Liverpool FC Forum

by **Bad Bob** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:09 pm

tonyeh wrote:
Bad Bob wrote:
maypaxvobiscum wrote:why are the Taliban and Al Qeada labelled as terrorists anyway? is it because they are against the supposed babyface USA? for example, take a look at Nelson Mandela. he became leader of the ANC's armed wing which held sabotage campaigns against military and government targets. and then there's the Hamas who are known for their numerous attacks on Israel. and William Wallace, Gandhi, etc etc etc. my point is, all these people or groups had a plan for how they wanted society to develop and they have their own ideology of how the state should be governed. at some point, all the mentioned names above were considered rebels or terrorists. now that they have got for they fought for after so long, they are considered freedom fighters. could the same be said of Al Qeada should they achieve their objective?

It might have something to do with Al Qeida deciding to use fully-loaded passenger airliners as missiles to bring down major financial and military targets in highly populated areas? I recognize that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter in many cases but I think you'd struggle to find a clearer cut case of terrorism than 9/11 (unless you're one of those "inside job" conspiracy nutjobs ).

If that's the case Bob, then why aren't the Yanks bombing the crap out of Pakistan?

That country is the main harbour of Al Quieda sentiment, not Afghanistan.

Perhaps they recognize that bombing the bejesus out of places that harbour terrorists is the most surefire way of ensuring that another generation of American-hating terrorists will emerge and look to exact revenge? The more strategic, yet infinitely more dangerous approach, is to get boots on the ground and start flushing the terrorists out of their hidey-holes. That would be the official answer, no doubt. Unofficially, I think Dawson's in the right neighbourhood!

Probably a little from Column A and a little from Column B in this case.

by **Bad Bob** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:11 pm

tonyeh wrote:
Emerald Red wrote:
Bad Bob wrote:
s@int wrote:
Bad Bob wrote:
s@int wrote:That I can agree with completely

I thought before you were using the scale not the act as a measure.

Glad I clarified, then, because the scale's immaterial...it's the tactics that define terrorism, IMO.

So would you say that Britain, Canada and to an extent the USA were guilty of terrorist acts during the second world war, with their bombing of towns and cities with no military value, or is there some other defining option?

That's a bit of a tougher question because, obviously, both sides did it and it's harder to keep away from civilians in the context of total war. My gut says it's still terrorism, even if committed in war time, if it's focused on civilians. Many Americans, no doubt, would object to that and argue that, for instance, the H-bombs dropped on Japan were designed to save lives by forcing Japan to surrender. Still, those bombs were dropped on whole cities and that makes it a form of terrorism in my book.

If the dropping of the Atomic bombs on Japan during WW2 were "designed to save lives" as you say, then why is is widely recognized by historians that the battle of Iwo Jima was the Japanese' last stand? Save lives? You mean American lives? I've always seen the dropping of those bombs as nothing more than the greatest act of terrorism the world has ever seen, yet it's always justified as their was a war on, yet the war was already won.

On the question of dropping the atomic bombs, the overwhelming reason they were drop was to perform a wartime test on the targets they were designed for. By the Summer of 1945, Japan was finished and completely blockaded. They hadn't a hope of prosecuting the war to any real degree. In fact, they had made moves to call an end to the war, but wanted assurances about the retention of their Emperor. These approaches were intercepted by the Americans using the purple codebooks. The US had been reading the Japanese code for years.

But a surrender would mean that the a bomb would remain untested in wartime conditions.

Dropping the bomb on a city like Hiroshima ( a city the had not been attacked before) yielded important results for future US weaponry, such as the Hydrogen bomb.

It also sent a very strong message to the Soviet Union, whose friendship was no longer needed, once the Germans had been defeated in May 1945.

To the degree that that's all true (and I have no reason to think otherwise, not having read/seen much about this stuff at all) the dropping of the H-Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki would be an iron-clad instance of terrorism for me.

by **account deleted by request** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:13 pm

Harry S. Truman, Diary, July 25, 1945

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Truman told his diary on July 25, 1945, that he had ordered the bomb used.
Emphasis has been added to highlight Truman's apparent belief that he had ordered the bomb dropped on a "purely military" target, so that "military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. It may be the fire destruction prophesied in the Euphrates Valley Era, after Noah and his fabulous Ark.

Anyway we "think" we have found the way to cause a disintegration of the atom. An experiment in the New Mexico desert was startling - to put it mildly. Thirteen pounds of the explosive caused the complete disintegration of a steel tower 60 feet high, created a crater 6 feet deep and 1,200 feet in diameter, knocked over a steel tower 1/2 mile away and knocked men down 10,000 yards away. The explosion was visible for more than 200 miles and audible for 40 miles and more.

This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital or the new.

He and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. I'm sure they will not do that, but we will have given them the chance. It is certainly a good thing for the world that Hitler's crowd or Stalin's did not discover this atomic bomb. It seems to be the most terrible thing ever discovered, but it can be made the most useful...

link

by **Judge** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:20 pm

Bad Bob wrote:
s@int wrote:
Bad Bob wrote:
s@int wrote:That I can agree with completely

I thought before you were using the scale not the act as a measure.

Glad I clarified, then, because the scale's immaterial...it's the tactics that define terrorism, IMO.

So would you say that Britain, Canada and to an extent the USA were guilty of terrorist acts during the second world war, with their bombing of towns and cities with no military value, or is there some other defining option?

That's a bit of a tougher question because, obviously, both sides did it and it's harder to keep away from civilians in the context of total war. My gut says it's still terrorism, even if committed in war time, if it's focused on civilians. Many Americans, no doubt, would object to that and argue that, for instance, the H-bombs dropped on Japan were designed to save lives by forcing Japan to surrender. Still, those bombs were dropped on whole cities and that makes it a form of terrorism in my book.

in that case, any bomb of any kind dropped on any city is a war crime !!

thats absolutely ludicrous. just because it was the atomic bomb, makes no difference at all. if one bomb dropped on a city kills one person, then that is just as significant as one bomb killing 100000 !! if we are to believe you bob.

you cannot not kill civilians during war. its an inevitable side effect of any battle.
gone are the days when folk turned up in a field and fought until someone won.

let me tell you all this - if i was faced in the street by a gun toting kid in a war zone, and that kid was of the same nationality to who i was fighting, and i had the choice to kill the kid or wait to see what happens.
the kid would be dead first in the blink of an eye - now the question is this!?
am i a war criminal or am i defending myself?

for me, i am the latter.

by **Bad Bob** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:22 pm

s@int wrote:The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives.

link

by **account deleted by request** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:26 pm

Judge wrote:
Bad Bob wrote:
s@int wrote:
Bad Bob wrote:
s@int wrote:That I can agree with completely

I thought before you were using the scale not the act as a measure.

Glad I clarified, then, because the scale's immaterial...it's the tactics that define terrorism, IMO.

So would you say that Britain, Canada and to an extent the USA were guilty of terrorist acts during the second world war, with their bombing of towns and cities with no military value, or is there some other defining option?

That's a bit of a tougher question because, obviously, both sides did it and it's harder to keep away from civilians in the context of total war. My gut says it's still terrorism, even if committed in war time, if it's focused on civilians. Many Americans, no doubt, would object to that and argue that, for instance, the H-bombs dropped on Japan were designed to save lives by forcing Japan to surrender. Still, those bombs were dropped on whole cities and that makes it a form of terrorism in my book.

in that case, any bomb of any kind dropped on any city is a war crime !!

thats absolutely ludicrous. just because it was the atomic bomb, makes no difference at all. if one bomb dropped on a city kills one person, then that is just as significant as one bomb killing 100000 !! if we are to believe you bob.

you cannot not kill civilians during war. its an inevitable side effect of any battle.
gone are the days when folk turned up in a field and fought until someone won.

let me tell you all this - if i was faced in the street by a gun toting kid in a war zone, and that kid was of the same nationality to who i was fighting, and i had the choice to kill the kid or wait to see what happens.
the kid would be dead first in the blink of an eye - now the question is this!?
am i a war criminal or am i defending myself?

for me, i am the latter.

No mate, what he is saying is if the intended target serves a military purpose that is different, rather than deliberate targeting of civilians.

e.g. drop a bomb on a munitions factory that also happens to kill children in the school next door is one thing, deliberately targeting civilians is another.

by **account deleted by request** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:27 pm

Bad Bob wrote:
s@int wrote:The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives.

link

The road to hell is paved with good intentions

by **Bad Bob** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:31 pm

Judge wrote:
Bad Bob wrote:
s@int wrote:
Bad Bob wrote:
s@int wrote:That I can agree with completely

I thought before you were using the scale not the act as a measure.

Glad I clarified, then, because the scale's immaterial...it's the tactics that define terrorism, IMO.

So would you say that Britain, Canada and to an extent the USA were guilty of terrorist acts during the second world war, with their bombing of towns and cities with no military value, or is there some other defining option?

That's a bit of a tougher question because, obviously, both sides did it and it's harder to keep away from civilians in the context of total war. My gut says it's still terrorism, even if committed in war time, if it's focused on civilians. Many Americans, no doubt, would object to that and argue that, for instance, the H-bombs dropped on Japan were designed to save lives by forcing Japan to surrender. Still, those bombs were dropped on whole cities and that makes it a form of terrorism in my book.

in that case, any bomb of any kind dropped on any city is a war crime !!

thats absolutely ludicrous. just because it was the atomic bomb, makes no difference at all. if one bomb dropped on a city kills one person, then that is just as significant as one bomb killing 100000 !! if we are to believe you bob.

you cannot not kill civilians during war. its an inevitable side effect of any battle.
gone are the days when folk turned up in a field and fought until someone won.

let me tell you all this - if i was faced in the street by a gun toting kid in a war zone, and that kid was of the same nationality to who i was fighting, and i had the choice to kill the kid or wait to see what happens.
the kid would be dead first in the blink of an eye - now the question is this!?
am i a war criminal or am i defending myself?

for me, i am the latter.

Mate, the line for me has to do with how heavily civilians are targeted. Imagine a scale of civilian death associated with bombing cities. On the one end, you have precision bombing attempts on strategic targets. As you say, these attempts will inevitably kill some civilians too but that's regrettable collateral damage rather than the targeting of civilians. Further along the scale you have indiscriminate bombing of cities, which leads to a lot more civilian death. That's a lot less acceptable in my book, because the bombs are designed to instill fear in addition to taking out strategic targets. Still, war is hell and all that. At the other end of the scale, though, you have what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nuclear detonations that not only leveled vast swaths of these cities but laid waste to most living things in the immediate vicinity and beyond. When you couple what we know about the destruction and loss of life these bombs caused with what has come to light about why they were dropped, I can't help but see it as an act of terror.

So, while I agree with you that civilian 'collateral damage' is an inevitability of war I can't endorse targeting civilians to send a message. To me, that's terrorism.

by **Judge** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:42 pm

the germans targeted civilians in WW2, we targeted their civilians in WW2. the japs were warned by the americans in WW2 if they didnt fully surrender .

acts of war, not terrorism

imo

by **Bad Bob** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:52 pm

Judge wrote:the germans targeted civilians in WW2, we targeted their civilians in WW2. the japs were warned by the americans in WW2 if they didnt fully surrender .

acts of war, not terrorism

imo

I understand what you're saying, mate, and that's what I meant by saying it's a lot grayer issue in wartime. I recognize that my 'romantic' view of war (what an odd notion!) doesn't exactly square with the reality that all warring nations work to blur the line between act of war and act of terror in the modern age. I still can't condone targeting civilians, though, and the fact that all participants do it does not make it right in my eyes.

Anyways, this is all a roundabout way of saying I generally support the mission in Afghanistan precisely because the British, Americans, Canadians and others who are fighting there are doing it the hard but, IMO, more ethical way. We're not bombing the place into oblivion--we're getting troops on the ground in part to minimize collateral damage. It's certainly costing a lot in terms of lives lost but I think it's a cause worth fighting for.

by **Emerald Red** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:17 pm

Judge wrote:the germans targeted civilians in WW2, we targeted their civilians in WW2. the japs were warned by the americans in WW2 if they didnt fully surrender .

acts of war, not terrorism

imo

But the war was effectively over and the Yanks knew it. Dropping those bombs was merely a forewarning and a declaration of power. It was like a "don't f*ck with us because we've got these to fire at you" warning.

by **tonyeh** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:41 pm

s@int wrote:Harry S. Truman, Diary, July 25, 1945

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Truman told his diary on July 25, 1945, that he had ordered the bomb used.
Emphasis has been added to highlight Truman's apparent belief that he had ordered the bomb dropped on a "purely military" target, so that "military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. It may be the fire destruction prophesied in the Euphrates Valley Era, after Noah and his fabulous Ark.

Anyway we "think" we have found the way to cause a disintegration of the atom. An experiment in the New Mexico desert was startling - to put it mildly. Thirteen pounds of the explosive caused the complete disintegration of a steel tower 60 feet high, created a crater 6 feet deep and 1,200 feet in diameter, knocked over a steel tower 1/2 mile away and knocked men down 10,000 yards away. The explosion was visible for more than 200 miles and audible for 40 miles and more.

This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital or the new.

He and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. I'm sure they will not do that, but we will have given them the chance. It is certainly a good thing for the world that Hitler's crowd or Stalin's did not discover this atomic bomb. It seems to be the most terrible thing ever discovered, but it can be made the most useful...

link

That diary entry (and I've seen it before) is what's called "covering ones ass."

:;):

by **tonyeh** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:45 pm

Judge wrote:
Bad Bob wrote:
s@int wrote:
Bad Bob wrote:
s@int wrote:That I can agree with completely

I thought before you were using the scale not the act as a measure.

Glad I clarified, then, because the scale's immaterial...it's the tactics that define terrorism, IMO.

So would you say that Britain, Canada and to an extent the USA were guilty of terrorist acts during the second world war, with their bombing of towns and cities with no military value, or is there some other defining option?

That's a bit of a tougher question because, obviously, both sides did it and it's harder to keep away from civilians in the context of total war. My gut says it's still terrorism, even if committed in war time, if it's focused on civilians. Many Americans, no doubt, would object to that and argue that, for instance, the H-bombs dropped on Japan were designed to save lives by forcing Japan to surrender. Still, those bombs were dropped on whole cities and that makes it a form of terrorism in my book.

in that case, any bomb of any kind dropped on any city is a war crime !!

thats absolutely ludicrous. just because it was the atomic bomb, makes no difference at all. if one bomb dropped on a city kills one person, then that is just as significant as one bomb killing 100000 !! if we are to believe you bob.

you cannot not kill civilians during war. its an inevitable side effect of any battle.
gone are the days when folk turned up in a field and fought until someone won.

There is, however, a very large difference between targeting an airfield and killing civilians in the process and deliberately targeting civilians, like Bomber Command's city bombing campaign or the use of the a bomb during WWII.

by **Reg** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 6:29 pm

Ok, some good comments and some others regurgitated from the rags.

We went into Afghanistan for a number of reasons:

1. The taliban protected Bin Laden al/Qaeda training camps, in return OBL funded the taliban. Double whammy.
2. Pakistran ISI and the Saudis were ineffectual in taking out either the taliban or AQ.
3. Taliban were heading north taking Mazar e Sharif in the north of the country then eying a logical progression into Tadjikistan following the drug route then into Uzbekistan/Kyrygzstan untilimately overthroughing the regemes - this was not an acceptable scenario to either the central asian states, Russia who is terrified of muslims nor China (as we now see in Xinjiang).
4. The yanks could overthrow the taliban but they knew they wouldnt beat the militiants nor install democracy, it doesnt work like that. They would push them around, the war would ebb and flow but they couldnt beat them, however it distracted them from Iraq so the yanks benefitted from that.
5. The profile of the militants - afghans, uzbeks, tadjiks, saudis etc.. is the same profile as the muhudjadin from 10-20-30 years ago, its the same folks playing a different game. I just read another book on it and the fella was saying each village/region has its own militia out there fighting for the gain of the village. We go to work, they fight.

To bring it upto date, when the russians had purges, the muj used to run up into tadjikistan and hide in the mountains. The allies pushed the militants out of Helmund and the border region eastwards into the pakistan tribal area. They militants conceded it was too hot to stay in Afghanistan. Now under pressure the pakistani army has finally attacked them from the south and forced them back over the border. The allies are now pushing to smash them as the cross over the border. Pushed by the pakis, met by the allies and picked off in the middle by special forces and drones. Its very high stakes, if the militants break through the allies lines they'll disappear into the hinterland of afghanistan and regroup or keep going and cross into tadjikistan, rest, rearm, regroup then head back. They have to be smashed in this surge, they have to be broken. Winter is coing in 2 months and the allies have to ensure by then they are unable to find security in the far mountain villages with their equipment. I bet the SAS are in the thick of it and having a real hairy time. These drones though seem worth their weight in gold. As the paks now let the residents back into the Swat valley they have to be careful the militants dont sneak back in and melt into the community. It is highly likely they'll burying their weapns, act like refugees, survive the winter then restart next spring - as they have done for hundreds of years.

The allies can contain and destroy specific groups however you cant reverse 300 years of history. British history at that. This campaign is vitally important for the survival of the pakistan government and long term peace in the region. It is sad other european nations act so indifferently, whilst russia and china openly support the allies (whilst unable to send their own men). That said, teh UK media has to back off and let teh army fight this out, inevitably taking casualties, but no one ever said war was nice.

My penny's worth.

by **Reg** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 6:33 pm

Emerald Red wrote:
Judge wrote:the germans targeted civilians in WW2, we targeted their civilians in WW2. the japs were warned by the americans in WW2 if they didnt fully surrender .

acts of war, not terrorism

imo

But the war was effectively over and the Yanks knew it. Dropping those bombs was merely a forewarning and a declaration of power. It was like a "don't f*ck with us because we've got these to fire at you" warning.

The war was NOT effectively over, the US was actively planning the invasion of Japan that would have cost additional 10's of thousands of allied deaths and millions of USD. THAT was not an option, hence the bomb was dropped. I have NO sympathy for the Japs as the atrocities in Nanjing, Pearl Harbour and later in the jungles of asia would bear out.

Liverpool FC Forum

War in afganistan - What you think!

Who is online