you should be ashamed of yourself," Oh, dear. Let me state my analysis of our argument (once again emphasizing that this is in the context of the wiki definition of terrorism posted by the OP). There are three propositions: A) Terrorism is never justified. B) The nuclear attack on Japan was justified. C) The nuclear attack on Japan was terrorism. Logically all three of these propositions can't be true. My understanding is that you are absolutely certain that (A) is true, (B) is true and (C) is false. My position is a bit more complicated. I believe (A) is true but I'm not 100% certain and am open to arguments that in some extreme situations it might not be true. In other words my default position is that (A) is true. I believe on balance that (B) is false because on the balance of the evidence I believe that (C) is true. To be clear I have made the argument that (C) is true but I'm not certain it is, which is why I used the phrase "on balance" above and why I'm open to counter-arguments - for instance that the massively disproportionate ratio of non-combatants killed to combatants killed has some reasonable explanation or was not reasonably foreseeeable or that the intentions made explicit by the Target Committte were in some way not genuine intentions. My understanding of your position is that (C) can't be true because if it is true then it can't be the case that (A) and (B) are both true. However, I don't think you are fully convinced that you have refuted my argument for (C) otherwise you wouldn't have resorted to crude forms of ad hominem. I think you are in a quandry that can be solved by conceding (C) and slightly adjusting your certainty on (A) to accomodate the notion that terrorism could be justified on utilitarian grounds in extremely rare situations such as the nuclear attack on Japan. You could then maintain that (B) is certainly true without any logical inconsistency while still holding a respectable position on (A). Although I would still disagree on moral grounds because I don't think the utilitarian argument in the case of the nuclear attack on Japan is sufficient to override my default position that terrorism is never justified. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You really are a class act. You are safe here, spouting rubbish. Go to any airforce base and say the same thing, you should be ashamed of yourself, Oh, dear. Let me state my analysis of our argument (once again emphasizing that this is in the context of the wiki definition of terrorism posted by the OP). There are three propositions: A) Terrorism is never justified. B) The nuclear attack on Japan was justified. C) The nuclear attack on Japan was terrorism. Logically all three of these propositions can't be true. My understanding is that you are absolutely certain that (A) is true, (B) is true and (C) is false. My position is a bit more complicated. I believe (A) is true but I'm not 100% certain and am open to arguments that in some extreme situations it might not be true. In other words my default position is that (A) is true. I believe on balance that (B) is false because on the balance of the evidence I believe that (C) is true. To be clear I have made the argument that (C) is true but I'm not certain it is, which is why I used the phrase "on balance" above and why I'm open to counter-arguments - for instance that the massively disproportionate ratio of non-combatants killed to combatants killed has some reasonable explanation or was not reasonably foreseeeable or that the intentions made explicit by the Target Committte were in some way not genuine intentions. My understanding of your position is that (C) can't be true because if it is true then it can't be the case that (A) and (B) are both true. However, I don't think you are fully convinced that you have refuted my argument for (C) otherwise you wouldn't have resorted to crude forms of ad hominem. I think you are in a quandry that can be solved by conceding (C) and slightly adjusting your certainty on (A) to accomodate the notion that terrorism could be justified on utilitarian grounds in extremely rare situations such as the nuclear attack on Japan. You could then maintain that (B) is certainly true without any logical inconsistency while still holding a respectable position on (A). Although I would still disagree on moral grounds because I don't think the utilitarian argument in the case of the nuclear attack on Japan is sufficient to override my default position that terrorism is never justified. " You argument is fundamental weak. Your are relying on the nature of a weapon, in that its a nuclear bomb. Would other bombs be ok? You're not fallacy is on numbers. The overwhelming numbers of those killed appears to lead you to say yes its terrorism. By that corruption of logic Nick Bergs murder wouldn't be a terrorist action. There's also the act of killing itself. If you look at Coke's definition and all the requirements for murder to occur the first element is for an 'unlawful' killing. This means there's a defence if the person killing can establish that the killing they committed was lawful. This is what protects ordinary service men and woman from facing murder charges if they kill someone during a conflict. So was there a conflict here? Yes. We're the servicemen carrying out a lawful order? Yes. Was this action justified? The bombing of the enemy and its territories is justifiable and that answer is also Yes. So its established that those that conducted this mission, DID NOY commit murder. That's the fundamental difference between soldiers and terrorists. Terrorist kill and commot murder, soldiers kill in conflict but have a lawful excuse. So unless you can prove, legally, beyond all reasonable doubt, 99% being the burden of proof that these brave servicemen are murderers you have no claim that it was terrorism. They dropped one bomb. If it hadn't been nuclear would that be OK for you? Terrorism isn't about damage caused, numbers of lives lost but rather committing crimes designed to instill terror. So you're ABC simplification is just ridiculous. Try and base your argument on facts, legal principles, not emotions. Dropping a bomb of this sort was not about causing terror but about demonstrating the destructive nature that America possessed and it was used to bring about a change in Japans never say surrender attitude. It was an exercise in futility, demonstrating to Japan as a nation the futility of continuing with their psychological approach to warfare in the face of such a weapon. And this military tactic worked. If America wanted to purely cause error, which they never did, they could have just dropped it over much more heavily populated areas, say downtown Tokyo but they didnt. They chose specific targets to achieve their aims. Calling ordinary service men terrorists is abhorrent and you should apologise for this. It's extremely offensive to families who have lost loved ones and for all those who have bravely served their country to listen to your pathetic argument. Go with things you can prove, use facts, figures, the law, expert opinion. Stay away from emotion, feelings and most importantly definitions from Wiki which can be altered, added to, changed by any person in the street. It's not a particularly great source as a reference material. You might be better asking all the numpties on X/Twitter. Can you please stop saying service men are terrorists, unless those that have been proven of war crimes obviously, its extremely offensive, Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Perhaps if you took greater care in reading my arguments you would have seen that I categorically said that the people involved in the nuclear attack on Japan were not terrorists "by the moral and legal standards of the time". I try to make very careful points without emotion. Yet in return much of what I get from you is crude ad hominen. Go back and read some of the vile and insulting things you have written. And no the fact that the attack used nuclear weapons is not important. The important factor is that the attack targeted civilians. " Sorry but before giving advice see if it applies to you first. You clearly stated that the attack on Japan was terrorism. You stated that you...'believe on balance that (B) is false because on the balance of the evidence I believe that (C) is true.' C was your option, that the attack on Japan was terrorism. You try to negate this by saying it was probably moral and legal at tge time. It's still legal today, that's my whole point. It's legal because the killing was not unlawful, the servicemen had a defence then, the same defence as now, no matter how much you despise this 'fact' because it negates your argument, weakening it substantially. If you can prove its murder do so but use facts not feelings, legality not morality. As for my vile and insulting things I've, allegedly, said I totally disagree. I've called you argument weak and ridiculous because it is. You cannot prove anything you say. You quote things like it targeted civillians but it didnt. Even you gave the figures of Japanese servicemen killed, I didn't, you did that on your own. You area dream opponent in a debate, making statements oneself and and then disproving them with a counter statement the next. You would be on the losing end of a one person debate, its quite funny really. As for being 'ad hominem' towards you, im not attacking you personally, im attacking your arguments, the purpose of a debate. I do this with facts not feelings. Like murder, soldiers have a legal defence against this, as do others, self defence, surgeons losing patients during operation etc. Murder requires an 'unlawful' killing. Soldiers following lawful orders are protected under this defence. As for targeting individuals, countries have a legitimate right to bomb their enemies and territories. You are using this part of the definition in correctly. Civillians in this case are an unfortunate collateral damage. What is not defensible is in situation seen under the Nazis, were civillians were li ed up and then deliberately shot at close quarters. Now that is terrorism. So its not my fault that you dont appear to have a grasp of the basic legality surrounding what does or does not make fora lawful killing but as the saying goes, 'Ignorantia legis neminem excusat' since you like a bit of Latin. This is just an observation on you argument and is not by way of any ad hominen. You on the other hand have said something very insulting about our brave servicemen and instead of offering an apology you just double down on it, using a bit of a lame spin, by hiding what you are accusing these brave boys of doing under an excuse of historical perspective. Shameful, it wasn't illegal then, its not illegal now and I still dare you to go into any British Legion to try and convince their members of your accusations. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Perhaps if you took greater care in reading my arguments you would have seen that I categorically said that the people involved in the nuclear attack on Japan were not terrorists "by the moral and legal standards of the time". I try to make very careful points without emotion. Yet in return much of what I get from you is crude ad hominen. Go back and read some of the vile and insulting things you have written. And no the fact that the attack used nuclear weapons is not important. The important factor is that the attack targeted civilians. " Oh and stop saying '...The important factor is that the attack targeted civilians.' As if that was the only reason these cities were chosen. You are being disingenuous and factually incorrect. Hiroshima - Military Significance: Hiroshima was a major port and a key military command center, housing the 2nd Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of southern Japan. It also served as a communication center, storage point, and troop assembly area. Targeting for Impact: Choosing a city that hadn't been heavily bombed allowed for a clearer assessment of the bomb's destructive power and served as a demonstration effect. Forcing Surrender: The bombing was part of a strategy to force Japan's surrender, potentially preventing further casualties from a land invasion. Nagasaki. - Military Presence: Nagasaki had a substantial military presence, including factories producing weapons and military equipment. Industrial Capacity: The city housed major shipyards, steelworks, and armaments factories, making it a key contributor to Japan's war effort. Port City: As a major port, Nagasaki played a vital role in supplying and transporting military goods. Unbombed Status: Compared to other Japanese cities, Nagasaki had not been heavily bombed prior to the atomic attack, making it a suitable location to assess the bomb's impact. While the bombing of Nagasaki resulted in immense civilian casualties, the US military considered the city's military and industrial infrastructure sufficient to justify its selection as a target. So the bombs weren't targeted at civilians or are you going to say that these facts are not true? Stop it, its just wrong, facts beat feelings, Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims. The term is used in this regard primarily to refer to intentional violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants." I've reiterated this several times. Most recently when I said "once again emphasizing that this is in the context of the wiki definition of terrorism posted by the OP". This is a politcs thread on a swinger's website not a court of law. Also I haven't been disrepectful to any current day members of the military. I haven't accused anyone in the UK military of comitting war crimes nor have I questioned their integrity or bravery. That's all just inside you head. The points I've been making aren't in any way novel or peculiar. The ethics of this attack (along with campaigns like the Blitz) have been debated for decades and I think amongst people in the military there isn't some monolithic opinion. Public opinion is definitely split. Even in the US a 2015 Pew poll found that 34% (52% amongst Democrats) said they did not consider the attack was justified. If a third of people in the US think it wasn't justified then my argument is hardly on the fringes. Questions about proportionality aren't straightforward. I've been putting the case that it was foreseeable that the ratio of non-combatants killed to combatants killed would be so high and that this disportionality is evidence for the deliberate targeting of civilians, others may disagree with my assessment. Again this is an opinion thread where we are supposed to be debating not a court of law. I'm not going to waste time on detailing your ad hominems as others here can make their own minds up. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you took care to read my words you would realise that you are making a straw man argument about the legailty of the nuclear attack on Japan. I responded to one of your questions on legality by saying that I didn't think the attack was illegal at the time, but my argument here has been about whether the attack falls within the definition of terrorism that this thread is based on... Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims. The term is used in this regard primarily to refer to intentional violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants. I've reiterated this several times. Most recently when I said "once again emphasizing that this is in the context of the wiki definition of terrorism posted by the OP". This is a politcs thread on a swinger's website not a court of law. Also I haven't been disrepectful to any current day members of the military. I haven't accused anyone in the UK military of comitting war crimes nor have I questioned their integrity or bravery. That's all just inside you head. The points I've been making aren't in any way novel or peculiar. The ethics of this attack (along with campaigns like the Blitz) have been debated for decades and I think amongst people in the military there isn't some monolithic opinion. Public opinion is definitely split. Even in the US a 2015 Pew poll found that 34% (52% amongst Democrats) said they did not consider the attack was justified. If a third of people in the US think it wasn't justified then my argument is hardly on the fringes. Questions about proportionality aren't straightforward. I've been putting the case that it was foreseeable that the ratio of non-combatants killed to combatants killed would be so high and that this disportionality is evidence for the deliberate targeting of civilians, others may disagree with my assessment. Again this is an opinion thread where we are supposed to be debating not a court of law. I'm not going to waste time on detailing your ad hominems as others here can make their own minds up. " You say its not a court of law here and you are correct. I've never said it was though. But whilst its not a court you still need to establish legal facts about the actions committed during WW2. If you cannot do that then all you are doing is trying to shoe horn your opinions to fit this definition. If you believe that's the correct way of doing it but I prefer establishing things are what they say they are rather than what I want them to be. So unless you can establish that the killings of the populous her was unlawful, you have no case. It can only be terrorism if the act is unlawful. As for not disrespecting any members of the armed forces, past or present, I cannot understand what you are saying. This is because you say that the act of dropping the Atomic bomb her is terrorism. This means that all those involved are guilty of murder, not war heroes. That is disrespectful and this disrespect extends to all cases were you feel the actions were not justified. Ergo you are disrespecting past, current and future servicemen. The fact you cannot see this is shocking. As for your views not being fringe doesn't justify what you say. There are tonnes of people who dont believe that man went to the moon, that the 9/11 attacks never took place or that Covid was a huge global, Illuminati conspiracy. None of these opinions or feelings matter. All that matters are the facts, and you dont like using these. This is evidenced be you"re constant saying that Hiroshima & Nagasaki just targeted civilians. Despite evidence that they weren't chosen for this. Whilst on this subject, you are silent about the several Mitsubishi factories, at both cities, which manufactured tonnes of stuff for the Japanese war effort including aircraft part, shipping parts, arms and munitions. These are, and always have been, valid military targets. I say military because civilians dont normally need aircraft or ship parts, arms or munitions. If any of your points are valid then how come the military personnel have not been brought up on war crime charges, oh yeah that's because they are not war crimes, the attack was a valid military one, which achieved its objectives using the tactics that were developed to ensure a positive outcome to bring the war in the Pacific to a quick end. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You say its not a court of law here and you are correct. I've never said it was though. But whilst its not a court you still need to establish legal facts about the actions committed during WW2. If you cannot do that then all you are doing is trying to shoe horn your opinions to fit this definition. If you believe that's the correct way of doing it but I prefer establishing things are what they say they are rather than what I want them to be. So unless you can establish that the killings of the populous her was unlawful, you have no case. It can only be terrorism if the act is unlawful." The title of this thread is "Is terrorism ever justified?". Jutification is not a legal concept it's a philosophical one - specifically an ethical one. So the discussion is about moral principles not about legality. I guess this is why you keep going on about emotion and feelings, but just because philosophy isn't science or law it doesn't mean that it's not about reason. Ethics involves rational argument about whether behaviour is right or wrong. "As for not disrespecting any members of the armed forces, past or present, I cannot understand what you are saying. This is because you say that the act of dropping the Atomic bomb her is terrorism. This means that all those involved are guilty of murder, not war heroes. That is disrespectful and this disrespect extends to all cases were you feel the actions were not justified. Ergo you are disrespecting past, current and future servicemen. The fact you cannot see this is shocking." Please explain how British servicemen bear any responsibility for what the Americans did 80 years ago. "As for your views not being fringe doesn't justify what you say. There are tonnes of people who dont believe that man went to the moon, that the 9/11 attacks never took place or that Covid was a huge global, Illuminati conspiracy. None of these opinions or feelings matter. All that matters are the facts, and you dont like using these." You appear to be saying something like: group A believe X, group B believe Y, X is false therefore Y is probably false. Which is basically a nonsense way of dismissing other people's beliefs. And the same argument would apply to your beliefs - if some people believe things that aren't true then why should we believe you? The argument even self-destructs because it is in itself a statement of belief. Opinions and feelings do matter otherwise much of what you've said doesn't make any sense. And facts aren't concrete objects they are beliefs that we hold to be true. Anyway I used the polling numbers to point out that a third of Americans seem to agree with me, so my position isn't unconventional or particularly controversial even though you seem to think it is. "This is evidenced be you"re constant saying that Hiroshima & Nagasaki just targeted civilians. Despite evidence that they weren't chosen for this. Whilst on this subject, you are silent about the several Mitsubishi factories, at both cities, which manufactured tonnes of stuff for the Japanese war effort including aircraft part, shipping parts, arms and munitions. These are, and always have been, valid military targets. I say military because civilians dont normally need aircraft or ship parts, arms or munitions." I haven't said that the attacks just targeted civilians. About 10,000 soldiers were killed alongside between about 140,000 and 246,000 civilians. There were legitimate military targets in both cities. But they weren't that significant otherwise they would have already have been heavily bombed. So the risk they presented to the US was minor. If the US had targeted things like armaments factories, steelworks, ports, railway lines and such then this would have been completely legiitimate even if non-combatants were killed as a result. It is understood by all that collateral damage occurs in war. The difference here is that the US command didn't target just these conventional targets they decided to target entire cities knowing full well that the result would be tens of thousands of women and children killed. These civilians weren't killed by accident they were killed deliberately. The purpose of killing them was to say to the Japanese high command - look we have the power to kill everyone in Japan. Surrender or else. It was also a demonstration to the wider world that US power had reached a new level and that they should take note. Although some scholars suggest that the Soviet invasion of Manchuria on the 9th August 1945 may have had at least as much to do with subsequent events. I should add that I don't think any blame lies on the aircrews involved. In this era people did whatever they were told to do. They hadn't had any training on concepts like whether orders were legal or not and if they disobeyed the'd have been imprisoned or executed. The responsibility lies higher up the command chain. And even then, as I've already said, at the time legal and moral standards were quite different to now. Modern concepts of the laws of war only came in to being after WWII (and as a result of the horrors of the war). This is another reason why I've been argunig about ethics rather than law. "If any of your points are valid then how come the military personnel have not been brought up on war crime charges, oh yeah that's because they are not war crimes, the attack was a valid military one, which achieved its objectives using the tactics that were developed to ensure a positive outcome to bring the war in the Pacific to a quick end." See my comments above. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" If terrorism achieves its aims, can it be justified?" Ask Nelson Mandela | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter " Clown | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Specifically "the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims." If pedantry is what you're going for, then, by that definition, a fellow down at the pub would be a terrorist if he poked someone in the chest whilst making a political point. Clearly that's ridiculous. By the same token, any collateral damage in any war, police action, etc. could, technically, fall into that definition of terrorism (depending on how you define "against"). The intention behind using the Wikipedia definition was to use a more human comprehensible definition. Perhaps that was a mistake. Oh, well. We live and learn." I thought it was a good definition. Typically the word "terrorism" is applied to a group on the opposing side of whatever conflict, ie it's been politicised, rather than used as a word to describe the actions. IE. One group kills lots of innocent people. Terrorists. Another group kills lots of innocent people. Brave soldiers. And vice versa. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Depends on what you call terrorism. Remember one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Where the Norman's or Romans terrorists when they conquered Britain? Or where the Britons terrorists for fighting back ?" None of them were terrorists, they were soldiers, all part of their particular army. Soldiers are not terrorists, totally different. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Depends on what you call terrorism. Remember one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Where the Norman's or Romans terrorists when they conquered Britain? Or where the Britons terrorists for fighting back ?None of them were terrorists, they were soldiers, all part of their particular army. Soldiers are not terrorists, totally different. Mrs x" History tells us states when invading another country often use some of their military to terrorise a population in order to suppress opposition to them.. Has always happened and is happening now.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
