|
| Thread: Attack Iran? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · «PREV |
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
posted November 09, 2007 02:06 AM |
|
|
Bravo, completely and utterly irrelevant.
Regardless of the context, by definition an attack on civilians is a terrorist attack.
It's a sheer fact.
|
|
roy-algriffin
Supreme Hero
Chocolate ice cream zealot
|
|
posted November 09, 2007 03:20 AM |
|
|
A deliberate attack on civilians is a terorist attack.
a surprise attack involving the deliberate use of violence against civilians in the hope of attaining political or religious aims
The point of the bombs was to destroy military operations . Admittedly i may be wrong and you may be right but its still far better using terrorisim when provoked (and seriously what has isreal done to make them want to blow us up?same thing for the americans really) And besides that there where a lot more chances for peace in this war that iraq ignored.
____________
"Am i a demon? No im a priest of the light! THE BLOODY RED LIGHT"
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted November 09, 2007 03:36 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Bravo, completely and utterly irrelevant.
Regardless of the context, by definition an attack on civilians is a terrorist attack.
It's a sheer fact.
I'm wondering if you read my post or not. Let me help you:
Nagasaki for instance was a naval docking station and battleships were built there, that was the main target.
Therefore your post makes no sense as it doesn't fit your definition at all. Pay attention.
My comment about reading this thread years back was incorrect, I thought I was posting in "Attack Iraq". Read there if you want a real perspective on the issue. You are bringing up old debate that makes no sense.
____________
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted November 09, 2007 09:19 AM |
|
|
When did NATO get to play the one keeping order?
Wasn't that supposed to be UN?
If you ask me NATO=USA just like Warsaw pact=CCCP
That hasn't changed even though the other broke down.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted November 09, 2007 02:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Bravo, completely and utterly irrelevant.
Regardless of the context, by definition an attack on civilians is a terrorist attack.
It's a sheer fact.
I'm wondering if you read my post or not. Let me help you:
Nagasaki for instance was a naval docking station and battleships were built there, that was the main target.
Therefore your post makes no sense as it doesn't fit your definition at all. Pay attention.
My comment about reading this thread years back was incorrect, I thought I was posting in "Attack Iraq". Read there if you want a real perspective on the issue. You are bringing up old debate that makes no sense.
It must be really hard for you, admitting your glorious country could have been in the wrong for once.
Because Nagasaki had a naval port, that validates the death of thousands of innocent people? Are you SERIOUSLY trying to defend those attacks???
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted November 09, 2007 03:52 PM |
|
Edited by Wolfman at 15:53, 09 Nov 2007.
|
Here, I did your research for you:
Posted by PrivateHudson, January 30, 2004, in the thread WWII : Who Saved The World:
Quote:
Do you have any idea just how many Japanese soldiers, civilians and US armed forces members would have died in an invasion? I do, something between 770,000 and over a million based on US army studies conducted during the war. Do you believe a divided Japan, similar to that of Germany would have enabled a fast recovery? Do you think that starving and fire-bombing the Japanese cities into submission is more humane? If so, you have a rather strange idea of my particular insanity. The allies had to choose the least of a number of evils. No-one's saying it was pleasant, I did though say that it saved to some extent Japan. Japan brought that result on themselves, they refused to seriously consider surrender, the blame falls on them as much as on the US. Whilst I do believe to drop the bomb was certainly a grevious decision, I do consider it to have been unfortunately necessary.
Emphasis, my own.
He is exactly right, which was the case a lot of time back in the "glory days" of the Other Side. If lives are what you are worried about, then you should support the use of the bomb in this instance, because it saved lives. You should really stop focusing in on one particular part of the issue and look at the bigger picture. Even through hindsight, it was the right decision in my opinion.
When we dropped those bombs we did several things. We ended the war in the Pacific by forcing Japan to surrender totally. We also showed the Soviets, "Hey, look what we have!" They wanted one too which set off the arms race. Without the arms race, the USSR and USA would no doubt have gone to war, a hot war that is. Most historians are in agreement on this. Again, the bombs saved lives. It also gave scientists the chance to study the effects of such a weapon in real use, both effects on environment and people. Such research happened, and the weapons have never been used again.
Quote:
It must be really hard for you, admitting your glorious country could have been in the wrong for once.
That statement was not only unnecessary, but extremely immature. If you want me to stop posting, just ask me to stop speaking the truth and I will. Making snide comments about my support for my country is not going to do it. I do my research.
____________
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted November 09, 2007 04:12 PM |
|
|
Thanks for your research, but you are still missing the point I am making.
Why can't you admit the act (wether it was necessary or not is completely irrelevant) was a TERRORIST ATTACK, and as such, their reason for convicting Iran is completely hypocritical?
That's all I am saying, and you are simply dodging that point.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted November 09, 2007 05:27 PM |
|
|
Huh?
Dropping the bombs in World War II was a terrorist action? I disagree completely. I have never heard of this idea before. War had been declared by both countries involved. Once a declaration of war has been made then everything changes, everything. In relation to your point of argument, let's say a small group of armed men secretly infiltrate and bomb a building and escape. That action during wartime is called "hit and run" or "guerilla" warfare. But during peacetime it would be called a "terrorist action".
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted November 09, 2007 05:36 PM |
|
|
Exactly, Consis, glad to have some reason in this thread again.
I was not dodging the point at all. You said it was a terrorist attack, I said it wasn't and backed it up with reasoning. Dropping the atomic bombs on Japan in WWII is not even close to the same as dropping bombs on an Iranian nuclear site. Which I would be surprised if we did anyway. If anyone is going to stir the pot on this, it will be Israel. That is my prediction, I hope I'm wrong.
____________
|
|
roy-algriffin
Supreme Hero
Chocolate ice cream zealot
|
|
posted November 09, 2007 10:01 PM |
|
|
Wait dropping bombs on a nuclear site is a bad thing?
Then what was the problem with cuba?And the whole embargo thing.
____________
"Am i a demon? No im a priest of the light! THE BLOODY RED LIGHT"
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted November 10, 2007 09:13 AM |
|
|
This is getting tiresome.
Either you guys are completely incapable of seeing it, or you're beating around the bush.
If two countries are at war with each other, that does NOT validate the mass killings of innocent civilians!
Regardless wether those two bombs ended WWII, the attacks by DEFINITION are Terrorist attacks, if only because they were INTENDED to strike terror into the hearts of Japanese.
Is it really THAT hard to admit or can you really not see it?
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted November 10, 2007 09:36 AM |
|
|
Then by that definition, and act done during war is a terrorist act. Simply because civilians MIGHT get hurt. Do I think it was a good thing? No, not by far. Then again, I don't think war or fighting is a good thing. Has America done acts of terrorism, yeah I would have to say yes.
America is far from perfect. Then again, no country is. As a wise man once said, don't throw stones if you live in a glass house. However, I do agree that America needs some major overhauling. George and the rest would turn in their graves if they knew what we've become.
During war, however, things do change. Right now we are trying to fight a conventional war with unconvientional enemies. Never going to work. Maybe because of all the mistakes we've made in the past they are trying to overcompensate. Failing, but trying.
____________
Message received.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted November 10, 2007 09:38 AM |
|
|
You're getting confused between a Terrorist Attack and simply an Attack on Civilians.
While the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were a terrible atrocity that ended the lives of many thousands of civilians and ruined the lives of many more.
However I agree with Consis, during wartime this is technically not a terrorist attack. It was not intended to inspire terror in the civilians of Japan, but was intended to win the war. Usually this is done by killing lots of people.
I guess by that same token if the WTC were destroyed by a warring nation, even if by the same method, this would be an act of war and not terrorism.
However the term "War on Terror" then makes it all confusing, as it almost directly contradicts the definition that's being established here. I'm lost
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted November 10, 2007 09:42 AM |
|
|
"War on terror" is something the brainchilds in the government come up with. Allows them to redefine 'terror' as anything they want at any time they want. Yay! <--sarcasm. It's a huge fiasco (won't even give it the benifit of calling it a joke because it is not funny).
____________
Message received.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted November 10, 2007 09:43 AM |
|
|
I did some googling (or wikambulating) and now I'm not so sure that a declaration of war is the defining factor in terrorism... 
There is no absolute definition for terrorism as of yet.
As for the morality of dropping the atom bomb, they could have dropped the bomb in the sea or something: "Hey Japan, Watch This!" or at very least one city devastated would have done the job.
But I think that's hardly relevant to Iran.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted November 10, 2007 11:06 AM |
|
|
But dropping it in the sea wouldn't have satisfied the american people.
They wanted revenge.
The Japanese might not have surrendered without the destroying of one city either.
The second city was unneeded however. They only needed to prove they had more A-bombs.
Hate does that. It's like the allied bombardment on Germany in the end.
Completely unnecessary and countless of times worse than the German bombing of UK.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
roy-algriffin
Supreme Hero
Chocolate ice cream zealot
|
|
posted November 10, 2007 08:40 PM |
|
|
Yep hate and revenge is the reason for these things.
Its the reason why these wars started, Its the reason why practically all of my generations hate arabs. Its the reason why it would be an extremely bad idea to let iran have a nuclear bomb, its why neither side is really ready to declare peace.
Best thing you could do is to get people to be calmer at each other.
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted November 16, 2007 12:41 AM |
|
|
Consis,
Quote:
LoL, Well .....
I really think that an educated/informed observer can't ignore the comparison between Sadam and Ahmadinejad. 1. Think of how truly solid Sadam was in his militaristic Stalin-like approach to almost everything. He was intensly organized and almost classic rank & file true to form much like Stalin was. In some ways he was like a mob boss relying solely on fear and intimidation. But he was far more organized than any mafia leader could ever dream. Sadam also allowed a good deal of religious incorporation, much more so than Stalin.
He was pretty far from Stalin. If we disregard the too obvious differences we're still left with Saddam as a "mere" authoritarian dictator, whereas Stalin was utterly totalitarian. But taking into consideration that totalitarian regimes are a real rarity in world history, this is hardly a great issue. After all, in the end the difference between a totalitarian and an authoritarian regime is only one of severity (as well as some stuff about their power base, but it's hardly relevant here, so I won't go into it). Also, there are a lot of other similarities. They were both secular nationalistic socialists of sorts, and, as you pointed out, they both based their power on intimidation of their opponents, even though Stalin did this through the Party, while Saddam had both the Party and the army. (Hmmm, come to think of it, the Baath Party was pretty similar to the Communist Part in the USSR; they were only less omnipotent in their own country.) (Also, sorry about the mess in my argumentative structure here, but I'm basically typing as I think.)
Huh. In the end I guess I don't really have much to add, seeing as what I've already typed is basically just rephrasings of what you write, Consis.
Except from this one thing: Stalin and Saddam were both, as already noted, devoted secularists, but at the same time, neither of them held themselves above utilizing religious symbolism and the like in their propaganda. But one thing: Saddam allowed more religious incorporation? What does that mean? And could you elaborate a bit? I've been under the impression that Saddam was relatively oppressive to religious movements, you see. Kinda like his more moderate colleague in Egypt.
Quote:
2. The neighbor Ahmadinejad is much more like a shrewd head games master with very little militaristic gumption. I really don't see him as a threat. He is very unlikely to use military force. He is much more likely to send aid and support to terrorist groups that hate the U.S. and its allies. He is much more likely to rely on information obtained from torturing spies and prisoners. His strength lies in what he makes his people believe he can do for them, not in what he can do with his military. The guy is a total headcase who is downright xenophobic toward his own twisted idea of what constitutes a westerner.
In spite of his past in the Revolutionary Guard, I suspect you're right: Amadinejad isn't a militaristic man. Obviously, taking into account that Iraq under Saddam was a military dictatorship, in essence, while Iran is a religious semidictatorship (albeit with a lot of democratic structures), Amadinejad couldn't possibly be very militaristic. But still, as I said in my last post (I think), Amadinejad is more of a religiously based populist, who won the last election mainly because of his accusations of spiritual corruption against the more liberal president and his cronies, as well as promises of economic progress. And seeing as his presidency has brought with it no economic improvements, merely conflicts with the West, he doesn't look like he's gonna stay in power for long.
Quote:
Methinks he won't stay in power long. He is the president in a theocracy? Um LoL? Isn't that a contradiction?
Well, if it'd been a pure theocracy it'd have been, yes. (Unless, of course, they named their head priest "President". ) But seeing as Iran is more of a theocratic democracy (remember that most forms of government are bastards -- i.e. of mixed stock), where the Council of Experts -- a group of mainly conservative Muslim scholars -- sit at the top, watching over what the pariament and the government is up to. I haven't quite figured out exactly what powers this group has yet, but I imagine they are fairly extensive.
You know, legislative veto rights, "advisory" rights in legislative processes, and stuff like that.
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
The_Gootch
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Kneel Before Me Sons of HC!!
|
|
posted November 16, 2007 04:17 AM |
|
|
The figure I remember Saddam trying to invoke most was that of Saladdin while trying to unite the Arab world against the mongrel hordes of the Jews and the Persians. His was a largely secular government, though people who had the majority of the power were Sunnis.
Let's see, we won't invade Iran. Our military is in no shape to do so. Air strikes are a final possibility but lookit this *gasp*, the Bush administration is finally starting to use some diplomacy.
It only took seven years of this miserable presidency to reach this point in foreign relations.
As for Moonlith and his comments about comparing the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to terrorists and terrorism, I will at first respectfully disagree before I tighten thumbscrews on him.
The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were part of a doctrine of total war that spanned between nations during World War II. All sides targeted civilians during that great and cataclysmic struggle. Think about the London bombings, the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo, the horrific things Germans did to Russian civilians during their invasion. Would you call that terrorism? I wouldn't and with the exception of whatever small cadre of revisionists you hang out with, no one else would.
|
| |
|
|
