Subject:
|
Re: Sheikh Yassin
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 25 Mar 2004 06:31:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
579 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
> Terrorism is the targeted killing of {innocent} civilians by a person or
> group in order to forward an agenda. So by that definition, it is not
> possible to "terrorize" another army, because they are not civilian. There
> is no terrorism in war, unless one participant purposefully targets the
> other's civilian population. In former times, these lines were admittedly
> blurred because of inadequate technology. In WWII, we dropped bombs
> "indiscriminately", but the {intent} was to take out factories and
> infastructure, not kill civilians (though many {were} killed).
This is just American popular historical fantasy of the sort the Japanese would
be proud of. There was nothing indiscriminate about the targetting of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki, and the intent was not taking out factories and infrastructure.
http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/lester/writings/kufm11.html
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Photos/Photo7.shtml
http://history1900s.about.com/library/weekly/aa072700a.htm
http://www.banthebomb.org/magazine/hiroshim.htm#targets
I haven't looked up the firebombing of Dresden, but I have a suspicion that
John's claims would prove just as spurious there.
I am not sure which would be considered by John to be worse - targetting
'innocent' civilians to forward and agenda, or deliberately choosing a site
where tens of thousands of civilians lived, one which hasn't been bombed with
conventional weapons because its of no great military significance, in order to
see how well a new weapon works on a city.
To be frank I can't see the difference.
It was terrorism plain and simple under John's definition, and with that I
agree.
And I would have dropped the bomb, and I agree with the logic used. But I also
don't whine and strut when someone else uses terror as a tactic.
> ironically, Israel's restraint has only perpetuated this conflict,
> much in the same way our restraint in Viet Nam led to quagmire.
> There is no reason why this struggle for statehood for the
> Palestinians should have taken this long. What struggle is there? Just
> declare your state and go about your business! Instead, Palestinian leaders
> disingenuously quibble about trivialities such as [minor] border placements,
> when the reality is that they want the Jews gone from the Middle East.
Goodness! If only I had realised its all so simple! And here I was thinking it
was about historical claims to land, and competing aspirations, complicated by
centuries going on millenia of injustice on injustice.
It turns out that its just about the Palestinians declaring their state
(honestly, just for fun, how do you propose they do this?), and the Israelis
getting of their duff and getting hard on terror (what's your idea of getting
hard on terror beyond what they've been doing?).
Wow!
Richard
Still baldly going...
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Sheikh Yassin
|
| (...) I don't think terrorism is hard to define-- it's just that people use the term incorrectly or indiscriminately and therefore its definition is muddied. Terrorism is the targeted killing of innocent civilians by a person or group in order to (...) (21 years ago, 24-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
36 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
