Idle thoughts on the word "Terrorism"

[Laozi]

Ya back to how christians in america are demanding that we atleast make an attempt at killing everyone not of either their or the jewish faith

[Darque]

It's a good thing "the bomb" was dropped in WW2... as horrible as that may sound... if the horrors that could and are caused by such "small scale" nukes weren't known, I have this feeling that people would have been far more willing to use them...

 

Maybe the world really would have ended back during the Kennedy years... <_<

[Darque]

So, how do you define the word?

 

These days?

 

I'd define it as "trendy".

 

Seems to be way too popular.

[Azarkon]

Once upon a time, America (and Europe) considered people willing to sacrifice their lives for the greater cause of causing mass destruction to enemies - civilian or otherwise - a virtue (Samson is a Biblical hero, after all). Once, America was a new country, bursting with potential and the need to break from the old decadent societies of Europe. Naturally, it allied itself with the rebels, the freedom fighters - and we have stories, myths, and folk tales passed down from that time praising those who might very well in modern times be considered terrorists, or at least criminals.

 

But the tables have, somewhere down the line, been turned. America is now the most powerful nation in the world, and just like every society that's ever been in the same position, we are likely bound for the same end.

 

History is a cycle of war, peace, and revolution. There will come a day when the US will become a decadent old civilization (if it is not already), and when that day comes, assuming that we did not bring the world to total destruction with our fall, there will rise other, younger peoples and nations who will be remembered by their respective states as freedom fighters. But before that, they must first be called rebels, traitors, criminals, and terrorists. That seems to be the way of things.

[B5C]

History is a cycle of war, peace, and revolution.  There will come a day when the US will become a decadent old civilization (if it is not already), and when that day comes, assuming that we did not bring the world to total destruction with our fall, there will rise other, younger peoples and nations who will be remembered by their respective states as freedom fighters.  But before that, they must first be called rebels, traitors, criminals, and terrorists.  That seems to be the way of things.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That wont happen for 500-1,000 years.

 

God the Roman Empire & Republic lasted 2 thousand theres and the British Empire laste d nearly 900 years.

 

We can probaly predicted that America will last another 300-1,000 years.

 

PAX AMERICANA!

[Darque]

India's been around for what? 4000 years?

[213374U]

That wont happen for 500-1,000 years.

You wish. The western civilization is already showing the signs of its decay. The corruption of the young generations being the most serious. You think the romans were decadent? Look around...

 

 

God the Roman Empire & Republic  lasted 2 thousand theres and the British Empire laste d nearly 900 years.

But they didn't have the Internet or nuclear weapons. Everything was much slower back then. And I'm not sure the US can survive the fall of Europe (if it were to happen before the fall of the US), the same way Europe would go to hell if the US were to collapse. The hegemony of the western culture has lasted for a long time already and it won't be long before history repeats itself.

 

 

We can probaly predicted that America will last another 300-1,000 years.

I wouldn't bet the world itself will last so much.

[Azarkon]

India's been around for what? 4000 years?

 

Been around isn't the same as being a world power or, though we won't admit it, a nation-empire able to police the world. Nor is it the same as being the same political entity it had been 4000 years ago.

 

One of the easiest mistakes to make is to confuse modern locales with ancient civilizations - do you call a modern Italian a Roman? Do you still call the UK the British Empire? Do you call Communist China a dynasty? No - because they are none of these things. Those civilizations had come and they had gone. What we have now is their history and their legacy, nothing more. Modern civilizations should not be confused with the old.

 

India in its history has undergone many revolutions, and knew its own golden age during the reign of the Gupta Empire. But like every civilization, its time of power came and gone; old, decadent empires collapsed to give way to newer political systems and younger civilizations. Yes, they still call themselves Indian (though a huge chunk has become Pakistani, let's not forget), but that's because it's the culture that survives, not the empire or the political system.

 

These things come in cycles. A few hundred years ago the British Empire had its golden age. A thousand and five hundred years ago the Chinese Tang Dynasty was the most developed empire in the world. A bit over two thousand years ago the Romans ruled. Earlier than even that the Egyptians and their godlike Pharaohs thought that their glorious civilization would last for all eternity. None of that came to pass. History is the best proof that no one civilization will ever be able to stand the test of time - inevitably, power brings complacency, age brings decadence, and newer civilizations and governments rise to replace the old.

[Rosbjerg]

a funkt/freaky true story .. is that 2 different people, on two different occasions, have told me that the world will end in 8 years! with a minor war between Europe and USA .. that will cause the rest of the world to collapse in chaos! first said 9 years, the second said 8 one year later .. I find that really strange!

and I hope it's some kind of joke someone is playing on me..

[Kaftan Barlast]

It's not.

 

 

Muahaha..Hahh HAHHAhahHAHHA!

[B5C]

That wont happen for 500-1,000 years.

You wish. The western civilization is already showing the signs of its decay. The corruption of the young generations being the most serious. You think the romans were decadent? Look around...

 

 

God the Roman Empire & Republic  lasted 2 thousand theres and the British Empire laste d nearly 900 years.

But they didn't have the Internet or nuclear weapons. Everything was much slower back then. And I'm not sure the US can survive the fall of Europe (if it were to happen before the fall of the US), the same way Europe would go to hell if the US were to collapse. The hegemony of the western culture has lasted for a long time already and it won't be long before history repeats itself.

 

 

We can probaly predicted that America will last another 300-1,000 years.

I wouldn't bet the world itself will last so much.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I have a question. Are you a Canadian or a European?

[Ludozee]

Ok, back on topic:

In my opinon people use the term "terrorism" nowadays way too often as an excuse. For example: In Holland there man murdered a couple of months ago with a right wing view on things. While this actually was political/religious murder, the society seems to agree it was an act of muslim-terrorism, thus fuelling the anti-muslim sentiments in Holland. Due to this kind of abuse of the word "terrorism" we create a climate of fear in our own society. I think we should be more careful in the way we name incidents like those, because at the moment (in my opinion) the western society is digging a hole for itself due to the mass hysteria and "anti terrorism" laws BS.

[213374U]

I have a question. Are you a Canadian or a European?

European. Spanish, particularly.

[Darque]

a funkt/freaky true story .. is that 2 different people, on two different occasions, have told me that the world will end in 8 years! with a minor war between Europe and USA .. that will cause the rest of the world to collapse in chaos! first said 9 years, the second said 8 one year later .. I find that really strange! 

and I hope it's some kind of joke someone is playing on me..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

They're probably talking about the supposed "end" that will occur when the Olmec calender expires in 2012. (also known by most people as the mayan calender)

 

As usual, most people end up thinking it'll be some sort of apocalyptic end.... silly people...

[Darque]

Azarkon, wow that's a lot of neat info

[sawyl]

We are talking about an event of World War II, a war in which only 60 millions people got killed.

which is pretty sick, when you think about it. To make myself clearer: 100,000 civilians were targeted and killed. Soldiers know what they're signing on for; civilians do not.

 

You wish. The western civilization is already showing the signs of its decay. The corruption of the young generations being the most serious. You think the romans were decadent? Look around...

It's not just decadence...it's also of a lack of concern. Blame the parents.

[Volourn]

"It's not just decadence...it's also of a lack of concern. Blame the parents."

 

Please. As bad as the world seems to be; we are much improved from the past. I surely would rather live in 2005 then in the past that's for darn sure.

[Rosbjerg]

They're probably talking about the supposed "end" that will occur when the Olmec calender expires in 2012. (also known by most people as the mayan calender)

 

As usual, most people end up thinking it'll be some sort of apocalyptic end.... silly people...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No I don't think these people would know about the Olmec calendar .. anyway it's just wierd that two different people would say the same thing within a year .. and why to me? I must look like someone who would like to know about the worlds end!?

[B5C]

We are talking about an event of World War II, a war in which only 60 millions people got killed.

which is pretty sick, when you think about it. To make myself clearer: 100,000 civilians were targeted and killed. Soldiers know what they're signing on for; civilians do not.

 

You wish. The western civilization is already showing the signs of its decay. The corruption of the young generations being the most serious. You think the romans were decadent? Look around...

It's not just decadence...it's also of a lack of concern. Blame the parents.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

The people in those cities were all working for the military machine.

 

Hiroshima during World War II

 

At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of considerable military significance. It contained the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. It was chosen as a target because it had not suffered damage from previous bombing raids, allowing an ideal environment to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb. The city was mobilized for "all-out" war, with thousands of conscripted women, children and Koreans working in military offices, military factories and building demolition and with women and children training to resist any invading force.

 

Nagasaki during World War II

 

The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great war-time importance because of its many and varied industries, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials. The narrow long strip attacked was of particular importance because of its industries.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombin...ma_and_Nagasaki

[kirottu]

They're probably talking about the supposed "end" that will occur when the Olmec calender expires in 2012. (also known by most people as the mayan calender)

 

As usual, most people end up thinking it'll be some sort of apocalyptic end.... silly people...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No I don't think these people would know about the Olmec calendar .. anyway it's just wierd that two different people would say the same thing within a year .. and why to me? I must look like someone who would like to know about the worlds end!?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Some people just attract wierd people. I have a friend who absolutely hates using public transportations, because wierd people always seem to find her.

 

About that mayan calalendar and end of the world... I think it

[draakh_kimera]

Okay, about the whole atom bomb thing, here's what I have to say: The civilians don't know what they're "signing in" for, but civilian casualties in war is a given. If what B5C quoted wikipedia of stating is accurate (which I highly doubt it isn't), then the civilian casualties were collateral damage as a result of a deliberate attack against a military target. To quoute wikipedia, there is no clear line between collateral damage and atrocities. However, the US made one of the more tactically advantageous moves that was available (they ended the war quicker and didn't lose as many troops as they could have), and that's what war is usually about.

 

 

As for terrorism, I sure as hell wouldn't know how to define it but I think Kaftan did a pretty good job of it.

[Rosbjerg]

They're probably talking about the supposed "end" that will occur when the Olmec calender expires in 2012. (also known by most people as the mayan calender)

 

As usual, most people end up thinking it'll be some sort of apocalyptic end.... silly people...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No I don't think these people would know about the Olmec calendar .. anyway it's just wierd that two different people would say the same thing within a year .. and why to me? I must look like someone who would like to know about the worlds end!?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Some people just attract wierd people. I have a friend who absolutely hates using public transportations, because wierd people always seem to find her.

 

About that mayan calalendar and end of the world... I think it

[Oerwinde]

They didn't even have to invade Japan, they had no fuel supply, and their industry was in ruins, within a month their war machine would have been crippled and they would not have been able to continue. And in that time the US could have switched to defensive tactics which would have inflicted some small military casualties, but 800,000 civilians wouldn't have died. Several sources have said that the japanese were ready to surrender, and the casualty predictions of a japanese invasion were inflated by politicians to get support for using the bomb. Even if it was necessary to use the bomb, its pretty agreeable that they didn't need to use two.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Propaganda. Your number is *much* to high. Even the sum of the citizens of both towns didn't exeed 500,000.

 

As far as I know, about 100,000 civilians died from the direct blast (or within months). And some others died from cancer decades later. But definitely not *everybody* died

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Sorry, my bad, I was just going by numbers I had heard before, after looking it up it was more around 200,000. 140,000 at Hiroshima, 65,000 at Nagasaki. Plus radiation deaths.

[jedipodo]

We are talking about an event of World War II, a war in which only 60 millions people got killed.

which is pretty sick, when you think about it. To make myself clearer: 100,000 civilians were targeted and killed. Soldiers know what they're signing on for; civilians do not.

 

Of whom do you think the 56-60 million casualties are comprised of...?

 

To make my point clearer: The half of them - about 30 millions - had been civilians, including approx. 200,000 people beeing killed by two U.S. nuclear bombs enforcing the immediate end of the hostilities. Is this a terroristic attack in the meaning of the word "terrorism" of today?

 

 

Soldiers know what they're signing on for; civilians do not.

The vast majority of soldiers at this time have never been asked for signing on for military service, they were forced to.

 

Of course, murder on civilians definitely are war crimes and shouldn't be commited by anyone. But in the final evaluation of causualties they shouldn't weigh more than the regular soldiers who had been victims, too.

 

In my opinion "Men and women who are soldiers may die, but civilians are worth more" is a morally problematic view, especially in the context of WW2.

[Azarkon]

The people in those cities were all working for the military machine.

 

Civilian is a tricky term. Every person living in a country during a time of war either contributes in some way to the war effort or detracts in some way from the war effort (just by paying taxes in America, you support the war effort). Very few people have zero effect on how the war goes. If your definition of civilian, then, is simply that the Japanese in Nagasaki/Hiroshima supported the war "more" than joe tax-payer, that may fly - except for the fact that, of course, they didn't have much more of a choice than you do in not paying taxes. That is, the Japanese military dictatorship during the time would not have tolerated dissent, and propaganda regarding the righteousness of Japan was such that it would've been impossible for most people to have had "other ideas" anyhow. This includes, by the way, women and children: as we all know, in times of total war, women and children contribute to the war effort just the same as adult males do.

 

If you start making distinctions based on gender and age, you start running into problems such as 11-year-old and women suicide bombers (and by military logic, should therefore be considered threats and exterminated).

 

That said, I completely agree that one should not weigh civilian deaths over soldier deaths. Both are, in effect, innocent of what their superiors decided, and incapable, really, of rebelling against that choice. This is the reason why you cannot call everyone in Germany a war criminal because they "contributed" to the systematic genocide of Jews, no more than you can say that a drafted soldier was truly guilty of anything, other than, perhaps, the inability to stand up for basic humanity over patriotism (and most likely be court martialled in the process).

 

However, it should also be said that civilians are more commonly used simply to refer to a non-combatant. Yes, the people working in factories contributed to the war effort, but they are still non-combatants, and in human society, at least, we seem to have some ancient sense of honor that killing a unarmed person with no direct way of fighting back - regardless of whether said person contributed to making the weapons that killed thousands - is somehow a dishonor. Perhaps we imagine ourselves in the same position, I don't know, but it remains the fact that civilians are civilians regardless of how they're tied to the war effort. Once you pick up a weapon or directly becomes involved in the orchestration of war (whether as a leader or common soldier), you cease to be a civilian. But till then, even enemy scientists could be considered civilians, though of course - as I said - no country was ever really shy about killing civilians when it became necessary: they just apologize afterwards.