Subject:
|
Re: More on Palestine
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 9 Oct 2001 03:03:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
423 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > Because this is an Israel Palestine thread now, I thought I'd toss this in:
> > >
> > > http://www.nationalreview.com/contributors/levin100801.shtml
> >
> > Interesting that he talks about Japan as though we don't owe them anything,
> > after we committed against them 2 of the worst single acts of terrorism the
> > world has known.
>
> WE? That, I suspect, was the US's doing, and the US's alone, I don't think
> FDR consulted ANZAC. So you're off the hook.
The allies were all fighting together. I dare say ANZAC didn't consult FDR
on all movements involving US troops either.
> But please explain how it was terrorism, exactly, to win a war against an
> evil empire with less loss of life than a protracted island by island, house
> to house campaign? Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't military targets, perhaps?
The same old "it was war" excuse. Winning the war wasn't terrorism, dropping
the bombs was. One was just a consequence of the other. What if Japan hadn't
immediately surrendered? Sure they wouldn't have stood much of a chance, but
we wouldn't then have the excuse that "it ended the war", and I think it's
an invalid excuse (as most are) anyway.
No, Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't military targets - they may have
contained military targets, maybe even a lot of them, but that does not
justify demolishing 2 entire cities, the majority of their civilian
population, and affecting many thousands of people, directly and indirectly,
in the years since.
I'd like to see a definition of terrorism into which those 2 incidents don't
fall.
> This raises a different, and relevant, point, though. If a government
> deliberately mixes military installations in amongst civilians, thickly
> interspersed, does it have the right to fairly cry foul if those military
> targets are attacked with collateral damage during the prosecution of a war
> that it started? I think not.
No the point is, can the perpetrator excuse the action? Why doesn't the US
drop a few nukes on Kabul and a few other well thought-out "military targets"?
> Democracies and free societies tend not to do that sort of siting.
> Dictatorships tend to do that sort of siting and then cite it in their
> propaganda when the inevitable happens.
If it's inevitable, why not just nuke 'em right now, save heaps of time?
ROSCO
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: More on Palestine
|
| (...) Really ROSCO, I should know better. You're just trying to spin me up as a diversionary tactic because, well, I don't know why you are doing it, except perhaps to divert attention from the thread topic? This exact debate has been held here (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: More on Palestine
|
| (...) Really ROSCO, I should know better. You're just trying to spin me up as a diversionary tactic because, well, I don't know why you are doing it, except perhaps to divert attention from the thread topic? This exact debate has been held here (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: More on Palestine
|
| (...) WE? That, I suspect, was the US's doing, and the US's alone, I don't think FDR consulted ANZAC. So you're off the hook. But please explain how it was terrorism, exactly, to win a war against an evil empire with less loss of life than a (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
117 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
