 | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Kirby Warden
|
| | | the overall point here is that several people in this debate could not agree with eachother's definition of terrorism. It was my intention to show that there is actually one definition that does apply. in an earlier post a few months ago, I (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) The actual overall point is that one definition does not apply to both; it it did, there would be no debate. The only way that a single definition of "terrorism" can be made to apply is by reaching into the word's history, rather than by (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Kirby Warden
|
| | | | | Atomic bombs on cities Hijacked planes into towers In my opinion both are equally terrifying. I will stand by my analysis of the word *terror* and apply it to both acts. We praise the pilots as patriots who flew over Japan. We denigrate the (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Tore Eriksson
|
| | | | I have already disclosed my poor knowledge of the English language with emarrasing results, but yet I can't stay off this definition debate. The words terror and terrorism are obviously from the same root, but to me, they have different meanings. I (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
