What Is Terrorism?

[Dante]

oops, too many windows and browsers open. multi-tasking down side

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Japanese didn't surrender until the Russians declared war on them and invaded Manchuria. The Japanese would have been facing a mainland invasion from both directions.

They did not surrender because of the Soviets, read the source documents and the time line. Hirohito agreed to intervene BECAUSE of the Atomic Bombs.

 

[Harry Dresden]

i always felt seeing pictures of Nancy Pelosi was terrorism of the worst kind....

 

[michiganFats]

I am sick and tired of mental defectives comparing the A-bombs dropped on Japan to terrorism. When the bombs were dropped, we were at war, and trying to finish it. The time for scaring the Japanese into compliance with our political views was long gone. If we had tried to plant a bomb in Tokyo in 1940, I may accept your argument, but if you want to say that what happened in 1945 was terrorism, then you are an idiot. Pardon my language, but you are what you are.

 

[Agnapostate]

Of course, convenient definitions are formulated by the powers of the world to protect them from accusations of terrorism. Multitudes are not even aware of President Kennedy's state terrorist campaign against Cuba.

 

[Dante]

The Japanese didn't surrender until the Russians declared war on them and invaded Manchuria. The Japanese would have been facing a mainland invasion from both directions.

methinks the Russians waited to get into the spoils of war. where were in the Pacific Theater?

 

[elvis]

methinks the Russians waited to get into the spoils of war. where were in the Pacific Theater?

of course they did.

 

[Gunny]

Of course, convenient definitions are formulated by the powers of the world to protect them from accusations of terrorism. Multitudes are not even aware of President Kennedy's state terrorist campaign against Cuba.

Probably because one never existed.

 

[Gunny]

methinks the Russians waited to get into the spoils of war. where were in the Pacific Theater?

The Russians were at war with Germany. The threat to Russia was from Germany. The Japanese, while de facto Axis partners were hardly a threat to mega-miles of barren landscape they could never hope to occupy.

The Russians only cared about defeating Germany, and in fact, FDR was pressured by both Stalin and Churchill to make the European theater the priority objective.

By all rights, we could have done just as Russia did and ignored the threat from Germany and focussed on the Pacific and Japanese where we had been actually attacked.

IMO, Stalin was too busy satiating his bloodlust to see that pressuring FDR to open a second front worked AGAINST any spoils of war. Combined with the air offensive from England, he was beating Germany on his own and could have had all of Germany and more had the US/UK not opened a second European front.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Probably because one never existed.

Wow- I guess you never got the memo.

EDIT: Oh, no, I forgot, 'we' can't commit terror. Phew. I caught that one at the nick of time.

 

[mightypeon]

According the most historicans, getting a part of the spoils of war in Europe (which was worth a bit more than the areas in the pacific in a strategic sense) was the main reason that the US intervened there in force rather than keeping to supply the USSR and the UK logistically while dealing with Japan first.
They ( The US) did quite a good job with getting the spoils, Both Japan and Germany basically became US vasalls (Japan still is), Russia "got" China but "lost" it soon after since you cant "vassalize" or "puppet" a nation as big as China in perpetuality.

Given the ratios of invested forces (in relation to lets say the ressources the USSR invested in dealing with Germany), the US easily got the most bang for its buck when it comes to war spoils in WW2.

 

[editec]

When those guys Blew a hole in the USS Cole, were they called warriors or were they called terrorists?

If we use as a working definition of terrorism:

"The purposeful targeting of civilians to achive political ends"

then every nation going to war against another nation employs terror tactics.

 

[Dante]

According the most historicans[sic], getting a part of the spoils of war in Europe (which was worth a bit more than the areas in the pacific in a strategic sense) was the main reason that the US intervened there in force

could you maybe list a few of these historicans[sic]?

 

[Dante]

When those guys Blew a hole in the USS Cole, were they called warriors or were they called terrorists?

If we use as a working definition of terrorism:

"The purposeful targeting of civilians to achive political ends"

then every nation going to war against another nation employs terror tactics.

no WE do not use your working definition? where do you get this shit?

stop being a moron and setting up false choices to achieve a desired result.

besides warrior is an inappropriate use. and have you never heard of saboteur, criminal,..


btw a working definition may be what you want to dictate, but most intelligent people understand this..

"Terrorist" redirects here. For other uses, see Terrorist (disambiguation).
Terrorism
Definitions
History
International conventions
Anti-terrorism legislation
Counter-terrorism
War on Terrorism
Red Terror
White Terror
By ideology
Communist
Eco-terrorism
Narcoterrorism
Nationalist
Ethnic
Religious
(Christian • Islamic • Jewish)
Types and tactics
Agro-terrorism
Bioterrorism
Car bombing
Environmental
Aircraft hijacking
Nuclear
Propaganda of the deed
Proxy bomb
Suicide attack
State involvement
State terrorism
State sponsorship
Configurations
Fronts
Lone wolf
Lists
Designated organizations
Incidents
v • d • e

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror [1] At present, there is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism.[2][3] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants.

Some definitions also include acts of unlawful violence and war. The history of terrorist organizations suggests that they do not select terrorism for its political effectiveness.[4] Individual terrorists tend to be motivated more by a desire for social solidarity with other members of their organization than by political platforms or strategic objectives, which are often murky and undefined.[4] The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged,[5] and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. One 1988 study by the US Army found that over 100 definitions of the word "terrorism" have been used.[6] A person who practices terrorism is a terrorist. The concept of terrorism is itself controversial because it is often used by states to delegitimize political opponents, and thus legitimize the state's own use of terror against those opponents.

Terrorism has been used by a broad array of political organizations in furthering their objectives; both right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic, and religious groups, revolutionaries and ruling governments.[7] The presence of non-state actors in widespread armed conflict has created controversy regarding the application of the laws of war.

While acts of terrorism are criminal acts as per the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 and domestic jurisprudence of almost all countries in the world, terrorism refers to a phenomenon including the actual acts, the perpetrators of acts of terrorism and their motives.

- wikipedia

 

[editec]

no WE do not use your working definition? where do you get this shit?

We are seeking a working definition of terrorism are we not?

Do you have one?

Apparently not. Did you even READ what you posted? Apparently not

[1] At present, there is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism.[

What IS terrorism and how does one differentiate an act of terror from an act of "legal" war?

I mark the cut off between war and war by terror as the purposeful targeting of civilians to achieve an ends.

You are welcome to give us YOUR definition, of course.

stop being a moron and setting up false choices to achieve a desired result.

Oh, so proposing a working definition makes me a moron, does it?

besides warrior is an inappropriate use. and have you never heard of saboteur, criminal,..

Is sabotuge a crime. How about if a commando blows up an enemy's military resoiurces...does that make them criminals?

btw a working definition may be what you want to dictate, but most intelligent people understand this..
- wikipedia

Apparently most intelligent people does not include yourself, sport.

You apparently didn't bother to note this

[1] At present, there is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism.[

Now run along, laddie.

The grownups here are attemtpting to discuss things beyond your ken.

 

[Munin]

They did not surrender because of the Soviets, read the source documents and the time line. Hirohito agreed to intervene BECAUSE of the Atomic Bombs.

That is very true, the Russian Navy in the pacific was no match for the Japanese even tough their wasn't much left of the original Japanese Navy. The Russians simply didn't have the fleet for it.

 

[elvis]

They did not surrender because of the Soviets, read the source documents and the time line. Hirohito agreed to intervene BECAUSE of the Atomic Bombs.

Fuck you, dickhead. Take your time line and shove it up your ass.

 

[Dante]

Laddie? The affectation suits you.

The history of terrorist organizations suggests that they do not select terrorism for its political effectiveness.[4] -wikipedia

--- read the above from the wiki and then see your idiocy below ----

Originally Posted by editec:
When those guys Blew a hole in the USS Cole, were they called warriors or were they called terrorists?

If we use as a working definition of terrorism:

"The purposeful targeting of civilians to achive political ends"

then every nation going to war against another nation employs terror tactics.

simplistic.

your attempt to portray all sides as evil, in order to dis the USA, is myopic and unworthy of serious discussion. it's sort of like being with a precocious child who keeps asking "Why?, But why?" after each answer given. your verbal diarrhea is teh gift that keeps on giving.

Now run along, laddie.

The grownups here are attemtpting to discuss things beyond your ken.

If you were one of the adults you are fond of mentioning when you're not pulling your own prick or the prick of somebody else, I'd say you are one of those children who spend way too much time in circle jerks.

 

[editec]

your attempt to portray all sides as evil, in order to dis the USA, is myopic and unworthy of serious discussion.

You want to debate me?

Then debate what I say, not some strawman of your own deluded design, sport.

 

[mightypeon]

Can you really argue about the "Bang for the Buck" or better "Blood for the Buck" ratio the USA achieved in Europe and in General.
Far less then a million deaths and you end up with the better half of Germany + all of Japan + half of Korea?
A much better investment than 20 million deaths and the not so great part of Germany (of course, dismantling its industrial base and moving it to the USSR did not help), as well as eastern Europe (minus a fairly independent minded Yugoslavia).

Even France was much more compliant to the US than China was to the USSR later.