Its a term adopted to undermine the enemies legality. Would you call the Zionist freedom fighters, terrorists who blew up a hotel killing my countrymen? Whats in word, a term ? nothing more than the intention to politicise the aggressor.

Whatever its intention, it might still be correct and applicable. Suppose the prosecution called the accused a rapist in open court. Perhaps the intention is to undermine the accused in front of the jury, but, so what? If the accused is a rapist, then the term, "rapist" is still applicable to him. It can both be true that the intention is to undermine the enemies, and, also, it may be correctly applied. The one need not exclude the other.

First of all, the insurgents who blew up the King David hotel in Jerusalem killed few since they telephoned and warned the residents of the hotel that it was going to be bombed (hardly the action of terrorists). In the second place, the King David Hotel was the headquarters of the British Army in Palestine. So the insurgents were not attacking civilians. They were attacking military personnel. And, therefore, they could not have been terrorists by definition.

I see the differences. But how are those differences relevant to the issue of terrorism? If that is the issue.

I have been trying to understand the difference ethically, if there is any, between 9/11 and the United States dropping a bomb on Hiroshima.

America acted against Japan by dropping an A bomb in the hope of ending hostilities. The terrorist attack on America was intended to encourage hostilities.

The british soldiers from my regiment were acting as peace keepers and in my mind the Zionists were terrorists acting against the legality of the time. Those same soldiers had helped release Jewish prisoners from concentration camps, not that many months previously.

So you are able to read the intentions in another mind? That is some amazing capacity you have, xris. Really.

Nearly every example given here is one of violence.

Violence is wrong from a moral standpoint because somebody gets hurt. Why not find nonviolent ways of responding ...even in cases of self-defense.

I suggest we train people in Akaido. Supplement this with Judo. Then if one is attacked, one may use the force of the attacker to bring the attacker down.

If there is someone here who does not yet know that war is wrong, I would like to hear their argument justifying it. Yes, there is such a thing as 'a just war' - and we have had long threads here listing the conditions that have to be met to make it just - but I am not sure that the USA war against Japan in 1945 meets the requirements since the USA did so much to provoke it by squeezing Japan economically before the Pearl Harbor incident (and ignoring the subsequent warnings that Japan gave the US.) The USSR war against Germany may have been a just one if the USSR did not provoke Germany to invade Russia; if it did, I am not aware of it.


"What is right is right even if no one does it.
What is wrong is wrong even if everyone does it."

-

Nonetheless, they were soldiers, and terrorists target civilians. Therefore, whether or not the insurgents were "terrorists in your mind" they weren't. Insurgents always act against "the legality of the time". So that is irrelevant. And it is irrelevant that the soldiers released Jewish prisoners (which, of course, the insurgents did not know about anyway).

attacker down.

If there is someone here who does not yet know that war is wrong, I would like to hear their argument justifying it. Yes, there is such a thing as 'a just war' - and we have had long threads here listing the conditions that have to be met to make it just -

-

USA brought 9/11 upon themselfs, I don't care about siding with anyone, I just stay as neutral observer.

They screwed Al Queda plenty times over, in the Afghan war back in the 80'ies, promising military support and never deliver.

If you note all them stinger missiles various terror oganisations uses, it's deliverd from CIA ..that means given freely, not stolen!

USA are too arrogant to do what it really takes to solve problems and resort to violence, instead of mature messures ..talking about it, and not siding with people ..and not discriminating coutries/states for selfish interests.

Hiroshima wasn't really that bad compared to other major bombardments of cities useing fire bombs, it's just that the a-bombs was such an unique event that it got the most coverage.

USA has too much power, too selfcenterd, too arrogant ..and too paranoid.

In conflict you dont judge your mistakes you respond to the most recent attack upon you and then retaliate. Should have America said "oops I deserved that, sorry i wont upset you again, Ive learnt my lesson". Actions and reactions are the result of insignificant actions long forgotten.

So you really believe the attack on America was a type of punishment? with no idea that America would respond? If thats the case, I think you should believe they were rather naive.... War is an inevitable outcome of mans failings, men are just made that way.-------- Post added 04-05-2010 at 03:29 PM ----------

Insurgents are terrorists, thats their mode of warfare. I dont care if you call peace keepers valid targets, they were terrorists. I cant see how they could be called anything else. When I encountered insurgents they where domicile not invaders.

Yes it seems that way, though I'm not a historian.

But simply saying that doesn't lead to understanding of 9/11 versus Hiroshima does it?

As I said in my last post, it's nearsighted to try and bring a "we aren't any better than they are" message out of it. We don't call modern Germany hypocritical if they condemn genocide.

I think the other questions would be: what are "civilians" and is terrorism ever justified?

I think a situation where you are choosing between bombing and between invading with an army of draftees (not soldiers by choice) against a civilian populace that will fight back is a lot less clear cut. But this is not necessarily a correct interpretation of the historical situation because it's complicated. The justifications I've heard for hiroshima have always been that it was a preventative, a lesser of two evils. Was the 9/11 attack preventing a greater evil?

But most Americans do not seem to condemn the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, whereas most Germans do condemn what the Nazis did, so your analogy fails. In point of fact, many Americans seem to condemn such actions only when done by others, but not when done by Americans. You will find this cropping up in discussions of torture as well. And, of course, condemning others for doing what one does is hypocritical. Therefore many Americans are simply hypocrites, and there is no escaping this fact.





I don't think either one was necessary. Japan was asking for terms of surrender before the atomic bombs were dropped on them. It was evidently thought by the U.S. government that better terms could be easily had by killing a bunch of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

But the charge of hypocrisy is not so clear since most Americans also think that the atomic bombings were justified in order to prevent greater killing as the result of an American invasion of Japan. It is not simply that they believed that what others did was wrong, and that what they did was all right. It is more complex than that. So, it seems to me that your charge is unfair. Of course, whether the bombing was necessary is something we'll never know. Opinion is mixed on that matter. We had an unconditional surrender policy. and it was this policy that proved the stumbling block.

I wonder if terrorist have this same view about the good that they think they are doing.:detective:

But most Americans do not seem to condemn the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, whereas most Germans do condemn what the Nazis did, so your analogy fails. In point of fact, many Americans seem to condemn such actions only when done by others, but not when done by Americans. You will find this cropping up in discussions of torture as well. And, of course, condemning others for doing what one does is hypocritical. Therefore many Americans are simply hypocrites, and there is no escaping this fact.

Oh, they might very well. Few evil people believe that what they do is evil even when it is. Charles Manson also believed in what he and his coterie were doing. Hitler certainly thought that he was doing good too. What do you think that shows?

Yes it seems that way, though I'm not a historian.

But simply saying that doesn't lead to understanding of 9/11 versus Hiroshima does it?

As I said in my last post, it's nearsighted to try and bring a "we aren't any better than they are" message out of it. We don't call modern Germany hypocritical if they condemn genocide.

I think the other questions would be: what are "civilians" and is terrorism ever justified?

I think a situation where you are choosing between bombing and between invading with an army of draftees (not soldiers by choice) against a civilian populace that will fight back is a lot less clear cut. But this is not necessarily a correct interpretation of the historical situation because it's complicated. The justifications I've heard for hiroshima have always been that it was a preventative, a lesser of two evils. Was the 9/11 attack preventing a greater evil?