Come one guys, this is getting pathetic!
i can call you betty, and betty when you call me you can call me allah...
It should be noted that the Greek had given up the myth of the soul about 100 years before Christ was born.
Joe(How about we use Zeus or Apollo? Let's all try that.)Nation
Muskens, that's the bishop this thread is about, will resign on December 1, it was announced last Sunday. (He asked for that already a long time ago, but didn't get a coadjutor until this year.)
Walter,
....one small step for Man !
when i first read the title of this thread i thought, "that's not a bad idea, actually."
i still think that except of course, it wouldn't work unless people were receptive of it. i don't have any illusions there.
fresco wrote:Walter,
....one small step for Man !
You mean, you can't wait until he'd died from illness?
....whoops !.... If that's why he's resigned, I retract !
fresco wrote:....whoops !.... If that's why he's resigned, I retract !
Well, since you knew who 'forced' him for his comments and his previous statements the years before, I'd though, you were familiar with this background, too.
JLNobody wrote:Terrorism is bad no matter of form it takes--9/11, Hiroshima, Shock & Awe, etc., etc., etc.. All mass assisination of civilians is terrorism. And it is performed, as far as I know, in the names of God, Jesus, Allah*, etc. Potentially good people performing bad deeds in the name of symbols of Absolute Truth and Goodness.
* but so far as I know, not in the name of the Buddha.
Hiroshima was a military target. It could hardly count as terrorism.
Shock and Awe, had it been carried out (it wasn't), also would not have targeted civilians.
How can you conclude that Hiroshima (and Nakasaki), with their killing of non-combatant civilians were not terrorist acts? How do you define terriorism. They were clearly intended to stop the war by killing civilians.
After seeing the TV series, WAR, however, I almost accept those acts of terrorism because of all the suffering our boys underwent in that horrible war. But I do not deny that the two bombings were terroristic acts. The extremeist fanatical islamofacist terrorists see their "atrocities" in the same light. Let's not wash away our sins by focusing on theirs.
JLNobody wrote:How can you conclude that Hiroshima (and Nakasaki), with their killing of non-combatant civilians were not terrorist acts?
By noting the fact that civilians were not targeted.
JLNobody wrote:How do you define terriorism.
I define it as the targeting of civilians by covert attackers.
JLNobody wrote:They were clearly intended to stop the war by killing civilians.
Nope. Killing civilians had nothing to do with it.
JLNobody wrote:After seeing the TV series, WAR, however, I almost accept those acts of terrorism because of all the suffering our boys underwent in that horrible war. But I do not deny that the two bombings were terroristic acts.
I deny it.
JLNobody wrote:The extremeist fanatical islamofacist terrorists see their "atrocities" in the same light. Let's not wash away our sins by focusing on theirs.
Since we are not guilty of terrorism (or any other form of targeting civilians), there is no need to wash such a crime away in the first place.
One man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter".
The point is that the rationality of organized aggression involves a delimiting of empathy with respect to group allegiances, i.e. tribalism. in which the concept of "civilian" is ignored or over-ridden. To ease individual consciences the idea of "non-deliberate consequences" is often used as a palliative, or disguised by the euphemism "collateral damage". The stereotypical dehumanization of "the enemy" thereby promoting "fear" is a natural aspect of warfare.
In the case of religious tribalism, which is central to this particular thread, the aggressor sees himself as "an instrument of God" in whose cause there are often "no innocents"....and anyway collateral "suffering" would be compensated in "the afterlife".
Western hypocrisy regarding war crimes and terrorism has always fascinated me.
Germany was carpet bombed during WW2. This is a war crime, yet I have never seen any of the generals who ordered it 'brought to justice'. That said, I fairly well understand why they engaged in it, and given the times they were in, won't judge them..
Hiroshima, I will agree with JL, was a terrorist act, by any definition that any person can come up with. I can't think of any definition whatsoever in which Hiroshima and Nagasaki wouldn't fall into the definition of terrorism.
It's intent was to wipe out two cities, containing hundreds of thousands of civilians, with the aim of ending the war, which it did. It may thereby have saved many more lives and suffering, so once again, I understand why it was done, and won't judge the leaders on the decision.
edit : on the original topic, calling god 'allah' - What is the point of 'promoting interfaith understanding' with Islam if one of the founding tenants of Islam is that they must wage war upon all other religions until Islam is the sole religion of the world.
fresco wrote:One man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter".
People can fight for freedom without using terrorist tactics.
vikorr wrote:Hiroshima, I will agree with JL, was a terrorist act, by any definition that any person can come up with.
Well, you are wrong. It doesn't fit the definition that is commonly used by people. (Nor does it fit any other definition of the term)
vikorr wrote:I can't think of any definition whatsoever in which Hiroshima and Nagasaki wouldn't fall into the definition of terrorism.
All definitions of terrorism involve the targeting of civilians. Since civilians weren't the target of the A-bombs, there goes the terrorism allegation.
Also, the term terrorism, as it is commonly used, involves attacks from covert agents. The A-bombs were overt attacks.
Quote:Since civilians weren't the target of the A-bombs, there goes the terrorism allegation.
So go on then, tell us how you confine a nuclear weapon to a "non-civilian target"!
Quote:In the end, Truman made the decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan. His stated intention in ordering the bombings was to bring about a quick resolution of the war by inflicting destruction, and instilling fear of further destruction, that was sufficient to cause Japan to surrender.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#The_Potsdam_ultimatum
Quote:When Japan rejected the ultimatum, Truman authorized use of the bomb. Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson felt the choice of using the atomic bomb against Japan would be the "least abhorrent choice." This would be weighed against sacrificing the lives of thousands of soldiers. Military advisers had told Truman that a potential loss of about 500,000 American soldiers was at stake.
It was vital to produce the greatest possible blow upon the Japanese, if the war was to be effectively shortened and the lives of the U.S. soldiers were to be saved. The atomic bomb provided such a blow. The cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were selected as targets after exhaustive study by military specialists. Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been virtually untouched by the U.S. and Allied bombing runs.
http://www.vce.com/hironaga.html
Quote:WHY HIROSHIMA?
Hiroshima was chosen as the primary target since it had remained largely untouched by bombing raids, and the bomb's effects could be clearly measured. While President Truman had hoped for a purely military target, some advisers believed that bombing an urban area might break the fighting will of the Japanese people. Hiroshima was a major port and a military headquarters, and therefore a strategic target. Also, visual bombing, rather than radar, would be used so that photographs of the damage could be taken. Since Hiroshima had not been seriously harmed by bombing raids, these photographs could present a fairly clear picture of the bomb's damage.
http://www.hiroshima-remembered.com/history/hiroshima/page4.html
It is really quite easy to find information on these sort of things.
fresco wrote:Quote:Since civilians weren't the target of the A-bombs, there goes the terrorism allegation.
So go on then, tell us how you confine a nuclear weapon to a "non-civilian target"!
I said nothing about confining the bombs to the military target. The collateral damage from the bombs was quite significant.
But that does not alter the reality that Hiroshima was a major center of military activity.
If during the Cold War the US and USSR had had a nuclear war, and a nuclear bomb exploded directly above the Pentagon, would you characterize that warhead as an attempt to slaughter all the civilians living near the Pentagon?
sorry. 
