[bikes]

today marks the 60th anniversary of the trinity testing of the first nuclear bombs, i would be interested to know what you all think of these weapons? Are they worth having? Should they be abolished? Who can be responsible with them? Are they morally right?
feel free to discuss.

[CreepingDeth]

Keep em. Yes they're morally right. If we destroy em, guess who will have them?

"Okay, let's both put our guns down so we can decide this peacefully"

"Uh…ok"

*Bang*

[Kerrigan]

Nuclear weapons are bad, but.... well, they're here and we can't get rid of them. In some sense, they have made things more stable because two nations that have nukes are probably not going to go to war with one another.

They are also very difficult and expensive to maintain, so that rules them out as a major terrorist threat.

I think that they scared an entire generation with the possibility of a worldwide fiery holocaust, but people have been worrying about that type of thing since the middle ages so nothing new there.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by CreepingDeth

Keep em. Yes they're morally right. If we destroy em, guess who will have them?

"Okay, let's both put our guns down so we can decide this peacefully"

"Uh…ok"

*Bang*

Some people just don't grab the obvious do they?

[loki74]

yes yes true... we out to keep our nukes I think. I do not think an inanimate object can be inherinly moral or immoral... it is possible to use them morally/immorally though. Similar I think to the phrase "guns don't kill, people do." Its more a matter of who's got them.

Bikes, you need to give your opinion though. Im not sure but wasnt that one of the PL rules?

[bikes]

Originally Posted by loki74

yes yes true... we out to keep our nukes I think. I do not think an inanimate object can be inherinly moral or immoral... it is possible to use them morally/immorally though. Similar I think to the phrase "guns don't kill, people do." Its more a matter of who's got them.

Bikes, you need to give your opinion though. Im not sure but wasnt that one of the PL rules?

ok. i am against them. i don't think that nations can be responsible with such power, plus i am a pacifist so naturally i am against them being used on civilians (or anyone.)

[SSharon]

I think we have no choice but to keep them. I trust my government to use them responsibly, but I don't trust most others to do the same. It is very possible for terrorists to get a small nuke and they won't be maintaining it, they will be using it. Unfortunately, I don't think the US (or anyone else for that matter) having nukes will act as a deterrent to terrorists and thats a problem.

Are they morally right? Just as right as any other bomb that kills innocent people.
Are they worth having? We have not seen the last atomic bomb detonate. The next will not be a US (or any western country's) bomb, so I think they are worth having if for no other reason than to make us feel safe. Without them our options are limited even if I don't see us ever using one again.

[mojo2]

In this particular post I will forego the pleasure of ruminating on the pros and cons of the US having and using nuclear weaponry to stop wars. I say wars because nuclear weapons stopped the second world war and the number and the variety and their delivery systems helped prevent the Cold War from becoming WWIII.

What I will say has to do with the terrorist potential use of nukes, be they the suitcase variety (which some believe are already in place and awaiting a signal of some sort to be given by perhaps OBL before they are set off) or be they the nuclear weapons aboard former Soviet submarines but now owned by Pakistan, for example, or other weapons and delivery systems that DO exist (there is no shortage of proof available if you Google it).

A nuclear weapon is THE PERFECT Muslim weapon, from what I'm led to believe, because it produces a BIG EXPLOSION AND LOTS OF FIRE.

There are film images going through my brain.

James Bond preventing a mad genius holding the world a nuclear hostage from destroying us all.

The revolutionary Cuban in the hands of the Police Captain in the Godfather Part II who blows himself up...

[about the unrest in Cuba]

Michael Corleone: I saw a strange thing today. Some rebels were being arrested. One of them pulled the pin on a grenade. He took himself and the captain of the command with him. Now, soldiers are paid to fight; the rebels aren't.

Hyman Roth: What does that tell you?

Michael Corleone: It means they could win.

And the whole scenario of the film, "FAILSAFE." I don't know if I would trade today's evils for that of the 60's cold war fear, but it sure does seem more understandable and clear cut.

So, does that mean I would rather be threatened or killed by someone I can better understand or by someone who is completely alien to me and my way of life and thinking?

It wouldn't matter. I would fight and try to kill either or I would be killed by either.

Islam = Submission

[Athens]

Originally Posted by mojo2

A nuclear weapon is THE PERFECT Muslim weapon, from what I'm led to believe, because it produces a BIG EXPLOSION AND LOTS OF FIRE.

Islam = Submission

Let me just correct you here, you kinda made a couple mistakes


First one "A nuclear weapon is THE PERFECT terrorist weapon"

and the second one

Terrorist = Submission

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by mojo2

A nuclear weapon is THE PERFECT Muslim weapon, from what I'm led to believe, because it produces a BIG EXPLOSION AND LOTS OF FIRE.

Seriously, seek professional help. Now. Don't wait.

Islam = Submission

So?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Seriously, seek professional help. Now. Don't wait.

Hmmm, maybe you're right. All the BIG EXPLOSIONS that are going off because of MUSLIM suicide terrorists are very distasteful to the Muslim suicide terrorists sensibilities. How could ANYONE think that MUSLIMS LIKED BIG FIERY EXPLOSIONS???

Maybe the perfect weapon would be a big curved sword?

I'm beginning to think you aren't really in-touch with your own religion. Hmph! You speak calmly and semi-intelligently. The jerks who are doing all the crap aren't reasonable like you are. Either THEY represent Islam and you don't matter in this regard or YOU represent Islam and you shouldn't mind OUR wiping those guys off the face of the earth so they won't bring a world of hurt down on you and so you won't have to get rid of these guys yourself.

Ooops, seems we've been down this road before.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

So?

Nevermind. It's just a little secret message from one freedom loving guy to other freedom loving guys. It's a message you Islam guys wouldn't understand.

Islam = Submission

[Athens]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Hmmm, maybe you're right. All the BIG EXPLOSIONS that are going off because of MUSLIM suicide terrorists are very distasteful to the Muslim suicide terrorists sensibilities. How could ANYONE think that MUSLIMS LIKED BIG FIERY EXPLOSIONS???

Maybe the perfect weapon would be a big curved sword?

I'm beginning to think you aren't really in-touch with your own religion. Hmph! You speak calmly and semi-intelligently. The jerks who are doing all the crap aren't reasonable like you are. Either THEY represent Islam and you don't matter in this regard or YOU represent Islam and you shouldn't mind OUR wiping those guys off the face of the earth so they won't bring a world of hurt down on you and so you won't have to get rid of these guys yourself.

Ooops, seems we've been down this road before.

These idiots are not real muslims, they can claim to be Americans but does that make them American? No. Get out of your glass box and learn a little about the world.

[Athens]

its the same dam thing if I go out and start bombing buildings in the name of Christianity, does that mean its a Christian thing to blow up buildings? Any one can do anything in the name of something. Perhaps you should judge Muslims on the 10s of millions that aren’t blowing themselves up, did this ever occur to you?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Hmmm, maybe you're right. All the BIG EXPLOSIONS that are going off because of MUSLIM suicide terrorists are very distasteful to the Muslim suicide terrorists sensibilities. How could ANYONE think that MUSLIMS LIKED BIG FIERY EXPLOSIONS???

Maybe the perfect weapon would be a big curved sword?

I'm beginning to think you aren't really in-touch with your own religion. Hmph! You speak calmly and semi-intelligently. The jerks who are doing all the crap aren't reasonable like you are. Either THEY represent Islam and you don't matter in this regard or YOU represent Islam and you shouldn't mind OUR wiping those guys off the face of the earth so they won't bring a world of hurt down on you and so you won't have to get rid of these guys yourself.

Ooops, seems we've been down this road before.

If all terrorists are Muslim*, and all Muslims are humans are all Muslims terrorists?

You'd fail the most basic IQ questions.

Again, Muslims ≠ terrorists.


* I'm not saying all terrorists are Muslim, that was just an example.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Nevermind. It's just a little secret message from one freedom loving guy to other freedom loving guys. It's a message you Islam guys wouldn't understand.

Islam = Submission

Do you understand what that means?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Athens

its the same dam thing if I go out and start bombing buildings in the name of Christianity, does that mean its a Christian thing to blow up buildings? Any one can do anything in the name of something. Perhaps you should judge Muslims on the 10s of millions that aren’t blowing themselves up, did this ever occur to you?

Yup. When I hear some 'stupido' calling this a war on Islam or "the little brown ones" I want some of the 10's of millions to tell 'stupido' to STFU.

The problem here is that from SOME muslims I get the sense they are being disengenuous. With a wink and a nod they "condemn" the terrorists but you get the feeling in your heart they are cheering the radical movement. I call it being two-faced and sneaky. The Koran encourages this duplicity and calls it something else.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Yup. When I hear some 'stupido' calling this a war on Islam or "the little brown ones" I want some of the 10's of millions to tell 'stupido' to STFU.

The problem here is that from SOME muslims I get the sense they are being disengenuous. With a wink and a nod they "condemn" the terrorists but you get the feeling in your heart they are cheering the radical movement. I call it being two-faced and sneaky. The Koran encourages this duplicity and calls it something else.

WTF are you talking about? Are you trying to claim that those Muslims who post here are cheering these f*cking murderous thugs? Again, seek some professional help now!

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

If all terrorists are Muslim*, and all Muslims are humans are all Muslims terrorists?

You'd fail the most basic IQ questions.

Again, Muslims ≠ terrorists.


* I'm not saying all terrorists are Muslim, that was just an example.

I'm not saying that either. Because it's not true.

The suicide terrorist campaigns between 1980 - 2003 were committed by: Muslims, Hindus/secular and Sikhs.

Wrangell, do you feel it is your job to save the human race? Do you know of any Muslims who feel that to be their job, their responsibility or holy duty?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

WTF are you talking about? Are you trying to claim that those Muslims who post here are cheering these f*cking murderous thugs? Again, seek some professional help now!

Calm down, Ranger!

I never mentioned anyone here.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by mojo2

I'm not saying that either. Because it's not true.

Then why did you say "perfect weapon for Muslims" or something like that?

The suicide terrorist campaigns between 1980 - 2003 were committed by: Muslims, Hindus/secular and Sikhs.

And Catholics and American Christians. Why do you guys always forget that?

Wrangell, do you feel it is your job to save the human race? Do you know of any Muslims who feel that to be their job, their responsibility or holy duty?

It is every humans job to save the human race. No matter what religion or non-religion you belong to.

And just speaking about me, yes I feel it's my duty(for religious reasons) to save the human race.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Calm down, Ranger!

I never mentioned anyone here.

So what Muslims are you talking about?

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Islam = Submission

I agree with that. I remember that quote from "Kingdom of heaven" went something like...
"They both beleive in the same God. But where Mohammed forces you to submit, Jesus gives you the choice"

That statement right there defines the difference between Islam and Christianity to me.

Another observation from living in the middle east.... Islam dosent accomodate for change and Christianity does. Thats why things such as tradition and culture and religion have pretty much remained the same over the past centuries. Change is a good thing, and Islam's got a lot of contridictions on the social level due to lack of change and progress with the times in my opinion. In fact, i think, looking at the global picture, Christianity has dealt the best with change and 'progress' than any of the other world religions(with the exception of Jewdaism possibly). Thats my opinion anyway.

Incidentally, i'm Catholic .

Cheers

[bikes]

i don't want to start a huge argument here, but im pretty confident that western imperialism has caused more innocent deaths then fundamentalist islamic terrorism.
for instance, the two nuclear bombs dropped in WWII were dropped on civilian targets, killed about 80,000 innocents in hiroshima alone. In nagasaki 39,000 were killed, still thousands more maimed. If that isn't an act of terrorism, i don't know what is.

[Sherwin]

Originally Posted by bikes

i don't want to start a huge argument here, but im pretty confident that western imperialism has caused more innocent deaths then fundamentalist islamic terrorism.
for instance, the two nuclear bombs dropped in WWII were dropped on civilian targets, killed about 80,000 innocents in hiroshima alone. In nagasaki 39,000 were killed, still thousands more maimed. If that isn't an act of terrorism, i don't know what is.

So the bombs dropped on Japan in WW2 were dropped because of western imperialism?

[Hawkeye_a]

And yet here we are, with more people who reside in the Middle East wanting to migrate to the "Westrn Imperial" nations than the other way around. Seems crystal to me, as to which side is more appealing to people in general..... and therefore 'good'.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by bikes

i don't want to start a huge argument here, but im pretty confident that western imperialism has caused more innocent deaths then fundamentalist islamic terrorism.
for instance, the two nuclear bombs dropped in WWII were dropped on civilian targets, killed about 80,000 innocents in hiroshima alone. In nagasaki 39,000 were killed, still thousands more maimed. If that isn't an act of terrorism, i don't know what is.

Although terror was a strong component of what was attempted by the US, I think the main goal was to put pressure on the leadership. Here are translations of the leaflets dropped following the nuclear blast:

Translations of Two Leaflets Dropped on Japanese Cities Shortly after the First Atomic Bomb was Dropped
August 6, 1945

TOP SECRET

Part I - Psychological Warfare

1. Below is a copy of the first leaflet (AB-11) which was dropped on Japanese cities in conjunction with the Atomic bomb.
2. A translation of the above leaflet follows:

TO THE JAPANESE PEOPLE:

"America asks that you take immediate heed of what we say on this leaflet.

"We are in possession of the most destructive explosive ever devised by man. A single one of our newly developed atomic bombs is actually the equivalent in explosive power to what 2000 of our giant B-29's can carry on a single mission. This awful fact is one for you to ponder and we solemnly assure you it is grimly accurate.

"We have just begun to use this weapon against your homeland. If you still have any doubt, make inquiry as to what happened to Hiroshima when just one atomic bomb fell on that city.

"Before using this bomb to destroy every resource of the military by which they are prolonging this useless war, we ask that you now petition the Emperor to end the war. Our President has outlined for you the thirteen consequences of an honorable surrendor: We urge that you accept these consequences and begin the work of building a new, better, and peace-loving Japan.

"You should take stops now to cease military resistance. Otherwise, we shall resolutely employ this bomb and all out other superior weapons to promptly and forcefully end the war."

EVACUATE YOUR CITIES

3. Below is a copy of the second leaflet (AB-12) which was dropped on Japanese cities in conjunction with the Atomic Bomb.

4. A translation of the above leaflet follows:

"ATTENTION JAPANESE PEOPLE" EVACUATE YOUR CITIES

"Because your military leaders have rejected the thirteen part surrender declaration, two momentous events have occurred in the last few days.

"The Soviet Union, because of this rejection on the part of the military has notified your Ambassador Sato that it has declared war on your nation. Thus, all powerful countries of the world are now at war against you.

"Also because of your leaders' refusal to accept the surrender declaration that would enable Japan to honorably end this useless war, we have employed our atomic bomb.

"A single one of our newly developed atomic bombs is actually the equivalent in explosive power to what 2000 of our giant B-29's could have carried on a single mission. Radio Tokyo has told you that with the first use of this weapon of total destruction, Hiroshima was virtually destroyed.

"Before we use this bomb again and again to destroy every resourse of the military by which they are prolonging this useless war, petition the Emperor now to end the war. Our President has outlined for you the thirteen consequences of an honorable surrender; We urge that you accept these consequences and begin the work of building a new, better, and peace loving Japan.

"Act at once or we shall resolutely employ this bomb and all our other superior weapons to promptly and forcefully end the war."

EVACUATE YOUR CITIES

[Hawkeye_a]

Here's a question(to which id like coherent answers to):

Were nuclear weapons and America's superior military in the first half of the past century the MAIN reason why the U.S. is the superpower it is today ?

I know that the Nazis had far superior technology as far as weapons go....but i think the use of weapons(in general) can be distinguished as follows:
-The Nazis used their weapons to 'conquer' territory and peoples.
-The U.S. uses its weapong mainly for economic and political reasons (embargoes, sanctions, political influence, etc). Which definately seems to be a far more effective way of expanding an 'empire' than what the Nazis or Japaneeses or Soviets tried to do this past century.

Hmmm..... interesting.

[CreepingDeth]

Uh-oh! Nazi hyperbole!

[bikes]

Originally Posted by Sherwin

So the bombs dropped on Japan in WW2 were dropped because of western imperialism?

no, but there have been other atrocities committed in the name of industrialized nation's expansion. What i was attempeting to say was that islamic terrorism represents only a fraction of atrocities commited by other nations or groups.

[BlueSky]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

They are also very difficult and expensive to maintain, so that rules them out as a major terrorist threat.

Probably not unlike the way most of us would have ruled out the possibility
of 3 planes flying into the WTC and Pentagon a while back.

A Sobering Article

[Y3a]

The Weapons have no good or bad about them. The countries and the leaders are whats good or bad. I say keep the weapons away from the nutcase countries. This would be all 3rd world nations, and the Chinese, who are just a 3rd world country with nukes anyway.

destroy the factories of the bad guys. Don't be afraid to use them.

weapons will progress at the same rate as the rest of teh technologies anyway, so whining about it is stupid and careless. If you had a high powered machine gun, and your neighbors had blunderbusses, do you think they'd use them against you? The next big push will be to have bio-weapons that single out specific races, and those with specific traits.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by Bluesky

Probably not unlike the way most of us would have ruled out the possibility
of 3 planes flying into the WTC and Pentagon a while back.

A Sobering Article

Ironically, also called SADM (pronounced "Saddam").

Yeltsin's former Science Advisor, Alexei Yablokov, came to the US last year and testified about suitcase bombs that KGB or somebody was making for terrorist use. Do we know whether these things existed? If so, do the Russians now know where they all are?

Yes, we knew they existed. Suitcase nuclear bomb is, I think, a little optimistic. It's certainly something that ... I would be hard pressed to carry. It's fairly big and it's fairly heavy. The Russians, again from what I saw, go to great lengths in the accountability of their nuclear devices. We are spending a lot of money under Nunn-Lugar to automate that system. Our system is very automated, and we test it on a regular basis. The Russian system is more manpower-intensive. It's pretty much a stubby pencil and a spreadsheet kind of thing. But I was shown how they account for their nuclear weapons. And I was told that these smaller devices are included in that same accountability system. I mean, General Yakoulev took me in his office--General Yakoulev is the commander-in-chief of the Rocket Forces--and showed me an IBM computer screen, and ... Yakoulev can track where every nuclear weapon is in his system by serial number. I couldn't do that from my headquarters. ... If the Russians were as deadly serious about the accountability of the nuclear weapons that I saw and have been involved with, I can only surmise that they have the same concerns with the smaller weapons. There have been a number of Russians that have come over here and thrown a grenade on the table of some of our Congressional committees, saying that there lot of loose suitcase bombs out there. I don't think so. ...

Here are some technicalities to consider.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Then why did you say "perfect weapon for Muslims" or something like that?

Darn it! You are making me reveal ALL my sources! AND the fact that I SOMETIMES just hear someone who sounds like they know what they are talking about and I'll just throw it into a post to see how it flies.

This guy, Howard Bloom, said the 'perfect weapon' thing last nite on C2C. I just repeated what he said.

http://www.howardbloom.net/
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/guests/25.html

And Catholics and American Christians. Why do you guys always forget that?

AGAIN!!!??? Ok, here's the source for THAT info...

"Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic Of Suicide Terrorism" by Robert A. Pape

It is every humans job to save the human race. No matter what religion or non-religion you belong to.

And just speaking about me, yes I feel it's my duty(for religious reasons) to save the human race.

Admitting feeling that kind of responsibility is, in a way, touching and endearing and noble. But, when I consider HOW the individual Muslim (multiplied by a billion or so) shouldering that responsibility might feel directed to act in order to save the world, I get ascared (afraid + scared).

I ask you, intelligent reader, to imagine the worst co-dependent person you know, who is also the 'GONZO liberal Democrat from hell,' someone who ABSOLUTELY knows what is best for you and doesn't need you to ask for anything because they would already be telling YOU what you need...without your permission or assent.

And they would automatically assume they were more intelligent and you were inferior or if you had some redeeming qualities you would be considered as one might consider a trained pet monkey.

But when time came for you to submit to the rules, or THE LAW, you'd better fall in line or they'll have to get stern with you. Submit or else.

Sorry, even though you may be well intentioned, I like free agency.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

So what Muslims are you talking about?

You are a news consumer. Tell me there are NO Muslim spokespeople who make you think they are "wink and nod" Muslims when they talk of peace and moderation but when the crap hits the fan or when push comes to shove, you KNOW they will be saying "Kill the Infidels!!!"

Don't make me find examples. YOU know what I'm talking about!

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

Although terror was a strong component of what was attempted by the US, I think the main goal was to put pressure on the leadership. Here are translations of the leaflets dropped following the nuclear blast:

LIES! It's all lies, I tell you!!!

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by bikes

i don't want to start a huge argument here, but im pretty confident that western imperialism has caused more innocent deaths then fundamentalist islamic terrorism.
for instance, the two nuclear bombs dropped in WWII were dropped on civilian targets, killed about 80,000 innocents in hiroshima alone. In nagasaki 39,000 were killed, still thousands more maimed. If that isn't an act of terrorism, i don't know what is.

Apparently you don't know what is.

Neither our A-Bombs, our firebombings or other acts such as these in WWII were considered terrorist attacks. Neither were the Japanese kamikazes.

The Japanese kamikazes in World War II are not normally considered terrorists because they targeted solely soldiers and sailors, not civilians,
and because their actions were directed and authorized by a recognized national government.

Robert A. Pape

There is little difference ultimately in whether Hiroshima was destroyed by one bomb or a rain of them. You are outraged by habit and conditioning. Stop it, right now!

When you look at the end result both Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been destroyed in the coming invasion...along with every other Japanese city of any size and a MILLION more lives were estimated to be lost.

Sooooo, take your pick:

A) 150,000+/- dead with two bombs and war ends in two weeks

OR

B) 1,000,000 dead with thousands of bombs, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are firebombed and war ends maybe 6 mos or a year later

fishin'
Veteran Member



Joined: 17 Oct 2002
Posts: 5666
Location: Boston

Posted: Sun Dec 01, 2002 1:13 pm Post: 25262 -

"Hiroshima contained at least one large Japanesse muntions storage area and both cities were significant strategic centers based on their access to transportation. To say neither had any tactical value is a bit of a verbal play. They didn't, but they did have strategic value as targets. You say there was no military presence yet both cities were defended by anti-aircraft artillary units. What were the Japaneese defending and if those anti-aircraft units weren't run by the military who was operating them?

But.. The choices were more more appropriate than several other locations that were originally considered. Koyoto was the original 1st choice because of it's historical relevance as the former Japanesse capital and the intellectual center of the country. That choice was discarded because the city held absolutely no military value at all even though it was thought the dropping a bomb there would have the most psychological impact on the Japanesse people. The Emperor's Palace was also considered and discarded as were Yokohama, Kokura and Niigata..."

http://www.able2know.com/forums/about1591.html

Go forth and spread left wing cliches no more.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

So what Muslims are you talking about?

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Apparently you don't know what is.

Neither our A-Bombs, our firebombings or other acts such as these in WWII were considered terrorist attacks. Neither were the Japanese kamikazes.

Isn't that terror you feel now at the possible perspective of Al-Qaeda being in possession of nukes targeting your homeland?

[bikes]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Apparently you don't know what is.

Neither our A-Bombs, our firebombings or other acts such as these in WWII were considered terrorist attacks. Neither were the Japanese kamikazes.



There is little difference ultimately in whether Hiroshima was destroyed by one bomb or a rain of them. You are outraged by habit and conditioning. Stop it, right now!

When you look at the end result both Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been destroyed in the coming invasion...along with every other Japanese city of any size and a MILLION more lives were estimated to be lost.

Sooooo, take your pick:

A) 150,000+/- dead with two bombs and war ends in two weeks

OR

B) 1,000,000 dead with thousands of bombs, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are firebombed and war ends maybe 6 mos or a year later


Go forth and spread left wing cliches no more.

I think war in terrorism are inseparable, what difference does it make if killing is committed by powerful people, or desperate people? A pilot drops bombs for a powerful empire, and a desperate suicide bomber explodes inside a restaurant. It all ends in death, and destruction.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by bikes

I think war in terrorism are inseparable, what difference does it make if killing is committed by powerful people, or desperate people? A pilot drops bombs for a powerful empire, and a desperate suicide bomber explodes inside a restaurant. It all ends in death, and destruction.

...and terror?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

Isn't that terror you feel now at the possible perspective of Al-Qaeda being in possession of nukes targeting your homeland?

Defining TERRORISM is a strange sort of exercise. You would logically assume anything that produces terror is an act of terrorism.

When my daughter was an infant I was terrorized by her poopy pampies. Is that terrorism?

When stopped by the Highway Patrol for a broken tail light I feel terror to see him behind me lights flashing. Is that terrorism?

In Viet Nam when one side was fighting the other in a potentially deadly skirmish and one felt terror, did that mean either side was necessarilly commiting an act of terrorism?

So, to answer your question, the terror I feel at the thought of al Qaeda blowing up my or any US city is somewhere between the terror of a poopy pampie and the terror of seeing the Highway Patrol officer in my rear view mirror.

If the nuke is detonated there is no terror in that because I'd be dead or I'd be alive and soon afterwards we'd nuke Mecca or Medina methinks. And with that the world as we know it would be about to experience an interesting change and I'd intend to watch CNN's coverage of the end of the world (Why CNN? To enjoy my final gloating session! "SEE what you've done, you durned liberals?! We needed to be tougher, not kinder and gentler! NOW look at what you've wrought! heh, heh, heh! ")

Yeah! I'm good to go. I've got lots of popcorn waiting to be...

...NUKED.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Defining TERRORISM is a strange sort of exercise. You would logically assume anything that produces terror is an act of terrorism.

When my daughter was an infant I was terrorized by her poopy pampies. Is that terrorism?

When stopped by the Highway Patrol for a broken tail light I feel terror to see him behind me lights flashing. Is that terrorism?
(...)

I provided a definition of terrorism in anothe thread.

On the other hand, to answer the question, the use of nukes on Japan had an element of terrorism because it put pressure on population and governments (see leaflets) to nd the war.

Islamic terrorism or not, the goal is the same: put pressure on those who have the power.

Yeah! I'm good to go. I've got lots of popcorn waiting to be...

...NUKED.

Bye then!

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by bikes

I think war in terrorism are inseparable, what difference does it make if killing is committed by powerful people, or desperate people? A pilot drops bombs for a powerful empire, and a desperate suicide bomber explodes inside a restaurant. It all ends in death, and destruction.

There are three types of terrorism.

Demonstrative: Hostage taking, airline hijacking and explosions announced in advance.

Destructive: More aggressive. Seeks to coerce opponents with the threat of injury or death as well as to mobilize support for the cause. To try to inflict real harm on members of the targeted group without losing sympathy for the cause. The Baader-Meinhof group assassinated rich german industrialists and alienated certain segments of German society but not all.

Suicide terrorism: The most aggressive form of terrorism, pursuing coercion even at the expense of angering not only the target community but neutral audiences as well.

Here is some more to differentiate between a terrorist and a guerrilla or freedom fighter and etc.

Terrorist, Guerrilla, Freedom Fighter: What’s the Difference?

Do terrorists see themselves as terrorists?

No. The French revolutionaries who coined the term “terrorist” in the 1790s thought it had positive connotations, but today, it’s hard to find anyone who wants to be known as a terrorist. Instead, individuals and organizations branded as terrorists tend to prefer calling themselves “freedom fighters,” “urban guerrillas,” or “holy warriors,” among other things. For instance, Ilich Ramirez Sanchez (a.k.a. Carlos the Jackal), the mastermind of numerous terrorist attacks in the 1970s and 1980s, described himself in 1994 as a revolutionary and “above all a family man.” In seeking to be fair, media organizations sometimes shy away from using “terrorist” and “terrorism” in news reports since all parties involved do not accept the same terms—hence, the old saw that “one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter.”

Can terrorism be clearly defined?

Even though most people think they can recognize terrorism when they see it, experts have had difficulty coming up with an ironclad definition. The State Department defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.” In another useful attempt to produce a definition, Paul Pillar, a former deputy chief of the CIA’s Counterterrorist Center, argues that there are four key elements of terrorism:

It is premeditated—planned in advance, rather than an impulsive act of rage.

It is designed to change the existing political order. It is not merely criminal, like the violence that groups such as the mafia use to get money.
It is aimed at civilians—not at military targets or combat-ready troops.
It is carried out by subnational groups—not by the army of a country.

What is the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter?

It’s tough to say, according to experts—largely because they are overlapping categories. Terrorism is a tactic, and “freedom fighting” describes a motivation, so a person or group could be engaged in both at the same time. Experts say whether one calls a particular group “terrorists” or “freedom fighters” often largely depends on whether one thinks the group’s ends justify its violent means—which, in turn, depends on one’s politics. For example, Palestinian suicide bombers are described as terrorists in Israel and the United States, but many Arabs and Muslims and some Europeans view their attacks as a legitimate part of the struggle for Palestinian national liberation.

What is the difference between a terrorist and a guerrilla?

Here again, it’s hard to draw a clear line, experts say. Like terrorists, guerrillas are politically motivated, violent groups that aren’t organized like conventional armies. But unlike terrorists, guerrillas tend to organize in larger groups, seize and hold territory, and send openly armed units to attack opposing military forces.

Another key distinction is terrorists’ deliberate targeting of civilians. Guerrillas typically focus their unconventional warfare on military or government targets. Still, some guerrilla groups use tactics such as kidnapping, assassination, and bombing to frighten civilians as part of their campaigns to overthrow governments or seek power—although guerrillas often use such terrorist tactics early in a rebellion and then move on to other tactics.

Can a group be both guerrilla and terrorist?

Yes, experts say. Some groups could be considered both guerrilla and terrorist, depending on which targets they’re attacking. For instance, the Lebanese Shiite militia Hezbollah won significant Western sympathy for its attacks on Israeli troops occupying a self-declared security zone in southern Lebanon, but Hezbollah associates also garnered widespread Western condemnation for their suicide bombings, kidnappings, and hijackings. Colombia’s rebel FARC and ELN movements are known both for guerrilla attacks on government targets and for terrorist operations aimed at civilians, such as bombings, assassinations, and kidnappings.

Can states be terrorists?

Again, it’s a question of definition. The State Department and many leading experts define terrorists as members of subnational groups, not government leaders or states—thereby placing even such dedicated abusers of human rights as Slobodan Milosevic’s Serbia beyond the bounds of the epithet “terrorist.” These experts often define Milosevic-style atrocities as human rights abuses or war crimes. But some terrorism scholars do include violence perpetrated by governments in their definitions of terrorism, if these assaults involve state violence intentionally aimed at civilians and designed to instill fear or influence public opinion. Also, states can sponsor terrorism by providing sanctuary; weapons; training; or logistical, financial, or diplomatic support to terrorist groups. The State Department lists seven countries as state sponsors of terrorism: Cuba, Libya, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria.

Why don’t people want to be labeled as terrorists?

Because calling individuals or organizations “terrorists” implies that they operate outside the international standards that govern war and diplomacy, besmirches the goals they’re fighting for, and tarnishes their public image. Moreover, states and international organizations often draft laws and shape policies aimed at punishing terrorists and their supporters. Groups formally designated as terrorist often cannot conduct meetings, maintain public offices, raise funds, lobby and negotiate with governments, or cross borders—and could become targets of the current U.S.-led war on terrorism.

How does the United States decide who counts as a terrorist?

U.S. agencies use varying definitions. In deciding whether a violent political group is a terrorist organization, the State Department—which is charged with designating which groups qualify as foreign terrorist organizations—looks at whether the group focuses its attacks on civilians, whether its leadership tolerates attacks on noncombatants, and whether it has other avenues for promoting its positions. Since September 11, President Bush has urged the world to eliminate gray areas in defining terrorism, saying that those who aid or harbor terrorists are terrorists themselves.

Different arms of the U.S. government have sometimes disagreed about who qualifies as a terrorist. When South Africa was under white supremacist rule, the Department of Defense considered the antiapartheid African National Congress a terrorist group, while the State Department disagreed. Perceptions of individuals or groups can also change over time; at different moments, U.S. officials have treated PLO leader Yasir Arafat as both a terrorist pariah and a partner in peace negotiations.

Do foreign governments try to brand local insurgents as terrorists?

Yes. Since September 11, countries from Russia and China to the Philippines and Somalia have argued that Muslim groups operating on their territory are terrorists linked to the al-Qaeda network. These governments put forth these arguments in the hopes of winning U.S. assistance or approval for campaigns against rebellious groups; some states have been more successful in swaying American opinion in this way than others. Governments and leaders often label armed opposition groups (even nonviolent ones) terrorists to delegitimize them. Meanwhile, many terrorist organizations argue that governments also engage in symbolic acts of violence aimed at frightening the public, and they sometimes describe powerful countries, including the United States, as the “true terrorists”—either because of attacks that kill civilians or because of policies that these groups argue cause more harm than the traditional terrorists’ attacks.

Can the world agree on whom should be counted as a terrorist?

For now, no. Experts say it’s hard enough to get Western political scientists to agree on who qualifies as a terrorist, let alone reach an international consensus on whom should be treated as one. After Palestinian terrorists murdered Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics, for example, U.N. Secretary General Kurt Waldheim urged U.N. members to adopt international counterterrorist measures, but some developing countries blocked these efforts, arguing that national movements struggling against “foreign oppression and exploitation” had the right to use any methods, including force. After September 11, the confusion continues. The United States has pressed other Western countries to designate various groups, including the PKK and the Tamil Tigers, as terrorist organizations, but other Westerners see some of these groups’ quests for self-rule as just and have urged leaving them off formal terrorist lists. And in April 2002, a summit of Muslim leaders issued a statement that condemned terrorism but pointedly excluded Palestinian suicide bombers from this condemnation.

Copyright ©2004 Council on Foreign Relations.
All Rights Reserved.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

I provided a definition of terrorism in anothe thread.

On the other hand, to answer the question, the use of nukes on Japan had an element of terrorism because it put pressure on population and governments (see leaflets) to nd the war.

Islamic terrorism or not, the goal is the same: put pressure on those who have the power.

Bye then!

To those of you who would be martyred for the cause, I salute you!

Ta ta!

(That is, unless YOU know something I don't!!!)

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by mojo2

To those of you who would be martyred for the cause, I salute you!

Ta ta!

(That is, unless YOU know something I don't!!!)

?Huh?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

?Huh?

?Huh?

?Wha?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Yup. When I hear some 'stupido' calling this a war on Islam or "the little brown ones" I want some of the 10's of millions to tell 'stupido' to STFU.

The problem here is that from SOME muslims I get the sense they are being disengenuous. With a wink and a nod they "condemn" the terrorists but you get the feeling in your heart they are cheering the radical movement. I call it being two-faced and sneaky. The Koran encourages this duplicity and calls it something else.

your confusing understanding of the terrorists issues with condoning it. I understand why terrorists have a beef with the US, I don't condone it, but I believe the US brought upon itself, does that make me part of the radical movement or a terrorists nope.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

I agree with that. I remember that quote from "Kingdom of heaven" went something like...
"They both beleive in the same God. But where Mohammed forces you to submit, Jesus gives you the choice"

That statement right there defines the difference between Islam and Christianity to me.

Another observation from living in the middle east.... Islam dosent accomodate for change and Christianity does. Thats why things such as tradition and culture and religion have pretty much remained the same over the past centuries. Change is a good thing, and Islam's got a lot of contridictions on the social level due to lack of change and progress with the times in my opinion. In fact, i think, looking at the global picture, Christianity has dealt the best with change and 'progress' than any of the other world religions(with the exception of Jewdaism possibly). Thats my opinion anyway.

Incidentally, i'm Catholic .

Cheers

I don't know about that, I think Christianity has no choice but to change in the West because Government and Church is separate and the Church has less power then the State. Gay Marriage is just a example how this is being forced on Christianity to accept. The Middle East Religion is still on power, there is no separation of State and Church which is why I think Middle East countries are failing as bad as they are.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

And yet here we are, with more people who reside in the Middle East wanting to migrate to the "Westrn Imperial" nations than the other way around. Seems crystal to me, as to which side is more appealing to people in general..... and therefore 'good'.

Guess over population and climate doesn’t get taking into account, lets look at it from the its a super hot desert and is over crowded as possible reasons why some move away as well. Others are interested in being bombs, others interested in Money, others interested in Travel, others interested in a safe home for there family. Funny how after they move they don't dump there religion. If western ways where more appealing as you suggest why don’t they convert to christens as well when they move here. Your statement is really flawed.