we say terrorists kill innocent people...

oralloy wrote:

najmelliw wrote:
There are shrines on the mountain, which would be destroyed.

Were any of them several miles in diameter to show the destructive power of the bomb?

najmelliw wrote:
I very much doubt the destruction of the Abomb on a mountain would result in merely a few inches of metled snow, oralloy. Not if you consider the devastating effect on the cities.

Why? What else is it going to do to the snow?

najmelliw wrote:
Anyways, the impact of an atomic bomb is clearly visible for anyony surrounding it.

What would they see? A bright flash and a distant explosion?

najmelliw wrote:
Warding of the mountain with soldiers in order to prevent civilians from approaching it, would in itself be a powerful statement that something terrible had happened.

But it would allow the true scale of the destruction to be kept secret.

If your proposal was to set it off on the part with no trees, there would be no need for any secrecy though. A little bit of melted snow wouldn't be all that impressive, if it were even noticeable.

najmelliw wrote:
Not just that, but the American government could easily point out to the Japanese that they had more bombs of that type, and would not be shy to use the next batch on cities if surrender was not discussed.

I'm not sure how that alters the effectiveness of Mount Fuji at demonstrating the power of the bomb.

Anyway, that is exactly what we told them after the Hiroshima bombing.

You dismiss it easily as a non-viable alternative, Oralloy. If one bomb destroys several or most of the shrines on a mountain, it shows it is a powerful bomb. Keeping it secret by laying a cordon around mount Fuji, as mentioned above, would have just given the message that something was terribly wrong. Couple that with the impact, no doubt witnessed by those living around it, and the proper propaganda from Americans, and the Japanese could never keep it a secret. Besides, if that would truly work, it might just as well work for those two cities targetted by the US of A.
But I agree that the raw power of the bomb would not be as readily discernable. However, I was just pointing out that given the circumstances, the americans could have picked other targets with less civilian casualties. Dropping a WMD on a densely populated urban area, knowing the consequences, is simply horrible.

0 Replies

Good point about the leaflets. Hard to judge them, in my opinion. You'll notice, though, that from the leaflets, the Japanese had no reason to think that they would be the targeted with a nuclear device rather than carpet-bombed (like other cities had been). The USA had no fleet of bombers capable of destroying 33 cities within reach, though. I think that the leaflets could as well have been regarded as mere propaganda.

Regarding the topic of this thread, and comparing this warning to the warning about a terrorist attack, it would be comparable if a terrorist organization declared: "We're going to target busy places in your country. We don't want to hurt anybody, though. So for your own safety, refrain from leaving your house."

In the end, I would find it hard to say that it amounts to more than propaganda and that it constitutes a serious warning. Nevertheless, a valid point.

oralloy wrote:

old europe wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Also, I don't think the definition was thinking of "attacks on soldiers and arms factories" when it talked of victims.

That would be an interesting question. In that case, the attack on the USS Cole would obviously not count as a terrorist attack, but rather as a military operation.

Yes, but a military operation carried out by unlawful (no uniform) combatants.

Yes, but that was not what we're talking about, right? I think that at the point where you are discussing if a specific act constitutes a terrorist attack or a war crime vs. a military operation, talking about whether it was performed by unlawful or lawful combatants is more than insignificant.

In my opinion, if the Serbian soldiers who were responsible for the deaths of countless people would have been wearing leisure suits instead of uniforms, it still would be a war crime, and if a suicide bomber who blew himself up in a crowded marketplace was wearing a uniform with the official Hamas logo printed on it, it still would be a terrorist attack.

At the point where you're discussing the lawfulness of a combatant, you have already accepted that it was a military operation.

0 Replies

najmelliw wrote:

You dismiss it easily as a non-viable alternative, Oralloy. If one bomb destroys several or most of the shrines on a mountain, it shows it is a powerful bomb. Keeping it secret by laying a cordon around mount Fuji, as mentioned above, would have just given the message that something was terribly wrong. Couple that with the impact, no doubt witnessed by those living around it, and the proper propaganda from Americans, and the Japanese could never keep it a secret. Besides, if that would truly work, it might just as well work for those two cities targetted by the US of A.
But I agree that the raw power of the bomb would not be as readily discernable. However, I was just pointing out that given the circumstances, the americans could have picked other targets with less civilian casualties. Dropping a WMD on a densely populated urban area, knowing the consequences, is simply horrible.

The point was not to avoid civilian casualties. The point was to impress on the government of Japan, with maximum force, the power of the A-bomb.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Good point about the leaflets. Hard to judge them, in my opinion. You'll notice, though, that from the leaflets, the Japanese had no reason to think that they would be the targeted with a nuclear device rather than carpet-bombed (like other cities had been). The USA had no fleet of bombers capable of destroying 33 cities within reach, though. I think that the leaflets could as well have been regarded as mere propaganda.

The threat was not to burn all 33 cities in one night, but to do it in the near future.

We had been dropping these leaflets on Japanese cities for some time, and always followed them up by dropping lots of napalm, so the Japanese knew they were credible expressions of our intentions to destroy the named cities.

old europe wrote:

oralloy wrote:
old europe wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Also, I don't think the definition was thinking of "attacks on soldiers and arms factories" when it talked of victims.

That would be an interesting question. In that case, the attack on the USS Cole would obviously not count as a terrorist attack, but rather as a military operation.

Yes, but a military operation carried out by unlawful (no uniform) combatants.

Yes, but that was not what we're talking about, right? I think that at the point where you are discussing if a specific act constitutes a terrorist attack or a war crime vs. a military operation, talking about whether it was performed by unlawful or lawful combatants is more than insignificant.

In my opinion, if the Serbian soldiers who were responsible for the deaths of countless people would have been wearing leisure suits instead of uniforms, it still would be a war crime, and if a suicide bomber who blew himself up in a crowded marketplace was wearing a uniform with the official Hamas logo printed on it, it still would be a terrorist attack.

At the point where you're discussing the lawfulness of a combatant, you have already accepted that it was a military operation.

I actually consider terrorism a type of military operation (an illegal type).

0 Replies

I havn't read this thread, but IF we defilne terrorists as people who kill innocent people, then Truman was a terrorists. Perhaps we can say that there are terrorists and then there are terrorists, but I suspect that would be an exercise in evasion.

0 Replies

After reading most of this thread along the way, this is how I personally see it now.....

The word terrorist most accurately describes those who attempt to forward their causes by causing terror in domestic populations.

It can be politically expedient to redefine terrorism as anything that causes any kind of fear in anyone for any reason.

It can be argued that the US engaged in terrorism by the atomic bombing of entire cities in WWII. While abhorrent to me, I think the prime purpose was to shock the government of Japan into immediate surrender with an overwhelming demonstration of superior military power, rather than to spread fear amongst the Japanese population (although it may well have had that effect, it was not the primary intention).

0 Replies

Eorl, I'd agree if you said that the word terrorist applies to one who's goal is to cause terror.

Then 9/11 was terrorism. Hiroshima was not.

But this definition simultaneously renders the term useless, because it is hard to imagine someone wanting to cause terror for no reason.

0 Replies

I don't agree.

In the case of terrorism, terror is the means being employed, regardless of the goal.

To cause terror is the purpose of the terrorist attack, as opposed to other tactics such as to kill combatants, flood munitions factories, or sink ships.

0 Replies

eorl wrote:

In the case of terrorism, terror is the means being employed, regardless of the goal.

To cause terror is the purpose of the terrorist attack...

Aren't you contradicting yourself here? Or am I misunderstanding it?

0 Replies

Our use of the phrase, "shock and awe" was a virtue confession of our use of terrorism. To argue that we were only trying to shock the government (and not the civilian population) sounds insincerely academic.

0 Replies

Maybe the aim for these attacks are simply to remind the civilian population that they are at war.

The outrage and indignation we react with is disturbing in the sense that it reveals just how little the population knows about the workings of it's governments. That is why we cannot comprehend.

The US is like a sleepwalking giant. The pinpricks that it's adversaries give it are attempts to wake it up. To arouse it's conscience in addition to the basic survival functions it operates on currently.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

eorl wrote:
In the case of terrorism, terror is the means being employed, regardless of the goal.

To cause terror is the purpose of the terrorist attack...

Aren't you contradicting yourself here? Or am I misunderstanding it?

No, although my wording is probably clumsy and confusing...it usually is !! Confused

Maybe I'll do better with examples and analogies.

My imaginary holy leader Bin Liner has the goal of convincing the Big Guy to pull out of my holy lands, I decide my best strategy to accomplish that goal is to cause terror among the civilian population, rather than attack the troops or other military targets. That, by my definition, is what terrorism is....the deliberate use of "terrorizing civilian populations" as a tactic to achieve a goal.

JL: I'm no US apologist, but I think the "shock and awe" thing was meant (and used) in the sense of proving overwhelming firepower, and extremely sudden obliteration of military resistance....rather than a deliberate attempt to scare the civilian population into action with random civilian death. But like I said before, I think we stretch the definition to suit our political needs.

0 Replies

You may be right, but was the S&A directed only at military and government installations or also at the civilian infrastructure?

0 Replies

JL, I think exclusively the former....but I'm happy to be corrected on that. I'm really just trying to keep the definition of terrorism specific and targetted in order to help reduce the rhetorical distortion in the interests of clear communication.....dunno why !! Laughing

0 Replies

I don't see what the Bush administration could have thought they would gain by attacking the civilian infrastructure, but then, again, I don't see what they hope to gain by not, after five years, vigorously trying to rebuild the infrastructure they have destroyed.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Maybe I'll do better with examples and analogies.

My imaginary holy leader Bin Liner has the goal of convincing the Big Guy to pull out of my holy lands, I decide my best strategy to accomplish that goal is to cause terror among the civilian population, rather than attack the troops or other military targets. That, by my definition, is what terrorism is....the deliberate use of "terrorizing civilian populations" as a tactic to achieve a goal.

I think the attempt by the United Nations of finding a definition for "terrorism" quite hits the mark. I don't think that the target is the main defining item ("civilians" vs "military" targets), but rather the methods employed. And I think that defining terrorism as "a war crime during peacetime" (and vice versa) quite hits the mark.

Let me elaborate: if you are at war with a country, and you use nerve gas to kill off every enemy soldier in the most horrific way imaginable, while not hurting one single civilian, I would still consider this to be a war crime (or the equivalent of terrorism).

In your example, you say that for you "deliberately terrorizing civilian populations as a tactic to achieve a goal" would be terrorism. I agree, but don't see why deliberately terrorizing a "military population" as a tactic to achieve a goal wouldn't qualify as terrorism. In that sense, there could never be any military victims to terrorist attacks, and I think that e.g. Iraq gives us quite an example to the contrary.

(And yes, the emphasis is on terrorizing the military population....)

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Let me elaborate: if you are at war with a country, and you use nerve gas to kill off every enemy soldier in the most horrific way imaginable, while not hurting one single civilian, I would still consider this to be a war crime (or the equivalent of terrorism).

Is it a war crime to defend oneself? The nervegas might have been used in defense in the given example.

Also, to spread terror among the troops of your enemy is considered wise tactics at times.

By your definition of terrorism and war crime, old europe, the entire wealth of the western civilisation is founded upon war crimes and terrorism.

Btw, isn't it an incorrect use of term to talk about 'a warcrime in peacetime'? Unless the crime is comitted in a war, isn't it just crime?

Lastly, the way I see it, the attack on the twin towers, for instance, was not a case of 'warcrime in peacetime'. USA hasn't had 'peacetime' in decades, if ever. It just picks it's fights well away from home. Just because all the fighting in the current wars happens abroad, the wars are happening in the US too.

0 Replies

Im sorry, but a couple of planes flying into a couple of buildings pales in comparison to the happenings in Iraq and any other war in history. I would hardly say the war has marched onto US soil.

Correct me if I have missed a news report announcing the demolishing of US cities by thousands upon thousands of 2000lb bombs.

0 Replies

This entire post would be in German if the US didn't bail Europe out by wreaking major carnage - much of it on civilians - in WWII. The Allies won that war by pounding German and Japanese cities into piles of rubble.

So what this thread is saying, is that if my children are killed walking to school tomorrow by an Islamic Fascist, that I'm to blame. That they're innocent only because they were children, but had they been older would have been guilty as well.

So if some group begins terrorizing Norway tomorrow via suicide bombers - let's call this new terror group, Norgegians - that tax paying Norwegians would be to blame? They would be to blame because they support the Norwegian government through taxation, a government which has established the policies of Norway, which the Norgegians vehemently oppose.

On first thought - this is crazy!

But wait, let's apply this same rationale elsewhere: A rocket lands in Israel and kills a visiting American. This American has reached the age of taxation. This rocket was launched by a terrorist organization, let's call this one Hezbollah. Now, the Hezbollah terrorist that launched the rocket is an Iranian citizen; taxpayer. So what we see is that Iran has just attacked the US because, by affiliation, neither of these persons were innocent.

On second thought - this isn't so crazy! Using this rationale we can just go pound Tehran into a pile of rubble right now! Great! Neutral

What did Patton say? ...."No one ever wins a war by dying for his country. He wins the war by making the other poor bastard die for his." (Paraphrase)

Oh yes, the reason the Norgegians are terrorizing the Norwegians:
They believe the land which is currently called Norway actually belongs to them, that Norwegians should move to Antarctica because Norway actually belongs to them and its true name is Norgay.

0 Replies

chiso wrote:

This entire post would be in German if the US didn't bail Europe out by wreaking major carnage - much of it on civilians - in WWII. The Allies won that war by pounding German and Japanese cities into piles of rubble.

I just love the way people forget very important facts. The US never would have entered the war anyway except for being attacked by Japan. They were quite willing to see Europe fall under German control so long as it didn't have any major effect on them.

0 Replies

we say terrorists kill innocent people...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know