• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Debate Nearly Everyone Here Runs From

dairyair said:
No, they are not.
Click to expand...
That is incorrect. The definition if terrorism is: "premeditated, politically motivated violence against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents".


dairyair said:
But, you are. Your definition is too narrow.
Click to expand...
The definition is exactly correct. That is why it is the definition.


dairyair said:
It's correct.
Click to expand...
That is incorrect. The definition if terrorism is: "premeditated, politically motivated violence against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents".


dairyair said:
No it doesn't. I showed you Britannicas definition.
Click to expand...
Their definition is incorrect. The actual definition of terrorism specifies targeting noncombatants.


dairyair said:
You're incorrect
You're incorrect
You're incorrect.
Click to expand...
That is incorrect. Everything that I said is true.


dairyair said:
The definition is not well defined. It has no or very little legal standing due to it's subjectivity in definitions.
Click to expand...
That is incorrect. The definition is quite clear. And it specifies targeting noncombatants.


dairyair said:
Maybe cite a legal definition. That could clear things up.
Click to expand...
I have done so repeatedly.
 
dairyair said:
One's side terrorist is the other sides freedom fighters.
Click to expand...
There is another flaw in some of the arguments about terrorism. Plant a bomb in a building that kills innocent people, you’re a terrorist. Drop a bomb from a plane on to a building that kills innocent people, you’re a patriot.
 
As usual, you are partially correct. And mostly wrong with a narrow view.
 
Fledermaus said:
1. Nazi Germany was a nation engaged in brutal oppression and genocide.

2. Japan sided with Nazi Germany and engaged in brutal oppression and also committed genocidal acts.
Click to expand...
Yes, and, were they a terrorist org/country?

Japan sent troops to Europe? Was Japan a terrorist org/country?
 
Nickyjo said:
There is another flaw in some of the arguments about terrorism. Plant a bomb in a building that kills innocent people, you’re a terrorist. Drop a bomb from a plane on to a building that kills innocent people, you’re a patriot.
Click to expand...
It all depends on one's point of view.
 
Nickyjo said:
There is another flaw in some of the arguments about terrorism. Plant a bomb in a building that kills innocent people, you’re a terrorist. Drop a bomb from a plane on to a building that kills innocent people, you’re a patriot.
Click to expand...
There is no flaw. Targeting noncombatants is terrorism. Not targeting noncombatants is not terrorism.
 
dairyair said:
As usual, you are partially correct. And mostly wrong with a narrow view.
Click to expand...
I am always 100% correct.

And I just happened to find another citation to go with the citations that I posted back in Message #213 on Page 9:

the term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;
Title 22, Chapter 38, Section 2656f(d)(2), of the United States Code
 
Toggle Almendro said:
There is no flaw. Targeting noncombatants is terrorism. Not targeting noncombatants is not terrorism.
Click to expand...
Yet we don’t scorn pilots who kill innocents from the air as we do those who plant similar explosives that kill innocents.

I believe that our technology has long ago outstripped our morality. Go back in time to the worst Medieval Catholic Inquisitor, to one who ordered the torture and execution of perhaps hundreds, and try to explain to him what Christian nations did in Hiroshima and Dresden. I doubt he’d believe you.
 
ASHES said:
Native Americans did the kind of raids on American civilians Hamas did on October 7. And the US government reciprocated with violence. Is that what this thread is about?
Click to expand...
Good apology.
We pushed the Indians off their land and they fought back the only way they could, with raids on the settlers.
Same in the middle east with Hamas playing the role of the American Indian.
 
Nickyjo said:
Yet we don’t scorn pilots who kill innocents from the air
Click to expand...
Because they are not directly targeting those innocents.

If the pilot of a military warplane did directly target innocents from the air, that would be considered a war crime. If they targeted and killed a large number of innocents, it would be considered a crime against humanity just as the World Trade Center attack is.


Nickyjo said:
as we do those who plant similar explosives that kill innocents.
Click to expand...
Because they deliberately target those innocents. If they were not deliberately targeting innocents, it would not be regarded as terrorism.


He would believe that the US nuked military targets in Japan. There is nothing wrong with nuking a military target.

I am not familiar with the details of Dresden. You'd have to ask the Brits about that.
 
Part of the intent was behind the two nuclear targets was to have substantial civilian casualties. The “Target Committee” recommended that the bombs not focus on military targets for the above reason.
 
Not in this thread. If you were 100% correct. We'd not be in a discussion. There'd be universal legal definition of terrorism with 100% agreement.
At best, you might be at 10%.

I still stand by my Britannica definition. Was the bombing of Japan cities premeditated? And did civilians get slaughtered and feared for their safety?
As per Britannica. Mostly fear of the wide audience. Which is true of the Japan bombings.

Again, you have correct, for some types of terrorism. But not 100%.
 
Toggle Almendro said:
There is no flaw. Targeting noncombatants is terrorism. Not targeting noncombatants is not terrorism.
Click to expand...
It absolutely is. But terrorism is far more reaching than your narrow description.

See my Britannica definition I've supplied you many times.
 
Nickyjo said:
Part of the intent was behind the two nuclear targets was to have substantial civilian casualties. The “Target Committee” recommended that the bombs not focus on military targets for the above reason.
Click to expand...
That is incorrect. The Target Committee picked Hiroshima as the first atomic target because it was Japan's primary military port and was filled with tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers. After it had been selected as the first atomic target, Japan also made Hiroshima the military headquarters in charge of repelling our coming D-day invasion of Kyushu. That only strengthened its standing at the top of the atomic target list.

The Target Committee picked Kokura Arsenal as the second atomic target because it was a huge (4100 feet by 2000 feet) complex of factories that made Japan's machine guns and machine gun ammo. Both light and heavy machine guns, and also 20mm antiaircraft guns.

Niigata was picked as an alternate because it was another military port that was filled with Japanese soldiers.

Nagasaki was added as an alternate target later, not picked by the Target Committee. But it was added as an alternate because it was an industrial center that built aircraft carriers and battleships.
 
Nickyjo said:
Part of the intent was behind the two nuclear targets was to have substantial civilian casualties. The “Target Committee” recommended that the bomba not focus on military targets.
Click to expand...

My research said otherwise.
 
dairyair said:
Not in this thread. If you were 100% correct. We'd not be in a discussion. There'd be universal legal definition of terrorism with 100% agreement.
At best, you might be at 10%.
Click to expand...
I am 100% correct in this thread as well.


dairyair said:
I still stand by my Britannica definition.
Click to expand...
And I stand by the actual definition of terrorism.


dairyair said:
Was the bombing of Japan cities premeditated?
Click to expand...
Yes.


dairyair said:
And did civilians get slaughtered
Click to expand...
Only the ones who got in the way of the blast wave.

(Yes I know, burns and radiation too. I was just simplifying.)


dairyair said:
and feared for their safety?
Click to expand...
Beats me. Doesn't matter.


dairyair said:
As per Britannica. Mostly fear of the wide audience. Which is true of the Japan bombings.
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter. Civilians still weren't the target.


dairyair said:
Again, you have correct, for some types of terrorism. But not 100%.
Click to expand...
The only types of terrorism there are, are the types that target noncombatants.


dairyair said:
It absolutely is. But terrorism is far more reaching than your narrow description.
Click to expand...
Terrorism is what the definition says that it is, and no more than that.


dairyair said:
See my Britannica definition I've supplied you many times.
Click to expand...
That definition is invalid. The real definition specifies the targeting of noncombatants.
 
These things are true to varying degrees.

Hamas made its whole big shot at fame an orgy of killing. They clearly pursued the deaths and kidnappings of civilians as a PRIMARY goal. That makes them pretty much entirely illegitimate. I'm not saying that's an excuse to starve kids, but I'm saying they are illegitimate and if Palestine is deprived of their crack governance skills I'll use my two fingers to play you a violin.

The Israeli state was better. Unfortunately, not so much any more. They should have had the integrity to convict Netanyahu and put him where he belongs before this ever started. They still should. Their claims to legitimacy are sinking faster than my Moderna shares. A lot faster.

The Russian state has committed a strange mix of crimes against humanity and gestures of responsibility. They don't make much sense. No serious person would argue that Putin has a right to rule them. Maybe they could be better sometime soon.

And then there's America - gone from handing out food to starving children to... what it is now. How fast, how few people, it takes for a state to go from being known for good to being known for evil. The people haven't changed - not even the cops manning the speed traps have changed. So what does that tell you?

It is not wrong to stand for anarchism, but remember: anything that can be written as a law can be written as a right. So-called "anarchists" were given a few square blocks at CHOP to protest police brutality, and ended up shooting a pair of people for driving a stolen jeep. Other anarchists make up and enforce laws against scientific research or wearing fur. The movement is currently too contaminated to provide plausible guidance, I think.
 
To a certain extent, Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden make me think of what war does. Prior to WWII, the world was shocked by the (1938?) bombing of Guernica (cf. Picasso’s famous piece of art). After several years of slaughter, the world accepted what it couldn’t have imagined less than a decades earlier.
 
Nickyjo said:
My research said otherwise.
Click to expand...
Better scrap it and start over then. Here are some quotes from the minutes of a Target Committee meeting:

Hiroshima - This is an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area. It is a good radar target and it is such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged. There are adjacent hills which are likely to produce a focussing effect which would considerably increase the blast damage. Due to rivers it is not a good incendiary target. (Classified as an AA Target)

Kokura Arsenal - This is one of the largest arsenals in Japan and is surrounded by urban industrial structures. The arsenal is important for light ordnance, anti-aircraft and beach head defense materials. The dimensions of the arsenal are 4100’ x 2000’. The dimensions are such that if the bomb were properly placed full advantage could be taken of the higher pressures immediately underneath the bomb for destroying the more solid structures and at the same time considerable blast damage could be done to more feeble structures further away. (Classified as an A Target)

Niigata - This is a port of embarkation on the N.W. coast of Honshu. Its importance is increasing as other ports are damaged. Machine tool industries are located there and it is a potential center for industrial despersion. It has oil refineries and storage. (Classified as a B Target)

The possibility of bombing the Emperor’s palace was discussed. It was agreed that we should not recommend it but that any action for this bombing should come from authorities on military policy. It was agreed that we should obtain information from which we could determine the effectiveness of our weapon against this target.

Atomic Bomb: Decision -- Target Committee, May 10-11, 1945

Transcribed minutes of Target Committee meeting, Los Alamos, May 10-11, 1945
www.dannen.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…