Martin Sheen proud of uncle's IRA past

[IAN 2411]

Yes, they were atrocities. They were also acts of terrorism.

They were acts of war carried out not for defensive purposes but a show of strength, [God help us]. I know the British were involved in all three of those atrocities that I mentioned, but they were no better than the atrocities and inhumane killing of the Jews. There was the shock and awe tactics in Iraq at the beginning, another example of an atrocity, because there was no justification to that either. Once again this was carried out by the same two countries that are now leading the fight against terrorism. What is good for the goose is obviously not good for the gander.

How many people are still afraid to fly? How many people get worked up by the very sight of a dark skinned man with a beard on a plane? If no one is terrified, why are so many people being inconvenienced by the TSA and Homeland Security?

Or those who are afraid of something bad that might happen to them personally.

How many people won't go outside their garden for a fear of something bad taking place? How many people are afraid to drive or be driven on the road in case they are in an accident? How many people are afraid of cruises because of the fear of drowning? There is no substance in that quote because it is a real minority and can be classed alongside others.

They were all intended to get the surviving civilian populations to force their governments to end the war. In the case of Dresden, the area of the city which was bombed had virtually no military value, and so IMO had no military justification. Nagasaki and Hiroshima, on the other hand, were valid military targets, filled with war industry and military units. The fact that they also sufficed to bring the Japanese government to surrender, thereby potentially saving far more lives than they took, may provide some justification for them. That does not make them any less horrific, nor does it deny that they were ultimately acts of terrorism. Just that, as far as the Allied nations were concerned, they were "good" acts of terrorism.

There is no such thing as a good act of terrorism. You are generalising terrorism to suit your argument, to make atrocities in any mans eyes look clean. If Nagasaki and Hiroshima, was holding, and/or were producing these weapons then why did the Americans not bomb the shipping? They had the ability to do so or they could not have dropped the bombs that they did...and why “two” if it was an act of terrorism? Surely one would have been enough?

Be well IAN 2411

[Thorne]

They were acts of war carried out not for defensive purposes but a show of strength

Which is my point. They were for political purposes, more than military purposes.

How many people won't go outside their garden for a fear of something bad taking place? How many people are afraid to drive or be driven on the road in case they are in an accident? How many people are afraid of cruises because of the fear of drowning? There is no substance in that quote because it is a real minority and can be classed alongside others.

Except that those others you mention don't cause problems by going into a panic on a plane, causing fear among the other passengers, and sometimes having an innocent person thrown off the plane just because he resembles someones stereotypical image of an Arab. Those others also didn't create the hassles we now have to endure in airports. They may be a minority, but their fear is affecting everyone.

You are generalising terrorism to suit your argument

And you are using a very narrow definition of terrorism to suit yours.

to make atrocities in any mans eyes look clean.

Not at all! I don't downplay the horrible nature of these events. I'm only pointing out how some people view them.

If Nagasaki and Hiroshima, was holding, and/or were producing these weapons then why did the Americans not bomb the shipping?

They destroyed most of the Japanese shipping. The Japanese Empire was virtually gone. But the Japanese government refused to surrender. The only option other than the bombs was to invade the home islands, which would have caused hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of casualties both among the Japanese people and the American armed forces. I'm not saying they shouldn't have dropped those bombs. I think they did the right thing. I'm only saying that, in my broad, generalized view, their purpose was to terrorize the Japanese people and government as much as to destroy the military.

and why “two” if it was an act of terrorism? Surely one would have been enough?

If the Japanese government had shown any inclination towards surrender after the first, then one WOULD have been enough. They did not. Some within the Japanese High Command felt that it was only a fluke, a one-off that the US could not repeat. It was necessary to show them that we could do it again, the implication being that we could destroy all of their cities. Again, a terror weapon.