Some call it USA Terrorism

Topics related to World History and WW2.
User avatar
mofo
Posts: 3774
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2003 12:46 am
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: Some call it USA Terrorism

Post by mofo »

why dont you talk to the southeast asians chinese and koreans bout how undeserving the japs were of we did. im no expert but im pretty sure the japanese were carrying out crimes on par with what the nazis were doing. only difference is the japanese almost succeded in overstepping the chain of command to keep the war going. thier own people wanted to keep fighting when the emporer said were done. it wasnt far off from happening. and we wouldve had to invade the mainland cause we didnt have any more nukes. if anyone was a terrorist it was the japanese who would burn villages and rape the women before killing or imprisoning the local populace. if youre calling the fire bombings reason to call the americans terrorists, why arent you calling every one in ww2 a terrorist? everyone firebombed and carpet bombed. not everyone targeted civilians specifically as much as the japanese. it was a different time. its like trying to say that slavery in the south made all the landowners evil and sadistic people. fact of the matter was slavery is just what you did. its not like slavery was free labour. its not like they had people in droves lookin for work pickin crops. its by no means justification to call slave owners tyrants. it was just how things were done. if they were a tyrant, they wouldve been with or without slaves. its just retarded to call the nuking of japan a terrorist act without making that claim upon every other major military force in that war.
"Babies are little maracas sent from above."

BandAid
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 8:23 pm

Re: Some call it USA Terrorism

Post by BandAid »

mofo wrote:why dont you talk to the southeast asians chinese and koreans bout how undeserving the japs were of we did. im no expert but im pretty sure the japanese were carrying out crimes on par with what the nazis were doing. only difference is the japanese almost succeded in overstepping the chain of command to keep the war going. thier own people wanted to keep fighting when the emporer said were done. it wasnt far off from happening. and we wouldve had to invade the mainland cause we didnt have any more nukes. if anyone was a terrorist it was the japanese who would burn villages and rape the women before killing or imprisoning the local populace. if youre calling the fire bombings reason to call the americans terrorists, why arent you calling every one in ww2 a terrorist? everyone firebombed and carpet bombed. not everyone targeted civilians specifically as much as the japanese. it was a different time. its like trying to say that slavery in the south made all the landowners evil and sadistic people. fact of the matter was slavery is just what you did. its not like slavery was free labour. its not like they had people in droves lookin for work pickin crops. its by no means justification to call slave owners tyrants. it was just how things were done. if they were a tyrant, they wouldve been with or without slaves. its just retarded to call the nuking of japan a terrorist act without making that claim upon every other major military force in that war.
If you took the time to read my posts on the first page, I explicitly said that the bombing of cities was not only undertaken by the Allies, but by the Axis powers as well. From that, I'm implying that all of the warring countries partook in terrorism. There's a reason that we don't carpet bomb and firebomb civilian populations anymore.

In fact, the Japanese did seriously more heinous things to people living in the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" than just bombing them.

Much of the justification for abolishing slavery in the North was because slaves were taking labour. In the South, that wasn't a problem, because the plantations had lots of work for slaves. More of a side-bar than anything else.

I'm not saying that soldiers who follow orders to firebomb cities are terrorists. They are soldiers. But firebombing civilians is terrorism.

User avatar
mofo
Posts: 3774
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2003 12:46 am
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: Some call it USA Terrorism

Post by mofo »

its war, shit happens. its just ww2 was the war to readjust all wars. i guess were arguing the same thing at this point.
"Babies are little maracas sent from above."

User avatar
GypsyLlama
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2906
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2003 6:06 pm
Location: Beautiful British Columbia
Contact:

Re: Some call it USA Terrorism

Post by GypsyLlama »

Well, actually World War I would've been the war to "readjust all wars" as it introduced aerial dogfighting and bombing, tank and armoured warfare. Not to mention highlighting the importance of mobility in both assault and supply capacities. The first concentrated attacks on civilian populations were also undertaken with the zeppelin raids and such. It was between 1918 and '39 that these tactics were perfected (by some anyways, wtf France???).
Image

Mr. YOur no fun
Developer
Developer
Posts: 5490
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 9:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Some call it USA Terrorism

Post by Mr. YOur no fun »

"The first concentrated attacks on civilian populations were also undertaken with the zeppelin raids and such."

Given Genghis Khan, Tamerlane, and all those other lovely people who devastated the local populace I don't think this is an accurate statement, though the part about using Zeppelins was. But they couldn't devastate as they didn't carry much of a bomb load.

User avatar
simbioz
Posts: 122
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 1:45 pm
Location: Chile

Re: Some call it USA Terrorism

Post by simbioz »

Check the wikipedia entry for terrorism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism
Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.[1] At present, there is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism.[2][3] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent 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 (civilians).
...
As with "terrorism" the concept of "state terrorism" is controversial.[56] The Chairman of the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Committee has stated that the Committee was conscious of the 12 international Conventions on the subject, and none of them referred to State terrorism, which was not an international legal concept. If States abused their power, they should be judged against international conventions dealing with war crimes, international human rights and international humanitarian law.[57] Former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has said that it is "time to set aside debates on so-called 'state terrorism'. The use of force by states is already thoroughly regulated under international law"[58] However, he also made clear that, "...regardless of the differences between governments on the question of definition of terrorism, what is clear and what we can all agree on is any deliberate attack on innocent civilians, regardless of one's cause, is unacceptable and fits into the definition of terrorism.
...
Professor of Political Science, Michael Stohl cites the examples that include Germany’s bombing of London and the U.S. atomic destruction of Hiroshima during World War II. He argues that “the use of terror tactics is common in international relations and the state has been and remains a more likely employer of terrorism within the international system than insurgents."

Post Reply