I asked you where you get your definition of terrorism and you keep dodging it. I showed you a definition that quite contrary to your personal definition and gave you a google link that showed everyone but you believes your definition.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Was Hiroshima an act of terrorism?
- Thread starter Cancel 2020.1
- Start date
I asked you where you get your definition of terrorism and you keep dodging it. I showed you a definition that quite contrary to your personal definition and gave you a google link that showed everyone but you believes your definition.
Who said I wouldn't, you fucking moron?
And you still haven't. Pretty telling.
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
I asked you where you get your definition of terrorism and you keep dodging it. I showed you a definition that quite contrary to your personal definition and gave you a google link that showed everyone but you believes your definition.
Terrorism is causing terror. It's what Hiroshima was designed to do, to bring about surrender.
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
And you still haven't. Pretty telling.
That's because this is a thread about our actions in Hiroshima, you incomprehensible moron. How is it "telling."
Because I didn't bring up ISIS, Al Qaeda, the IRA and the Spanish Inquisition...am I "apologizing" for all of those groups too?
Braindead. Absolutely devoid of intelligence.
That's because this is a thread about our actions in Hiroshima, you incomprehensible moron. How is it "telling."
Because I didn't bring up ISIS, Al Qaeda, the IRA and the Spanish Inquisition...am I "apologizing" for all of those groups too?
Braindead. Absolutely devoid of intelligence.
The context is WWII. Hiroshima was a direct result of Japan's actions. You aren't willing to say Japan committed any terrorism, but are quick to (wrongly) call what we did terrorism.
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
The context is WWII. Hiroshima was a direct result of Japan's actions. You aren't willing to say Japan committed any terrorism, but are quick to (wrongly) call what we did terrorism.
The thread is about our actions.
A lot of what the Japanese did in WWII was terrorism. They committed horrible atrocities. What, then, is your point? We should mirror the actions of terrorists to beat them? That we don't stand for anything, and will go as low as the worst in the world set the bar?
You certainly have your candidate in Trump.
Terrorism is causing terror. It's what Hiroshima was designed to do, to bring about surrender.
Still can't find a source to back that up huh. In WWII cities populated with civilians were bombed quite frequently, why is it you're, at this point, only willing to say our bombing was terrorism? What about our bombings in Europe, were those terrorism?
I think your problem is, you're too focused on the nuclear aspect. It is not terrorism by any definition. You can't even answer what Nazis were called and what they were charged with, including many Japanese. I'll help you out since you aren't smart enough to figure it out, war crimes and war criminals.
Not terrorism.
The thread is about our actions.
A lot of what the Japanese did in WWII was terrorism. They committed horrible atrocities. What, then, is your point? We should mirror the actions of terrorists to beat them? That we don't stand for anything, and will go as low as the worst in the world set the bar?
You certainly have your candidate in Trump.
So you would be okay if we assembled a massive invasion of Japan and hundreds of thousands of civilians died as a result? Using your (no one else's) definition of terrorism, anytime civilians died, it was terrorism. You can't just make up meanings.
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
Still can't find a source to back that up huh. In WWII cities populated with civilians were bombed quite frequently, why is it you're, at this point, only willing to say our bombing was terrorism? What about our bombings in Europe, were those terrorism?
I think your problem is, you're too focused on the nuclear aspect. It is not terrorism by any definition. You can't even answer what Nazis were called and what they were charged with, including many Japanese. I'll help you out since you aren't smart enough to figure it out, war crimes and war criminals.
Not terrorism.
A source to back up that terrorism is about causing terror? LOL
What an insufferable moron. You see no difference between the military targeting military targets, and civilians being killed as a result, and intentionally targeting civilians.
So why am I talking to you? You have no standards, or morality. We'll always disagree on this topic. You're 100% supportive of vaporizing women & children. I never will be.
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
So you would be okay if we assembled a massive invasion of Japan and hundreds of thousands of civilians died as a result? Using your (no one else's) definition of terrorism, anytime civilians died, it was terrorism. You can't just make up meanings.
Where did I say "anytime civilians died"? I'd love to see you find that verbiage.
Whenever civilians are TARGETED. Are you that insufferably stupid that you don't see the difference?
Where did I say "anytime civilians died"? I'd love to see you find that verbiage.
Whenever civilians are TARGETED. Are you that insufferably stupid that you don't see the difference?
Did I say you said that? I'd love to see you find that verbiage.
A source to back up that terrorism is about causing terror? LOL
What an insufferable moron. You see no difference between the military targeting military targets, and civilians being killed as a result, and intentionally targeting civilians.
So why am I talking to you? You have no standards, or morality. We'll always disagree on this topic. You're 100% supportive of vaporizing women & children. I never will be.
What I figured, circular reasoning. It is terrorism because it is terrorism. No definition, all the definitions I showed you prove you're wrong. Your only source is you. Talk about insufferable.
And now you're really getting pissy by claiming, with no foundation, that I have no standards or morality and I support vaporizing women and children, simply because I say your definition is wrong. That is the most moronic logic in the world. You should be embarrassed when you look these posts over after you calm down.
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
Same basic concept - though in that case, they "said" that they weren't deliberately targeting civilians.
To me, that's what America should stand for in the world - we don't purposefully target civilians, ever, period. It doesn't seem like a controversial concept that would warrant debate anymore in this country, particularly when we find terrorism so abhorrent.
When you target civilians, you are no different from a terrorist. If someone can explain the difference, I'd love to hear it.
There are 3x in one response.
There are a few dozen on this thread.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=terrorism+vs+war
Perhaps you should read the links and stop embarrassing yourself.
Perhaps you should read the links and stop embarrassing yourself.
There are 3x in one response.
There are a few dozen on this thread.
You're really losing your shit bro.
Did I say you said that? I'd love to see you find that verbiage.
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
What I figured, circular reasoning. It is terrorism because it is terrorism. No definition, all the definitions I showed you prove you're wrong. Your only source is you. Talk about insufferable.
And now you're really getting pissy by claiming, with no foundation, that I have no standards or morality and I support vaporizing women and children, simply because I say your definition is wrong. That is the most moronic logic in the world. You should be embarrassed when you look these posts over after you calm down.
I love the bolded.
Yeah, you've really been teaching me this whole thread.
Again, I have standards for American conduct. You don't. Any atrocity is acceptable to you, because hey, it's not the Holocaust.
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
So you would be okay if we assembled a massive invasion of Japan and hundreds of thousands of civilians died as a result? Using your (no one else's) definition of terrorism, anytime civilians died, it was terrorism. You can't just make up meanings.
Here's your verbiage.
Do you love that I found it?
Here's your verbiage.
Do you love that I found it?
Did I say you said it? What does "using your definition" mean?
I love the bolded.
Yeah, you've really been teaching me this whole thread.
Again, I have standards for American conduct. You don't. Any atrocity is acceptable to you, because hey, it's not the Holocaust.
I guess I can expect that you will simply claim you are right because you say so. Go ahead and ignore the rest of the world's definition of terrorism and pretend you can just make up meanings for words.
I won't bother waiting for you to provide any authority other than yourself. Basically it appears it migh be waste of time to further this as you will just continue with your circular logic and claim you are right simply because you say so.
War has learned and evolved throughout the history, these days war is conducted through military campaigns, which includes: armed conflict, intelligence, troop movement, propaganda, aircraft, bombs and missiles.
Terrorism, on the other hand, has been described as the threat of violence, or other harmful act committed for political or ideological goals. The main goals of terrorists are to spread fear among the world population and get global attention for their actions in order to accomplish their goals.
The most common terrorist tactics include; car bombing, aircraft hijacking and suicide attacks. Almost every country and organization have different definitions for terrorism, therefore, it is still impossible to give an official one. Up to now, the United Nations has not accepted, nor given definition for terrorism.
If we compare these two, we can see that both of them have violence as their main subject, also: armed conflict, bombs and missiles, propaganda and intelligence. War has aircraft and troop deployment, while terrorism has believers and people willing for sacrifice.
What makes them different is that war requires mass organization, governments, countries and thousands of volunteers and military personnel, while terrorism can be performed with just one or two individuals. Maybe the biggest difference is that terrorism sometimes does not choose the targets, and as a result, most times, innocent people get hurt and die. War, on the other hand knows its targets, but in war innocent people also dies. Just in war, victims are euphemistically called "Collateral Damage".
http://www.dominicantoday.com/dr/op...-and-War-Parallels-Differences-and-Sufferings
Terrorism, on the other hand, has been described as the threat of violence, or other harmful act committed for political or ideological goals. The main goals of terrorists are to spread fear among the world population and get global attention for their actions in order to accomplish their goals.
The most common terrorist tactics include; car bombing, aircraft hijacking and suicide attacks. Almost every country and organization have different definitions for terrorism, therefore, it is still impossible to give an official one. Up to now, the United Nations has not accepted, nor given definition for terrorism.
If we compare these two, we can see that both of them have violence as their main subject, also: armed conflict, bombs and missiles, propaganda and intelligence. War has aircraft and troop deployment, while terrorism has believers and people willing for sacrifice.
What makes them different is that war requires mass organization, governments, countries and thousands of volunteers and military personnel, while terrorism can be performed with just one or two individuals. Maybe the biggest difference is that terrorism sometimes does not choose the targets, and as a result, most times, innocent people get hurt and die. War, on the other hand knows its targets, but in war innocent people also dies. Just in war, victims are euphemistically called "Collateral Damage".
http://www.dominicantoday.com/dr/op...-and-War-Parallels-Differences-and-Sufferings