Only members can vote.
page 3 of 3 « Previous 1 2 3 63 total items
The dropping of the A bombs could have been an America warning to the Soviets. This was around the time of the Cold War
after all so where is all the guesswork on that? This makes 'necessary' something to throw to the dogs.
It was a cruel option for the civilians, but it`s hard to feel bad about it after what the Japanese did to Chinese, so excuse my opinion that it was all for the better.
- This Free Life Crisis -
So by that logic, 9/11 could be justified by what Americans did to the Vietnamese? That's extra-strength dumb working overtime.
Quote by LigerZSchnider
Quote by PhoegonShow me Japan's declaration of war on the United States prior to Pearl Harbor. As far as you're concerned, Pearl Harbor was the declaration. RIGHT? And so was 9/11. If terrorists aren't able to wage war, then how do we have a WAR ON TERRORISM? Ownage. What's so hard about this? Absolutely nothing.
So, that means that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was an act of terrorism! The US did declare war against Japan........after the attack.
You are an asshat. Your comments are meaningless, not to mention stupid.
Ahaha. You still here, dipshit? I thought you were too busy chickenshitting from the last ownage I unleashed on your hapless dumbass. My comments are meaningless and STUPID? Oh no, not meaningless and STUPID too! Yeah, the US did declare war against Japan, after the Japanese bombed a military target. The US also declared war on terror. So I guess that renders your statement mind-numbingly useless, as usual. It's amazing you remembered to breathe this long, tool. HAHA.
Refrain from ad-hominem attacks and engage in civilized discourse. If you cannot, then please refrain from posting anything.
Any more personal attacks will lead to thread closure and individual penalties.
EternalParadox
Previously the Forum, Vector Art, and Policy Moderator
Quote by DuisternisNo, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not terrorist acts, regardless of who the victims of the attacks were. A terrorist act is only a terrorist act when it is done by a group that is not on behalf of a country. The bombings were an attack from the United States on Japan, not an unknown American terrorist group on the Japanese economy or something. You can argue against this point because of how mostly civilians were killed, but whether you like it or not, a country is a piece of land and everything in those borders is apart of that country, this regardless of what you attack you attack that country. It doesn't mean it's right, it just means that's the way it is.
I still can't decide whether it was a good or bad thing to drop the atomic bombs though. One thing I am sure of is that two bombs were overkill, one bomb was all they needed.
I find your post very interesting, however, I would like to point out two things. First of all terrorism is the indiscriminate use of violence and fear towards a population in order to achieve a religious or politcal goal. The surrender of Japan could have been that goal. Second of all, while most states do not WISH for their terrorists to reveal who sponsored them, remember that there IS state sponsored terrorism, and states which simply, outright utilize terrorism.
The problem I have, with the whole controversy is whether Hiroshima was targeted specifically for civilians, or whether the military supply center present was what actually occupied the planners. However, I am starting to think that civillians were specifically targetted, in order not to waste the device on a target which could be missed. The same applies for Nagasaki. Attacks against a military force is not considered terrorism, I remind you.
Also, the V2 bombings were a form of terrorism, as were the fire bombs by the Allied forces. However, sadly enough, the Holocaust is not considered a form of terrorism. The reason being that the act was simply an outright and blunt attempt to eliminate ethnic groups which were considered inferior by the Nazi's standards. Many don't consider that a political or ideological gain.
Any act of war of a nation against other is an act of terror, any action of a human been thinking about damage another human been is an act of terror.
Unfortunately war is about killing and there is no way to justify what happens in a war. So, no matter what the history show us, which reasons the countries involved had in that moment, if you steal, kill or destroy, that is terror.
Can sin be forgiven? Cloud Strife
I'm not really concerned with whether the use of A-bombs was moral or not; that's a philosophical question, and we all know (or should know) those can't be definitively answered.
But if we define terrorism as independent of any particular state (which is generally how I see it), then no, the Hiroshima/Nagasaki incidents were not acts of terrorism, and neither was the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
"The ugly and thin cattle ate up the seven sleek and fat cattle." - Genesis 41:4
Quote by LordStyphon
Quote by DreamTravellerOh... my god. Please learn history while you still are in school. Japan was at war with the allies before 1941. Or didnt you know that Japan joined the Axis in 1940?
Wait, what.
Japan wasn't at was with anyone except China before 1941. Joining the Axis didn't bring them into Germany's war against the Allies, just as Japan allying with Germany didn't bring the Germans into Japan's war. It wasn't until Japan moved to seize European colonial holdings in Southeast Asia to make up for what they weren't getting from the United States because of the trade embargo. This was in 1941.
I believe you were telling someone they needed to learn history?
Ok, sorry. I admit my words came out wrong, my bad. I'll make a longer response to fully explain what I meant.
In the late 1930, The USA supported China and Rosavelt even prohibited sales of warplanes to Japan. The USA heavily finaacially support china during Sino-Japanse war. Yes, even partly before 1941. The USA did join in the international efforts to condemn Japan’s seizure of Manchuria, even though it wasnt a part of the League of nations. While its true that Japan wasnt at war with the allies before 1941. However, it was getting extremely heated up before then. Mainly because the USA didnt want to go to war. Even though Japan did have some very uneasy grounds with the Soviet Union before 1941, with an undeclared border conflict in 1939.
I would say that the allies were getting hmm, extremely angry with Japan. Especially the USA. Why? well alianainting the voices from the west espeically towards the USA, wasnt a good thing in the 1930s.
And it is true that the Sino-Japanse War did merge with World War 2 during december in 1941, because of attacking british crown colony.
That sound better? I have learnt my history, I just usually have very little time. So my response may seem incompentet and inconclusive. but even now, because of this. I am late for work.
How truly noble of you to grace us with such a selfless sacrifice.
terrorism? Japan was at war with the US at the time of the bombings. it's all fair game. sure, a lot of innocent people may have died but it is an unfortunate side-effect of war but Japan had it coming to them.
Easy to say when it's not your family wallowing in an ashtray huh? Bold stance you're taking there, Danny.
Quote by Azirk
Attacks against a military force is not considered terrorism, I remind you.
so... if terrorists attack a military force, but civillan lives were also taken in that attack, is that attack considered terrorism?
i'm not opposing your point or what, i'm just trying to get a clearer idea of your point.
War nowadays is way too different from war centuries ago... war used to be a matter of honor and skill... man vs man, face to face, sword against sword. Right now war seems to be a damn child`s game... any coward can just push a button and send straight to hell an entire city... no honor anymore, right now war is not a matter of man vs man but something of rich vs poor, bullets and "smart missiles" against rocks and sticks.
Lets face it, no country on earth would be so stupid to start an open war against the US, at least not right now. Its suicide... so whats the best way to attack a superpower like the US. Strike the economy, the way of life... that what Al Qaeda is all about...
Who is a terrorist? Anyone who kill to spread the fear in order to achieve and objetive... Is the US a terrorist state? Well, lets see what the marines have done in the last 100 years all over the world... and in some cases... yeap, the US have acted like a terrorist state, using fear and carnage to achieve their own goals. Even worst, there are cases like the USS Maine in Cuba or Pearl Harbor, in which the US goverment didn`t care about killing their own citizens to have an excuse to go to war.
War: An act of militiristic engagement between two different countries, right?
Terrorists are a group of people..trying to establish some goal or whatever (not relevant here) The thing they are doing here, is trying to engage in a military action with another group of people/and or country and or idea. Its very black and white, isnt it?
The same reason why we dont call vigilantes officers of the law. Its really simple I guess.
Quote by KeiichiWar nowadays is way too different from war centuries ago... war used to be a matter of honor and skill... man vs man, face to face, sword against sword. Right now war seems to be a damn child`s game... any coward can just push a button and send straight to hell an entire city... no honor anymore, right now war is not a matter of man vs man but something of rich vs poor, bullets and "smart missiles" against rocks and sticks.
Lets face it, no country on earth would be so stupid to start an open war against the US, at least not right now. Its suicide... so whats the best way to attack a superpower like the US. Strike the economy, the way of life... that what Al Qaeda is all about...
Who is a terrorist? Anyone who kill to spread the fear in order to achieve and objetive... Is the US a terrorist state? Well, lets see what the marines have done in the last 100 years all over the world... and in some cases... yeap, the US have acted like a terrorist state, using fear and carnage to achieve their own goals. Even worst, there are cases like the USS Maine in Cuba or Pearl Harbor, in which the US goverment didn`t care about killing their own citizens to have an excuse to go to war.
War isn't any less or more honorable or human then its ever been. There have been times when it was the custom of certain nations or tribes in areas to tottally kill off an entire city they just conqured or layed seige to. The Art Of War, writeen in China during a time of this valued "honor", dictates that a good general should not care at all about Honor, and should be willing to be a coward, and use stratagem and tactic to find any way possible to obtain Victory over the enemy in the easiest, quickest, most efficient manner, and to avoid direct combat when possible. Today, we have the Geneva convention which dictates to all nations what is concidered allowable and disallowable in war, we have layed out rules of engagment in the various military branches, we have doctors who will aid either side of a battle to keep people alive, and we have strong forces trying to avoid all war in the first place. I think it pretty well evens out, we just have different technology now, so we opporate differently in order to survive. We've adjusted, but havn't lost honor really, nor gained.
Quote by Gau
Quote by KeiichiWar nowadays is way too different from war centuries ago... war used to be a matter of honor and skill... man vs man, face to face, sword against sword. Right now war seems to be a damn child`s game... any coward can just push a button and send straight to hell an entire city... no honor anymore, right now war is not a matter of man vs man but something of rich vs poor, bullets and "smart missiles" against rocks and sticks.
Lets face it, no country on earth would be so stupid to start an open war against the US, at least not right now. Its suicide... so whats the best way to attack a superpower like the US. Strike the economy, the way of life... that what Al Qaeda is all about...
Who is a terrorist? Anyone who kill to spread the fear in order to achieve and objetive... Is the US a terrorist state? Well, lets see what the marines have done in the last 100 years all over the world... and in some cases... yeap, the US have acted like a terrorist state, using fear and carnage to achieve their own goals. Even worst, there are cases like the USS Maine in Cuba or Pearl Harbor, in which the US goverment didn`t care about killing their own citizens to have an excuse to go to war.
War isn't any less or more honorable or human then its ever been. There have been times when it was the custom of certain nations or tribes in areas to tottally kill off an entire city they just conqured or layed seige to. The Art Of War, writeen in China during a time of this valued "honor", dictates that a good general should not care at all about Honor, and should be willing to be a coward, and use stratagem and tactic to find any way possible to obtain Victory over the enemy in the easiest, quickest, most efficient manner, and to avoid direct combat when possible. Today, we have the Geneva convention which dictates to all nations what is concidered allowable and disallowable in war, we have layed out rules of engagment in the various military branches, we have doctors who will aid either side of a battle to keep people alive, and we have strong forces trying to avoid all war in the first place. I think it pretty well evens out, we just have different technology now, so we opporate differently in order to survive. We've adjusted, but havn't lost honor really, nor gained.
Now that you mention the Art of War and the value of honor in war... Sun Tzu also says that the best way to win a war is avoid it if its possible, the best victory is the one that you achieve without spill blood. I know that the The aim justice the means [b] in the case of war, but any respectable general also know how to respect his enemy. Lets face it, war is something that will exist as long as there are humans alive, but also we have to understand that in a war there are no good or bad, just a conflict of ideas.[/b]
I don`t like Al Qaeda, i hate the idea of taking off my shoes when i have to take a flight and live in fear anytime a
good friend of mine or close relative is traveling overseas. But i sort of understand their hatred towards America...
and why they apply "The aim justify the means" in their terrorist attacks.
If the US and the western developed countries continue with this wars in the middle east, supporting Israel in all the
crimes and killing more and more muslims, Osama Bin Laden, death or alive, will continue to be popular and an
inspiration for future terrorist attacks. I can say that the best advertising machine of Al Qaeda is the US goverment
and the US media.
How can the US win the war on terror... do as McArthur in Japan back the 40`s... be a good guest, respect the country and leave as soon as possible. I know that the war in Iraq and the ocupation of Japan are different... but i think that the US should work to create a better image in the middle east instead of attack those people and then wonder why the muslim world hates it.
page 3 of 3 « Previous 1 2 3 63 total items
Back to General Discussions | Active Threads | Forum Index
Only members can post replies, please register.
