Reexamining the Terrorist Nature of WWII and the Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima

[jonegil]

I do not understand the confusion which some apparently have between acts of declared war between sovereign nations and and acts of a individual terrorist.

What nation does a "terrorist" represent? This is what separates war between nations and acts of criminals. While a terrorist claims some political agenda s/he/it are not acting as a representative of a national government. They are individuals attempting to scare a population into compliance with what may be very fuzzy goals. In essence very little separates a terrorist from a criminal.

I see a HUGE difference between acts of terrorism and a declared war. I have a hard time understanding why so many seem to ignore the difference.

Germany invaded Poland without declaring war
Germany invaded Russia without declaring war
USA invaded Panama without declaring war...(the list is huge)
Hezzbollah acts as a representative of Iran for instance, no doubt about it

 

[IMP]

Well, the Founding Fathers of this country were called "terrorists" too. The British crown called the first few presidents of this country "terrorists". What's in a name?

 

[jonegil]

ENOUGH with the insults.
by your definitions "Terrorist" had no meaning what so ever.

Don't worry Integral this is just a heated discussion, I ain't insulting you

 

[Astronuc]

all wars are acts of terrorism

There is some validity in that. War certainly involves acts of terror, e.g. bombing of civilian targets, military occupation, . . . .

As for the OP, Germany began with annexation of Austria and invasion of the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia, then invasion of Poland and other countries.

In the Pacific, Japan moved against American interests in the Pacific. The US entered WWII defensively after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.

While Pearl Harbor had a military base, some military facilities are interspersed with civilan areas, and civilians (non-combatants) do work at military facilities, and civilians were killed.

Lets not forget the Luftwaffe bombed London, Coventry, and many other civilian targets in an attempt to break the spirit of the people. The Allies likewise bombed Berlin and other German cities. And the Japanese terroized the Phillipines, China (e.g. Nanking), Korea, . . . The Japanese military was also try to launch bombs and biological weapons on the US via balloons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II

World War II (abbreviated WWII or WW2), or the Second World War, was a worldwide military conflict which lasted from 1939 to 1945. World War II was the amalgamation of two conflicts, one starting in Asia as the Second Sino-Japanese War and the other beginning in Europe with the Invasion of Poland.

This global conflict split a majority of the world's nations into two opposing camps: the Allies and the Axis. Spanning much of the globe, World War II resulted in the deaths of over 60 million people, of which about half were Soviet, making it the deadliest conflict in human history.[1]

World War II was the most widespread war in history, and countries involved mobilized more than 100 million military personnel. Total war erased the distinction between civil and military resources and saw the complete mobilization of a nation's economic, industrial, and scientific capabilities for the purposes of the war effort; nearly two-thirds of those killed in the war were civilians. The Holocaust, which was largely conducted in Eastern Europe, was the systematic killing of nearly 11 million political, social and racial minorities (Gypsies, the disabled, etc.). Six million of these victims were Jews persecuted by the Nazis.

Please avoid personal slights in the debate on this subject. Also provide evidence or facts to support assertions, and avoid generalizations.

I know several people who lost most of their families during WWII. One friend whose father and uncle are the only survivors of a large family. War is horrible.

 

[marlon]

Germany invaded Poland without declaring war

Yes but that was a decision taken by the people that represented Germany politically , ie the government. This was not the action of a small group of people that represent and are supported by a small fraction of a country's population.

marlon

 

[russ_watters]

The fact there is no consistent defintion of terrorism (think Reagan's Contra Freedom Fighters)

That's simply not true and you know it. We've had this discussion a dozen times and the dictionary definition is clear (if slightly lacking in nuance). Regarding the contras - terrorism is a tactic and terrorists are people who use the tactic. So you tell me: did the Contras engage in acts of terrorism, by the standard definition? (give examples)

It is precisely because people apply the word to a group without regard for the fact that the word is a description of a tactic that shows they are purposely misusing the word. Even if you disagree on the nuances of the tactics (and I am more than willing to debate specific examples) - the definition of "terrorist" simply references the word "terrorism". Removing "terrorism" from "terrorists" is a step beyond the obfuscation on which the thread is based...

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I don't think there can be an exact definition of terrorist. It has been said that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. I do know that anyone who terrorizes ME is a terrorist in MY book. While the leaders of my own country often make me nervous, it would be exaggeration to say they terrorize me.

The nuclear attacks on Japan were part of a larger program of so-called 'strategic bombing' whose effectiveness in the war effort was controversial even before Hiroshima, and even when the stated purpose was to eliminate ball-bearing factories.

 

[K.J.Healey]

I agree that this is all a semantics argument. I think everyone agrees the point of dropping atomic bombs was to end a war by making a current enemy more fearful of us.
Is that "terrorism"? Sure, why not? So is endlessly making "documentaries" on TLC about the "End of the WORLD" and what WILL happen when we run out of oil after we heat the climate 100 degrees in 10 years and a giant wave of water hits new york while an asteroid is heading to Earth carrying about 50k muslim extremists infected with west nile and a few thousand sexual predators infected with a new more deadly strand of bird flu who may or may not be talking to your children on Myspace. Be Afraid! It makes for great ratings.


Also, does anyone agree that "attempts of terrorism" and terrorism are the same? I was thinking about it, and could it be called an act of terrorism to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theatre and everyone screams and runs out trampling some 86yr old lady? What about if you yell "FIRE!" and everyone ignores you while someone tells you to sit down and watch the movie? Is it only terrorism if someone becomes more afraid?

 

[Art]

Ok, so you are in the camp that WWII was just a bunch of terrorist. Once again this make the term petty meaningless. So what have you gained? What is your point?

Again please refrain from creating strawman arguments, it's irritating.

I have already detailed my point pretty clearly but in case you missed it I'll quote myself

The fact there is no consistent defintion of terrorism (think Reagan's Contra Freedom Fighters) is the reason why people use the term perjoratively to denounce one's opponents with the intention of illigitimising them and thus illigitimising any political point they may be trying to make and so avoiding discourse on what may be perfectly legitimate grievences.

And so yes my point is the term terrorist is meaningless and it's overuse extends conflict as it prevents any dialogue to resolve differences under the guise of 'we don't negotiate with terrorists'

I maintain that there is a clear and definite difference between nations at war and acts of terrorism.

I've already provided examples of 'terrorists' who were not labelled such and were lauded as the good guys. There are also many examples of nations which have been labelled as terrorist states and the use of the term 'state sponsored terrorism' is still very much in vogue to describe countries one does not agree with. So if it is clear to you please detail exactly what these differences are.

It is not clear to me what my "preposterous position" is. Other then what I have stated over and over again, there is a difference between WWII and a modern terrorist.

There are some acts which outrage all right thinking people, eg. the jewish holocaust, the armenian holocaust, Stalin's show trials; and in more recent times 9/11 and 7/7 along with the Birmingham pub bombings etc.

The discussion here is whether or not the dropping of the nuclear bombs on Japan should or should not fall into the category of an act that outrages public opinion.

To try to define the right or wrong of an act in terms of defining the status of the instigator is in my opinion a cop out and yet another reason why the term terrorist should be struck from the language as by defining oneself as a non-terrorist it seems all acts no matter how savage are okay.

Is there really any difference to the enormity of the horror whether 50,000 people are killed by a so called 'terrorist' organisation or by a 'legitimate' state? Certainly not to the victims there's not.

You are making some pretty big claims here, I see little evidence to support them ("I suspect my knowledge of WW2 would put you to shame")

In response to your comment

Get a sense of history please.

I already have a sense of history thank you.

 

[rewebster]

Personally, I think the word 'terrorist' (or 'terrierist', as bush likes to say) is defined by the perspective of, whether or not, it is being perpetrated against YOU (and those with which you align*) or not.



align*--you can personally align with anyone/anything according to your own personal morality-based 'light-cone' perspective

 

[Art]

That's simply not true and you know it. We've had this discussion a dozen times and the dictionary definition is clear (if slightly lacking in nuance).

Terrorism expert Walter Laqueur in 1999 counted over 100 definitions and concludes that

the "only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence".

so much for a clear consensus

In November 2004, a UN panel described terrorism as any act:

"intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act."

Such as dropping nukes on cities perhaps?

And from Bruce Hoffman's book, Defining Terrorism

On one point, at least, everyone agrees: terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. 'What is called terrorism,' Brian Jenkins has written, `'thus seems to depend on one's point of view. Use of the term implies a moral judgment; and if one party can successfully attach the label terrorist to its opponent, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint.' Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization `terrorist' becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism

It looks like expert opinion is with me.

ps If you wish to discuss the contras please start a new thread and I'll be glad to provide you with reports from Amnesty Int'l, Human Rights Watch, the Roman Catholic church and even the US Congress detailing attrocities carried out by them.

 

[rewebster]

I would tend to agree more with the Hoffman quote than the UN quote (there's a lot of 'or' 's in that statement), in that dropping leaflets and phone calls can be 'threatening' and a 'terrorist' act, but not "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm".


---"dropping nukes" even in a desert or an arctic region can be considered by some to be 'threatening'/(terrorist like)---

A 'bully' in a school playground can be labeled a terrorist--as can an over-zealous post (I am NOT pointing to ANYONE with that comment--just making an example---so, please, no one get bent out of shape here)

------------------------------------------------------


"intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act."


let's see:


"intended to cause death, serious bodily harm to civilians (or non-combatants), and/or with the purpose of intimidating a population (compelling a government or an international organization) to do or abstain from doing any act."

that sounds better to me

 

[Smurf]

You Called Me A Terrorist! I'm going to nuke your desert now!

 

[drankin]

This thread is toast.

Japan attacked the US by bombing Pearl Harbor, a military target. We declared war and fought them in the Pacific for some time. The bombs were not dropped in direct retaliation for the bombing of Pearl Harbor. That's an ignorant assumption. The bombs were dropped in an effort to win the war. And guess what, it worked. The problem now-a-days is that no one wants to WIN a war.

 

[rewebster]

This thread is toast.

...The problem now-a-days is that no one wants to WIN a war.

Do you mean, like Korea or Viet Nam?

 

[drankin]

Do you mean, like Korea or Viet Nam?

Yes. Throw Iraq in the mix too.

 

[Art]

What does 'win a war' mean? It's a very loose concept. There will always be residual opposition from survivors to any imposed peace unless one pursues a policy of genocide. As this is not morally acceptable it is simply best to avoid war in the first place.

 

[jonegil]

Yes. Throw Iraq in the mix too.

and Cuba..."Bahía De Cochinos"

 

[drankin]

What does 'win a war' mean? It's a very loose concept. There will always be residual opposition from survivors to any imposed peace unless one pursues a policy of genocide. As this is not morally acceptable it is simply best to avoid war in the first place.

WWII, Allies won. Japan and Germany were defeated. Basically, to win a war, you have to thoroughly crush your enemy until surrender. And if your enemy has a "no-surrender" policy, continue crushing. That is how you WIN a war. Don't go to war unless you are prepared to WIN.

Iraq for example, not prepared to WIN. It's like telling someone to paint a house and handing him a little water color brush. Mowing a football field with scissors. You get the idea.

 

[rewebster]

WWII, Allies won. Japan and Germany were defeated. Basically, to win a war, you have to thoroughly crush your enemy until surrender. And if your enemy has a "no-surrender" policy, continue crushing. That is how you WIN a war. Don't go to war unless you are prepared to WIN.

Iraq for example, not prepared to WIN. It's like telling someone to paint a house and handing him a little water color brush. Mowing a football field with scissors. You get the idea.

Why don't you explain how you would have won the war in Viet Nam?

 

[drankin]

Why don't you explain how you would have won the war in Viet Nam?

If it were up to me, I wouldn't have gone in in the first place! BECAUSE, we weren't prepared to WIN. How's that?

 

[Evo]

This thread is going nowhere.

Thanks to all that participated.