how does one define a terrorist?

Post Reply New Topic

I did a report on America dropping the bomb on Japan. Japan was defeated. Even in between the 2 bombings, Japan was getting ready to surrender then another one was dropped on them.

Now, having said that, it was a good revenge tactic for Pearl Harbour, arguably.

there's a difference between firing at soldiers and firing at innocent un-armed civilians. To someone who fully appreciates the value of life, national barriers disappear when innocent unarmed people are put in harms way. I felt the exact same way when the Japanese bombed pearl harbor too.

I only hope that some day people can survive long enough to reach a point where violence will cease to be, and people could learn to rationalize their differences out in a more productive manner. But I'm no tree hugger, I realise you can't get through to apes with diplomacy. I don't advocate violence unless it is in self defense, but I think it is neccessary for grass roots activists and protesters to take more aggressive (but legal) tactics.... We should also make sure our voices as the people, are heard in the legislation's office, that we may vote on laws. And that each vote counts.

We also need a body of the people responsible for tracking where our tax dollars are going.

V for Vendetta is a movie, but the ideas behind it were stolen from real world. It has a lot of reference to Nazi Germany AS WELL as numerous references to "bans" and "restrictions" which are given up by the citizens, much like the U.S. has with 'tapping the phones,' in false hope it'll help.

You've quoted the opinion of one person involved. I'm sure many had different opinions, otherwise things wouldn't have turned out as they had. Even if the majority were of the opinion that Japan was going to surrender then given the consequence that more American citizens would die should that opinion be wrong, it was quite reasonable to go ahead with the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It ensured the end of the war. Of course, I don't dispute there were other benefits politically.

I really find it bizarre that within the full context of the horror and bloodshed of that conflict that you choose to pin the label "warcrime" to the incident. I'd argue that to have allowed the war to continue for a day longer than necessary would have been a greater crime. Everyday it continued thousands more died, including civilians who were victims of US conventional attacks on mainland Japan, as well as those caught up in land conflicts as the US secured the Islands near the Japanese mainland.

Actually, war crime is kind of accurate while, at the same time, its not (given how bombs were being dropped on everyone and everything during this time). I'm sure you're aware that at the time, Japan was so defeated, it didn't even control it own skies. Further more to that, America had basically taken away all navy/water transport. Japan was basically finished as shown by these defeats. Having no air or navy is pretty much defeat. This is why America and Britain focus a lot and have good reputations on their navies/airforce.

Japan was about to surrender which takes preparation considering they'd been at work for some years. Japan was bombed, horribly. Japan was ready to surrender, still, and another bomb was dropped on them. 2 days had passed and there was no threats but another bomb was dropped, regardless. I dont think, logically, that Japan, who did not possess this technology, would have kept allowing bombs to drop. Do you think it took 2 bombs for Japan to realize that, not only did it not control its own skies/water, it now has experienced the fact 1 bomb from its enemy can knock out a city?

Im going to shut up as this is off topic. We were discussing this term "terrorist" which seems to be the new label

What about the fire bombing of Tokyo? With magnesium pipes packed with thermite.
It was an all wooded city with thousands of mini-factories making war materials. Death
toll was in the same order of dead from the atomic bomb.

The same for the cities that atom bombs were dropped. On Industry cities in which the
population was feeding the war machine.

Trying to put right or wrong into the definition of terrorist is pointless as the word
terrorist itself.

I repeat my definition:

A terrorist is anybody opposed to me.

A freedom fighter is anybody defending me.

Wow you pointed out I quoted someone opinion. Then you start to babble on about nonsense and your lack of knowledge on the event. So, according to you, the one that has no idea about the matter, it's ok to use the bomb on innocent people. Even though it is known Japan was about to surrender and there was no sense in using the bomb. Except mass murder and to prove something, probably to the Soviets, at what the American are capable of. Suppose Hitler had the bomb and used it. You would be singing a different tune.

Onto how you seem to think violating international law, to commit mass murder, is not a war crime. It was a war crime. The USA violated international law. Specifically, Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV). The bombing was illegal, plain and simple. You clearly have not even bothered to think of how the bombing of those cities affected people. Specially how it still affects people physically in Japan. Now why don't you educate yourself about the even before you decide to look like an ignorant fool.

Now most of the War Crimes the USA committed in WWII was against Japan. but that has nothing much to do with the bombing topic and how it was a violation of international law at the time.

I think that what V was fighting for was a stable, centrist government which listens to its people. I doubt that Libertarianism was what he was fighting for. It just doesn't seem right that he would not want an NHS and public education system. It can be argued that people should have the freedom to live, to have stable healthcare, and an equal chance at life.

Still, V was no terrorist. I view him as a freedom fighter and vigilante.

How can one put "freedom fighter" into a "government" speech? They sound counter productive. I've yet to see the 2 co-relate to each other. As well, V was a terrorist to the government he opposed. The label is subjective, as machine1 mentioned.

I just looked it up, for curiousity, and V is more Anarchist - he opposed government. I doubt he'd rid of one just to have another one put into place so the same problems can happen.

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

In the eighties and nineties, "terrorist" actually meant something. Now it's thrown around by the Bush league so much it's ridiculous. Basically, terrorist is the new heretic. Heretic, witch, Communist, terrorist... Who knows what we'll be calling our political dissidents fifty years from now? The more things change, the more they stay the same.

This little 90 second video was on digg today you can see what I mean by evolution here.

http://mapsofwar.com/ind/imperial-history.html

Your arguement is flawed, and it is amazing how many people don't spot this or think about it. What you are doing is justifying dropping the bomb with 'a supposed consequence that is worse' that lies in the future and that you don't know will be true or not. You are saying IF we didn't drop the bomb and kill X-thousands people THEN many MORE people/soldiers would die anyway and the war would be prolonged. But you don't know that to be true, and you can never now! So you are justifying mass murder by claiming that otherwise a greater mass murder will be committed...
Sorry but the logic is flawed, and it is quite scary that MANY or MOST politicians will use arguements like this to win-over their sheep....
The truth is that you can NEVER justify mass murder.... end of story. Just like you can NEVER justify murder (of an individual) by anyone for any reason...
People in government (i.e. Bush) is currently using the same flawed logic for justifying torture. They say it's better to torture someone if you can get information out of him that will save X people. But hey, guess what? They don't know if those X people would have been saved anyway by other means.... so they can't conclude what they are concluding. And people are lapping it up.....

Terrorist is just a new word that can be used to demonize those opposed to you. It's the new "Communist".

In the end, in the strictest definition, one would say that it's an individual who uses Terror as a weapon. That can define just about anyone, but that might be fine for some people. It can also be used in a more specific way. But then, it'd be nice if everyone could agree on exactly what it ment, so the word would have more value.


One could use the word to describe someone who uses fear as a weapon, but does not actively seek to murder bystanders. It may be that one might want to associate them with the same people who target anyone, but the former is someone I can sympathize with, even if I don't agree with them. The latter is not.

And it infuriates me how those who speak their mind, and who believe in freedom of expression can be placed in the same category so easily. But someone who so easily decides to make so many people their enemies tends to become outnumbered anyways.

The comic and the film portray V differently. V's portrayal in the film is as a freedom fighter. I am opposed to the anarchism in the comic, however.

Not me doing the babbling, old chap.


Can you define "innocent", in this context? How about the kids that would have to have been conscripted to fight to take the Japanese mainland if they hadn't surrendered? Were they not "innocent"? Anyway, Hiroshima was a military town.



It wasn't known then, and as far as I'm aware, as regards the unconditional surrender the allies required, it's not even known, for sure, now. Speculation and opinion is only speculation and opinion. You're judging peoples actions of 60 years ago against the benchmark of 21st century liberal mores. Allied troops were still dying when these decisions were being made. Anyone making a decision had to do so on a worst case scenario basis; hoping opinion was correct wouldn't have been militarily sensible under the circumstances.


I think that's debated. If it were true, then you could probably apply the same line of reasoning to much of the allied bombing campaign on mainland Japan, as well as in Europe. Perhaps we should have played safe and kept well within the rules and allowed ourselves to be invaded by the Japanese and Nazis? You see, that's where your argument fails. You're talking about it if it was some game; it wasn't; the stakes were very high. Under the circumstances it was necessary to sail very close to the wind both legally, and morally. But what were the alternatives?


They've suffered no more than people of all the other nations involved in the conflict. My parents were bombed by the Germans here in the UK when they were kids. Many allied servicemen, as well as civilians, were maimed by conventional warfare and have had to live with it. Why are the Japanese a special case?


I appear to know a little more about it than you, amerikasend. And I'm not the one making myself look a fool, either.