 | | Re: Vote against/for... —Ross Crawford
|
| | | (...) Well, since I've publically stated I think their reasoning in WWII was nothing short of terrorism anyway (lets not go there again), I'd have to say "neither", especially with dubya at the helm. Here's another question: Do you think that (...) (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Vote against/for... —John P. Henderson
|
| | | | | (...) Herein lies the real problem. You hit it right on the head with that question, Rosco. I am somewhat in favor of blasting violent people with violent retaliation, but I do fear that to some extent such activity can breed future violence. Many (...) (22 years ago, 11-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Vote against/for... —John Neal
|
| | | | (...) I tell you, the word "terrorism" gets so over/misused. The purpose of terrorism is to evoke fear in a GP for the purpose of swaying opinion. We dropped the bombs on Japan to bring about a quick end to the war (that *they* started BTW), not to (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Vote against/for... —Pedro Silva
|
| | | | | (...) Actually, the bomb was dropped to scare the Japanese, thus ending the war. I don't see that as terrorism, though - terrorism implies a much more prolonged chain of events than a couple weeks in August '45. Terrorism is ETA in Spain, IRA in (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Vote against/for... —Fredrik Glöckner
|
| | | | | | | (...) The two atomic bomb raids were not the only US bomb raids on Japan during the second world war. US low level incendiary bomb raids started much earlier. The aim of the night time bomb raids were the civillian population, which largely lived in (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Vote against/for... —Pedro Silva
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) I know that. I was referring to the use of the two bombs as part of a larger conflict - they were not a terrorist act themselves, IMHO. (...) It is not terrorism, but it is close. The name for it is "total war", a concept that was born in the (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Vote against/for... —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | | | (...) And I think that war is hell, and that when you're in a *war*, that it truly is an 'us and them' scenario. There is no denying that the 'politic', the 'intelligencia' and the 'people' have to be 'on-side' in order to fight and maintain a war (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Vote against/for... —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) Not the believe like us or die variety. That may be been en vogue 100s of years ago for Christianity, but Christianity grew out of those dark times, and continues to change with time (although the basic message is the same). Islam has no (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Vote against/for... —Pedro Silva
|
| | | | | | (...) Islam is not "Believe or die", nor it ever was. Neither was Christianity. Yet, both religions were used as pretexts by loonies - that is inevitable! (...) I have a hard time believing Allah wrote the Khoran. Somehow I tend to follow a more (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Vote against/for... —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | (...) nothing (...) "neither", (...) here. Thanks for not going there again. (...) Where did I mention muslims? ROSCO (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
