An interesting read about rogue states financing and supporting terrorism

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by Sardinia, Oct 30, 2003.

  1. Sardinia

    Sardinia New Member

    Oct 1, 2002
    Sardinia, Italy, EU
    http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1024-06.htm

    It's scary that someone even thought about that, I don't need to explain why.
    An interesting read about rogue states financing and supporting terrorism, indeed.

    Then GringoTex could talk about El Salvador.

    Then there's also Chile, Indonesia, Turkey, Chechnia etc. etc.
    All "wonderful" things ranging from direct support to looking somewhere else.

    Good terrorism, bad terrorism.
    Good massacres or genocides, bad massacres or genocides.
     
  2. DoctorJones24

    DoctorJones24 Member

    Aug 26, 1999
    OH
    Terrorism is a totally meaningless word if the bombing of Hiroshima doesn't qualify as the greatest terrorist act in history.

    State terrorism indeed.
     
  3. mannyfreshstunna

    mannyfreshstunna New Member

    Feb 7, 2003
    Naperville, no less
    Are you *#*#*#*#ing serious....are we going to go into this again?
     
  4. house18

    house18 Member

    Jun 23, 2003
    St. Louis, MO
     
  5. Cascarino's Pizzeria

    Apr 29, 2001
    New Jersey, USA
    Because we all know the imperial Japanese didn't sneak attack the US or rape, murder & pillage the rest of Asia. We bombed them AND had the common courtesy to re-build that country into a world economic power. IMO they lucked out.
     
  6. joseph pakovits

    joseph pakovits New Member

    Apr 29, 1999
    fly-over country
    Terrorism is a means for creating a fearful reaction in the general target population when the perpetrator either cannot or chooses not to use more conventional military means of achieving their goals.

    Palestinians do not have the resources to defeat the Israeli military so they strike at civilian targets that have virtually no military value.

    The USA decided that a conventional invasion of Japan would be too costly for its resoures at hand. So it chose to nuke two cities full of civilians that had virtually no military value. The fact that the bombing also sent a message to the Soviets was gravy.

    Technically, both are instances of terrorism despite the fact that we've all been trained to think of "terrorism" in general and these two examples in particular in only certain specific ways.

    If you want an example of terrorism committed by the US government that more closely resembles the Palestinian situation, you could always just remember the "Contras" we created and backed in Nicaragua, among others.
     
  7. joseph pakovits

    joseph pakovits New Member

    Apr 29, 1999
    fly-over country
    So we must become the enemy to defeat him. Any action is excusable because the enemy is always just as bad or worse. That's the kind of thinking that can lead to things like My Lai.

    Happily, in the case of WW2, the Allies learned their lessons from the aftermath of WW1 and we earned our hour of greatness by treating our conquered enemies humanely. That's what I find so frustrating about our history, though. Sometimes, we rise to true greatness by things like the Marshall Plan or by Lincoln's willingness to welcome the defeated Confederate states back into the union without exacting vicious revenge. But then we always follow up that greatness with needless stupidity and/or evil like our various actions in Latin Amercia and like VietNam. Our leaders' desire for world empire is like this albatross around our neck that keeps us from being the truly, consistently great nation that we've demonstrated we could be.
     
  8. house18

    house18 Member

    Jun 23, 2003
    St. Louis, MO
    Thought you weren't going to respond, you did on the other thread and now you jump over here...responding to something that goes back about four other threads which you know nothing about. Back to your five year old name calling too. What are you dressing up as tonight? Michael Moore?
     
  9. mannyfreshstunna

    mannyfreshstunna New Member

    Feb 7, 2003
    Naperville, no less
    Once again the liberals would rather send 7 million people to certain death in an invasion of japan instead of ending the war like we did.Stunning.
     
  10. Foosinho

    Foosinho New Member

    Jan 11, 1999
    New Albany, OH
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Unsuccessfully ducking the point?

    You've been [​IMG]
     
  11. mannyfreshstunna

    mannyfreshstunna New Member

    Feb 7, 2003
    Naperville, no less
    Nothing like giving excuses for murderers to start off the day on BS.
     
  12. Foosinho

    Foosinho New Member

    Jan 11, 1999
    New Albany, OH
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    What? 7 million? You know that less than a million soldiers have died in all American military conflicts ever? You know that the total number of people that fought in WWII for the US was 16 million? http://www.va.gov/pressrel/amwars01.htm

    You know that an estimated 70,000 people died instantly when the bombs were dropped? That's 25% of total US combat fatalities from WWII.

    Did dropping the Bomb expedite the end of the war? Yes. Did it save American lives? Yes. Did it kill fewer people net than an invasion of the mainland? Maybe, but I'm not convinced. Was it state terrorism? Most definitely.
     
  13. house18

    house18 Member

    Jun 23, 2003
    St. Louis, MO
    And this makes what sense?
     
  14. Richth76

    Richth76 New Member

    Jul 22, 1999
    Washington, D.C.
    Did it open a pandoras box a change the world forever? Yes.
     
  15. Richth76

    Richth76 New Member

    Jul 22, 1999
    Washington, D.C.
    Tell that to this guy (or girl?):

    [​IMG]
     
  16. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Well, on that Other Thread someone came up with a definition of terrorism that included "unlawful." The A-bombs were NOT unlawful.

    To me, the only valid criticism is that we dropped the Nagasaki bomb awfully quick.

    To those who want to call the mere use of the A-bomb as terrorism...what if we killed more people, but with conventional bombs. Would that be terrorism?
     
  17. ruudboy

    ruudboy New Member

    Jul 6, 2000
    Sunnyvale
    Some people believe in a Eye for an Eye.

    Japan did alot to deserve that bomb, especially for what their soldiers did to civilians in China and the Philippines.
     
  18. Richth76

    Richth76 New Member

    Jul 22, 1999
    Washington, D.C.
    I don't have a link, but I think I remember reading once that we actually killed more people carpet bombing Tokyo than with the Bomb in Hiroshima.

    Off Topic:

    I had a prof in an International Law class once tell us a story (have never confirmed it was true) of his friend who was captured in Japan. Beaten, saw his friends murdered, etc. by a Japanese soldier who was actually from Seattle.

    Anyway, after the war, the guy was driving down the street and saw this same guy who beat him and killed his friends just walking down the street. Seeing this he apparently tries running his former interrogator over with his car. After failing to do so, he gets out and with the help of bystanders beats the crap out of this guy.

    The former interrogator, according to our professor, was later tried for treason and hanged. Again, I never looked into this story, but ruudboy's post reminded me of it.
     
  19. joseph pakovits

    joseph pakovits New Member

    Apr 29, 1999
    fly-over country
    Is snoring considered a response? Judges?

    Amyway, I can address your B.S. in this thread even you're still too cowardly to answer my question in the other thread, Sally.
     
  20. joseph pakovits

    joseph pakovits New Member

    Apr 29, 1999
    fly-over country
    Do you mean the U.S. or the Palestinians?

    But seriously, I was pointing out the technical definition of terrorism, not excusing it. The points I was making, last seen flying a mile above your head, were:

    1) that some moral judgements are not as facile as small-minded people would like them to be.

    2) there is often a fine line legitimate military action and "terrorism", especially as "terrorism" is technically defined.

    3) "terrorism", in the perjorative sense, is often in the eye of the beholder.

    Finally, your post is tres ironique, Manny "Those old ladies and kids in VietNam deserved to get killed because the VC did some bad things" Freshstunna.
     
  21. monop_poly

    monop_poly Member

    May 17, 2002
    Chicago
    Can anyone make a relevant distinction to fire bombing Tokyo or Dresden or Hamburg and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

    Can anyone discount the historical context of Japanese atrocities throughout east Asia and the 40,000+ that died just to take Okinawa?

    To drag WWII actions into a definitional debate over terrorism disrepects the dead on both sides.
     
  22. Cascarino's Pizzeria

    Apr 29, 2001
    New Jersey, USA
  23. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Cascarino, you're venturing into "two wrongs make a right" territory. If bad acts by the Japanese excuse Hiroshima, then do bad acts by the VC excuse beheading a baby in Vietnam?
    Yeah, it was a trick question.
     
  24. Cascarino's Pizzeria

    Apr 29, 2001
    New Jersey, USA
    But people pull certain acts from WWII out of thin air (like Hiroshima) and say "bad, bad, bad" without realizing that most in this country at the time did see it as a "good vs. evil", survival of the free world vs. subjugation by a foreign militaristic power type of war-to-end-all-wars. I don't think Truman was going to take a poll of the citizenry, wait for the unanimous "bomb the fvck out of Japan until they're reduced to single cell organisms" response from the public before he dropped the Big One on Japan.
     

Share This Page