Idle thoughts on the word "Terrorism"

[Rosbjerg]

well when the Allied bombed Dresden they dropped far more bombs than were necessary .. they litteraly kept bombing the city along the edges to build up a kinda furnace effect, where the vacuum left by the rising hot air in the middle would pull the fire all around the city inwards.. the heat was strong enough to melt the iron and bricks in houses .. if that's not cruel I don't know what is! but then the Germans had done the same against them, so at that time 'atrocity' became replaced with 'proper revenge' ..

[213374U]

In war, revenge is irrelevant.

[Rosbjerg]

In war, revenge is irrelevant.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

since when did you develop a Sun Tzu attitude? :D

 

but revenge is a pretty useful tool that many leaders can use quite effectively .. no-one questions atrocities if it's water over the dam .. because they want revenge! so you have free hands to cripple the enemy as you see fit .. I would sat revenge is pretty relevant in war!

[213374U]

since when did you develop a Sun Tzu attitude?  :D

 

but revenge is a pretty useful tool that many leaders can use quite effectively .. no-one questions atrocities if it's water over the dam .. because they want revenge! so you have free hands to cripple the enemy as you see fit .. I would sat revenge is pretty relevant in war!

Heh. It all comes down to semantics, I guess. If you need to justify a military action as revenge, then it was probably not necessary to begin with. And an act that could be considered a vengeful atrocity but was totally necessary to achieve victory is not revenge, it's strategy. The bottom line is, a military commander shouldn't be more concerned with revenge than he should be with politics.

[Laozi]

Thats great and all, but politics and war are inseparable, due to the fact that these are nations at war. Public opinion, in most cases must be swayed to commit the act, unless the government is totalitarian, but even then the soldiers have to be convinced one way or the other that this is the "right" thing to do. Maybe that means its good for their country, maybe it means their whole family won't be murdered

[213374U]

but even then the soldiers have to be convinced one way or the other that this is the "right" thing to do.

No. Armies are not democracies. In war there is no time to waste convincing soldiers.

 

And while war responds to politics, politicians shouldn't be allowed to direct war, the same way military commanders shouldn't be allowed to practice politics. Hence, the army shouldn't be concerned with "revenge", because revenge at such a scale is a political act.

[Rosbjerg]

^ well that's how it should be in theory .. but that's hardly the actual case! We've seen countless times how politicians have been allowed to direct war .. and while soldiers may not need convincing in the same degree as civilians, brainwashing them with the label "justified revenge" works better than "do it or I shoot you for disobeying an order!" .. and making the public go into a frenzy and pratically demanding actions will allow the military all the room to manouver they want!

 

I mean just look at Vietnam, they lost a lot simply because of public opinion!

[Laozi]

Yes but theres this thing that can happen in any government, but more often in a dictatorship called a coup. So you can see where keeping the soldier on your side is important, no matter how the military is structured.

 

In a perfect world, atleast militarily speaking, yes a general wouldn't have to worry about politics, but thats just not the case

[213374U]

^ well that's how it should be in theory .. but that's hardly the actual case! We've seen countless times how politicians have been allowed to direct war

Indeed we have. And the results were usually very bad.

 

 

.. and while soldiers may not need convincing in the same degree as civilians, brainwashing them with the label "justified revenge" works better than "do it or I shoot you for disobeying an order!"

I don't think I'm wording this very well. Let's see. You can tell whatever you wish to the soldiers, if that will improve their morale or make them obey orders more willingly. You can only do that however if you are going to do something that could be considered revenge, for other reasons than revenge itself. Any military action whose only objective is revenge is fundamentally flawed.

 

 

.. and making the public go into a frenzy and pratically demanding actions will allow the military all the room to manouver they want!

Yes, but that's the politician's job.

 

 

Yes but theres this thing that can happen in any government, but more often in a dictatorship called a coup. So you can see where keeping the soldier on your side is important, no matter how the military is structured.

In fact coups are bound to happen when the military takes too much interest in politics, not the other way around. That's why military officials should have no political authority or influence whatsoever.

 

 

In a perfect world, atleast militarily speaking, yes a general wouldn't have to worry about politics, but thats just not the case

I never said the world was perfect.

[Azarkon]

In a perfect world there wouldn't be wars, because we'd have found better solutions to differences of opinion on how to distribute the world we're born in than violence on a mass scale.

[sawyl]

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

Well, when it's a choice between not having a job or working for the military, you'll take when you can to get food on the table. Too bad we're not all rich.

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

Okay, let me make it clearer: It's bad when people are killed, period.

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?

Depends on which definiton you choose. I would say yes. It created fear and awe, it did not specifically target military structure, it killed indiscriminately.

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.

I never said civilians were worth more. I don't believe they are. Soldiers are trained for combat, though, where civilians are not, regardless of whether those soldiers want to be there.

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.

I wasn't talking about the quality of life. I was talking about parenting.

[213374U]

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?

Depends on which definiton you choose. I would say yes. It created fear and awe, it did not specifically target military structure, it killed indiscriminately.

Still, the goal was not to create a permanent state of terror, but to demonstrate the power of a new weapon against which there was no defense. Therefore, it was not a terrorist attack, despite all the moral labels you want to apply.

[Rosbjerg]

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?

Depends on which definiton you choose. I would say yes. It created fear and awe, it did not specifically target military structure, it killed indiscriminately.

Still, the goal was not to create a permanent state of terror, but to demonstrate the power of a new weapon against which there was no defense. Therefore, it was not a terrorist attack, despite all the moral labels you want to apply.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

then it's rather ironic, at the same time, that the people who have invented the new definition of the word terrorism where the ones who dropped the nuke .. of course they won't add such an act under such a label..

[draakh_kimera]

I wouldn't say that the atom bomb has anything to do with terrorism. For something to be called terrorism then the acts involved with it have to be conducted over a prolonged period of time and with a certain aim. The atom bomb had an aim, but it "only" happened twice, in the span of a year, IIRC. How long have the IRA or the fundamentalists in Israel/Palestine been around?

[jedipodo]

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?

Depends on which definiton you choose. I would say yes. It created fear and awe, it did not specifically target military structure, it killed indiscriminately.

Still, the goal was not to create a permanent state of terror, but to demonstrate the power of a new weapon against which there was no defense. Therefore, it was not a terrorist attack, despite all the moral labels you want to apply.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

then it's rather ironic, at the same time, that the people who have invented the new definition of the word terrorism where the ones who dropped the nuke .. of course they won't add such an act under such a label..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Which redefinition? Terrorist attacks, as we often see them nowadays, happen in times of peace and without that there is a war or a current conflict between nations.

 

They are commited by independent, sometimes even international, groups who don't represent citizens of a nation.

 

Mostly they do this solely for their personal goals, but in their eyes it is all for a "higher" goal, of course...

[213374U]

then it's rather ironic, at the same time, that the people who have invented the new definition of the word terrorism where the ones who dropped the nuke .. of course they won't add such an act under such a label..

Again, it's all about the semantics. Killing 200,000 people on a single stroke is undoubtedly a morally contemptible act. I'm not going to argue if it was necessary to do so, or if in the end it saved more lives than it took, that's beside the point. But since the intent of that action was not to extend fear but to force surrender by means of a show of force, it's not terrorism.

[sawyl]

The atom bomb had an aim, but it "only" happened twice, in the span of a year, IIRC. How long have the IRA or the fundamentalists in Israel/Palestine been around?

If you ignore the resulting Cold War, then yes, it only truly happened twice. But the Cold War was one of the breeders of terrorism as we know it today: Exploitation of the Middle East + invasion of Afghanistan + invasion/bombing of Vietnam= (part of the) terror.

[draakh_kimera]

If you ignore the resulting Cold War, then yes, it only truly happened twice. But the Cold War was one of the breeders of terrorism as we know it today: Exploitation of the Middle East + invasion of Afghanistan + invasion/bombing of Vietnam= (part of the) terror.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Uh, the US dropping the atom bomb did not cause the cold war. It only showed the world what kind of weapons the US had, which resulted in an arms race between the only two nations that had "superpower" status after WWII. The exploitation of the middle east, (I'm guessing you're referring to the whole oil thing), started when oil was found there. Not as a result of the cold war. The invasion of Afghanistan was a military invasion, not a series of acts made to cause fear in the general population, which is one of the points of terrorism. Same thing for Vietnam. It was war, not terrorism.

 

EDIT: Hah! It seems I've contradicted myself quite well:

 

"Uh, the US dropping the atom bomb did not cause the cold war. It only showed the world what kind of weapons the US had, which resulted in an arms race between the only two nations that had "superpower" status after WWII."

 

Not an intentional contradiction, but I guess I should explain myself:

 

What I meant to say is that the arms race was inevitable. It would have started sooner or later and the bomb acted as a catalyst, not a cause.

[213374U]

I agree. If anything, dropping the bomb probably prevented an all-out nuclear conflict as a result of the Cold War.

[sawyl]

Yes, I know it wasn't a direct cause of terrorism or classifiable in your view as terrorism. What I meant to say: Certain events that came about because of the fear of Communism/arms race fostered terrorism. The West didn't endear itself to the rest of the world because of many things that went on during the Cold War.

[thepixiesrock]

Terrorism: Anything that threatens the American Governments agenda.

[213374U]

Terrorism: Anything that threatens the American Governments agenda.

[jedipodo]

Terrorism: Anything that threatens the American Governments agenda.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Your world view is amusing...

[taks]

Your world view is amusing...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

if not lacking...

taks

[LoneWolf16]

213374U....Bravo (not sarcasm, btw)

 

Couple opinions to get out of the way, since, god knows, I love spitting these things out:

 

1. I believe I saw it mentioned earlier in this thread, but I'll just repeat the information, since it seems to have been over-looked.

 

Prior to the dropping of the A-bombs...The Japs (Japs...Japs...Japs) were already discussing peace terms, amongst themselves (meaning the government), and even with some Allied officials. This was a last resort. They already knew they weren't going to claim victory, so probably reasoned that surrender, under decent conditions, was preferable to an assault on their homeland...that and their war machine was crumbling all around them. The Allies were apparently fine with the terms...save for one, Japan wanted to keep their emperor. So negotiations reached a stand-still...after refusing to comply, the Japs were really just holding out for a better deal. (Should be noted that Truman was quoted as saying "When this thing hits, I'll really have a hammer over those boys." That's not it, specifically, but the basic point is there...I hope. He wasn't talking about the Japs, he was talking about the Soviets.)

 

A show of strength that killed some 150,000 people (the majority of which were civilians). And then they did it a second time...why...no clue on this end.

 

Fact remains...it's done, over with, and in the past.

 

I recommend reading the book, Hiroshima for some perspective.

 

2. I've heard terrorism defined as "the use of violent or intimidating acts against people or property, especially for political purposes"

 

That's all I've got.

 

And, well...I don't really agree with any of you, nor do I disagree. I'm..........relatively content with what's been provided, and am interested to see more here. S'always good to soak in differing ideas, or even those mirroring your own...