Let me get this straight . WAR is bad. A nation (pick one) has done something considered terroristic? Guess what folks, it happens every day. Stop already.
Well, croaker67, I’m prepared to accept your recommendation.
IMHO, the proposition has not been refuted. The best arguments against is that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not terrorism since both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets.
While I think the evidence of Hiroshima as a military target is at least debatable, no one has attempted to defend Nagasaki. I don’t even buy Hiroshima, when you consider the targeting of the downtown commercial district.
I don’t accept that the definition of terrorism is, or should be, subjective over time and context. Justification of terrorism - more certainly so.
I don’t accept that there cannot be terrorism in a declared war, or even an “all out” war, although an “all out” war may lead to an easier justification of terrorism as well.
I can only conclude that the current War on Terrorism is nothing of the sort, but really a War on Al Qaeda and any other organization/country we don’t like. And the reliance on moral indignation to the enemy’s tactics are simply to instill support and unity (propaganda).
(Editorial comment) IMO, such use of propaganda by the US is short sighted and potentially dangerous. Certainly just about anyone will agree that the 9/11 attacks were terrorism. But how many, particularly fundamental Muslims, will consider it justified? When the US memorializes a rhetorical position that is arguably hypocritical, all we effectively do is “arm” potential enemies of the “Great Satan” and “imperialist yankees”. To help defuse the situation, we really need to more about watching our language, trying to understand other perspectives, and doing better at explaining our positions to the rest of the world. Propaganda does not serve this purpose, only to undermine it.
I wonder if the rhetoric will soon change to accomodate the fact that no recent proof has been offered to show that the Axis of Evil has recently or is currently sponsoring terrorism (unless building weapons of mass destruction are prima facie evidence of terrorism, in which case, we are clearly hypocritical).
Should anyone else wish to advance new arguments, please do so, otherwise, I’ll let the thread die a natural death.
Thanks to all who participated. While I may have disagreed with your views, I respect them nonetheless.
No- if you read my post, I clearly say that “all is NOT fair in war”. “Crimes against humanity” perpetrated during wartime are war crimes, they are not acts of terrorism. Once war is declared (and war can’t be declared by a single person, it must be a recognized nation)- then there can be no acts of terrorism, but there can be war crimes.
However, the bombing of Hiroshima was neither.
DrDeth,
Welcome back to the debate, even if it had just subsided.
Do you mean this post? Because that is the only other post of yours in this thread, and I cannot find that reference (yes, I read your post, a few times now).
If I understand your position (and I still may not), you feel that the definition of terrorism includes some exclusion to a declared war between recognized nations. Since you differ with the FBI definition, or Webster’s, could you share yours?
Under your premise, the current war is not a war at all, because 1) the Taliban/Al Qaeda are not a recognized country (although you were somewhat fuzzy on this point in your other post), 2) neither side “declared” war by more than one person.
In the rest of this thread since your last post, we have reached general agreement that that point is moot. For example, under that definition, the Vietnam war, the Korean war, and any civil war are not really wars at all. It fails the common sense test.
You offer no support for this. In your other post, you included Nagasaki as well, and claimed both were military targets. That point, too, has been refuted. Hiroshima is, at least, debatable. So please offer an argument to support Nagasaki was a military target (at least in any manner moreso than the WTC), or why it wouldn’t qualify as a war crime (besides the fact that victors are not held for war crime trials).
If your real point is that “terrorism” during war is actually called a “war crime”, then I think we are only arguing semantics on that point.
By the way, your “troll” comment in the first post was off base. A troll only posts to stir up trouble or controversy with no intent of actually arguing their points.