Subject:
|
Re: More on Palestine
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 11 Oct 2001 21:18:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
356 times
|
| |
|
|
> I think the bigger question is what is YOURS?
Which doesn't get you off the hook ;-)
Here is my definition: "The enforcement of political goals through violence
against unconcerned people is terrorism". Of course, with this definition, a
violent attack targeting concerned people would not be terrorism, just
because it happens to also hit, or inevitably also hits, some unconcerned
people. Anything wrong with that definition?
> I believe most people in here can see the difference between the WTC attack
> and a nation trying to end a protracted war (with an enemy that had proved
> time and time again that it would suicide, use geurilla tactics, and dig in
> until wiped out at enormous cost of lives on both sides) as quickly as
> possible while minimizing the lives lost.
Yes, I too can see the difference. But according to my above definition (and
my historical analysis in another posting) The Bomb on Nagasaki can be seen
as terrorism, unless you deny that there was a majority of "unconcerned
people" in Nagasaki. [1]
If you in the US feel threatened by such interpretations of history, then it
is probably time to work for a change in your foreign policy [2]. Larry
calls what I am talking about "some admitted flaws"; I fear it is a bit more
than that. Whoever of us two is correct, it is not the *interpretation* of
history that threatens the US, it's the cited type of actions itself, if
anything. This is at least a question of credibility, and I sure hope that
the US do care about their credibility in the world [3].
Please don't misunderstand my critique as anti-american. If I were
anti-american, I probably wouldn't take the time to discuss things like
these here with you ...
:wq
Horst
[1] While this may be the earliest example of US terrorism in the world, it
unfortunately is not the only one. Very early in this discussion I mentioned
the Aliende case. On a side track, also ask yourself how Saddam Hussein and
Osama bin Laden became what they today are ...
[2] I would certainly wish for one that does no longer violate in
international action what it tries to preserve internally.
[3] Even though, as a superpower, they may not need credibility as much as
less powerful nations.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: More on Palestine
|
| I think the bigger question is what is YOURS? I believe most people in here can see the difference between the WTC attack and a nation trying to end a protracted war (with an enemy that had proved time and time again that it would suicide, use (...) (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
|
|
|
|
