Subject:
|
Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 17 Oct 2001 11:33:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
590 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> > >
> > > The most devastating war in ALL of human history is a very
> > > hard thing to Monday-morning quarterback. In a total war,
> > > how much is too much? Historians try to put themselves into
> > > the contextual position, and to figure out who knew what, when,
> > > and why they might have made the decisions they did. And to
> > > my satisfaction--both personal *and* professional--the right
> > > decision was made. Indeed, it was the only politically and
> > > strategically--in the long term--viable decision given the
> > > context of 1945.
> >
> > That is open to argument, but I don't have enough knowledge of politics at • the
> > time, so I'll bow to your greater knowledge. But though it's changing the
> > subject of the thread, I still believe the acts of dropping the bombs were
> > terrorism, no matter whether or not they were necessary / justifiable.
>
> By that definition,
I see no definition there, only opinion.
> *any* act taken in a military conflict is
> "terrorism."
I've made my distinction several times before - attacks on *military targets* I
don't consider terrorism.
> The major difference
Compared to what?
> is that the civilians of Japan
> had no basis for an *expectation* of safety
????? So what???? What has their "expectation of safety" to do with whether or
not it was terrorism?
> --especially when you
> consider what happened to Tokyo in March, and virtually every
> *other* Japanese city (and even their own, lightly) within the
> preceding year.
Are you saying you don't consider Aug 45 terrorism because of the
indiscriminate firebombing of Tokyo in March?
> They were a nation at war, fully mobilized, and prepared for
> defence (in fact, they went into the shelters at first). The
> weapon was dropped from a US plane, with limited escort. I'd
> call that very, very, very straightforward. War causes terror,
> as well it should--but terrorism is defined as:
>
> "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person
> or an organized group against people or property with the intention
> of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for
> ideological or political reasons." (American Heritage)
I've seen many attempted definitions of terrorism. Many are similar to this. So
let's go with it for now.
> Seems to me that in a declared war, by standards of international
> law articulated to that time, the bombing was lawful. (In fact,
> I defy you to locate pre-1945 evidence that it was not.)
Check out http://www.dannen.com/decision/int-law.html Particularly: Protection
of Civilian Populations Against Bombing From the Air in Case of War, League of
Nations, September 30, 1938
> And note
> that it says "organized group" for the actor and "government" for the
> target, which implies that there must also be a severe disparity
> of power between the terrorist and the target of terror.
In your opinion. It doesn't give any limit on the size of the group (or the
size of the government / society).
> You can
> argue that Japan's power in 1945 wasn't even the merest shadow of
> the U.S.'s, but that's taking the historical moment out of context
> and reversing the expected relationship.
>
> So no, I don't believe it was "terrorism" as the term is generally
> defined. It caused terror, but it was an act of destruction in
> war, not terrorism against a society at peace. I'd also argue that
> Pearl Harbor wasn't a terrorist attack, nor was Port Arthur.
Pearl Harbour: Definitely a military target, so not terrorism.
Port Arthur: No attempt to coerce anyone - just a massacre resulting from the
wrong person getting access to firearms & too much money. Certainly not
terrorism.
> Attempting to equate military acts against specific targets during
> war with terror attacks against civilians during peacetime is, IMHO,
> dead wrong.
Tow points here:
1. Change it to "...specific military targets..." and I totally agree.
2. bin Laden has declared war on the US, so it's not peacetime, no matter what
the citizens of the US want to think. He's given several warnings in the past,
and people chose not to do anything (when did all the talk about increased
security begin?)
So I think it *is* valid to compare Aug 45 with Sep 11, though the method and
overall size of the two were significantly different, they were both (IMHO)
terrorist acts.
Regards
ROSCO
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
| <snip> But though it's changing the (...) <snip> I love trying to define words. I also can't stay out of this forum. Anyhow, for what it's worth, here's my take on the definition of terrorism... I consider *war*, in general, to be a terrible thing. (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
| (...) I think you've defined, although in your opinion, that the bombings were terrorism. That's actually a pretty good analogy--the word "terrorism" has a semantic load, as does "definition." Is it a subjective or objective term? I'm not making a (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
| (...) By that definition, *any* act taken in a military conflict is "terrorism." The major difference is that the civilians of Japan had no basis for an *expectation* of safety--especially when you consider what happened to Tokyo in March, and (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
133 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
|
|
|
|
