Subject:
|
Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 18 Oct 2001 23:29:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
700 times
|
| |
|
|
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 sense terror (according to my personal definition) when I see a swarm of
bees or a dentist, but I don't consider bees or dentists as terrorists.
It is easy to state that the WTC plane bombings were acts of terrorism. Very
few would disagree. The Hiroshima bombings, well... no, they were acts of
war, not terrorism. But no terrorist act has ever been close to the amount
of terror generated by an a-bomb. Yet...
What if two American cities were nuked by a nation who defined their culture
as Good in opposite of The American Way? Would you accept that as a
necessary act of war? Would you be prepared to accept that the "winner"(???)
of that nuclear war are those who define what is Good and Right or Bad and
Wrong?
Treat others like you wish to be treated.
My opinion is that there is no, has never been and will not be any good
reason for using a-bombs. Sure, it is an act of war, but nontheless much
worse than any act of terrorism we've seen so far.
Btw, terrorist is a word, very commonly misused to descibe political
opponents to justify undemocratic deeds.
A (obviously very left-winged?) Swedish debator compiled a list of US
military interventions in foreign countries since the Vietnam war. He
counted them to the average of one country attacked a year. Even though I
disagree on many posts on that list, there is still a core of truth and a
point in it. Whatever the reasons and purposes have been, people in those
countries must have felt exactly the same way as many Americans do now:
"They have attacked us inside our borders!" But the difference is, they
haven't had the military strength to strike back. Try to imagine their
frustration.
Now it's time to go to sleep. Can't keep my thoughts together any longer, as
you can see...
/Tore
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
| (...) 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
