Coherence

[sanctus]

One of the critics of all the suicide attacks of the occident is that they kill innocent people, women and children...

 

But by killing zarkawi didn't the Us do the same thing? They killed a woman and a child...

 

I was just wondering where is the coherence, and what makes the acts of the justified and the ones of the others not?

[Turtle]

Dresden

 

 

Hiroshima

 

Coherent?

[InfiniteNow]

I was just wondering where is the coherence, and what makes the acts of the justified and the ones of the others not?

 

Usually, there is an Us and Them mentality. The acts that we perform are justified and the acts that they perform are not. Perhaps Decoherence might be more appropriate...

[sanctus]

what was on in Dresden?

[Turtle]

what was on in Dresden?

 

Major collateral damage as they say in the parlance.

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

 

I think it boils down to individuals & a bit of chaotic luck. Do you think Zarkawi's wife as an individual (& mother) didn't know she was living dangeously?

[GAHD]

Hiroshima

Nagasaki

[Turtle]

Nagasaki

 

gesundheit :eek:

/forums/images/smilies/banana_sign.gif

[HydrogenBond]

One difference is that the terrorists target innocent people because that will create the most fear and panic; nobody feels safe. The terrorist know that the US is wimpy when it comes to old fashion war. We go out of our way to protect the innocent. They try to use this to their advantage by using a human shield. Nobody knows where the terrorist will bomb next. But everyone knows that human shieldng a terrorist with a bulls eye on his back can be harmful to your health. The latter have the option to stay clear of the bulls eys, while the former are given no fair warning.

[GAHD]

er, I'd say nuking 2 major population centers and/or a "massive bombardment" of major cities count as "terrorist actions".

[Turtle]

er, I'd say nuking 2 major population centers and/or a "massive bombardment" of major cities count as "terrorist actions".

You aren't seriously suggesting ending WW II is terrorism are you?:shrug:

[ughaibu]

Years of bombing Hanoi, without a declared state of war, was definitely terrorism.

[Turtle]

I was just wondering where is the coherence, and what makes the acts of the justified and the ones of the others not?

You do. You justify or condem each horrendous (or kind) act you learn of. Clearly by the tone of the thread you have come up on the condem side in regard to the particular deaths you learned of.

The coherence is that it's the same for me & them & they. We get together & say our pieces of what we know (think we know Dr Dick?:D set C I think?) & what we think it means. In general terms the death of innocents is unfortunate by the very definition of innocent. In specific terms we have little idea about how to establish innocence under the same definition.:shrug:

[sanctus]

You are right turtle, I condem it, because I thinkit's hypocrite to critizise strongly something and then you do it yourself. By the way was it his wife? I thought just someone around who had the bad luck to live there. Because I agree if she was his wife then she had to assume the risk.

[Turtle]

You are right turtle, I condem it, because I thinkit's hypocrite to critizise strongly something and then you do it yourself. By the way was it his wife? I thought just someone around who had the bad luck to live there. Because I agree if she was his wife then she had to assume the risk.

 

I agree that hypocricy is worthy of condemnation. I don't know if it was his wife or not. Presumably any adults there knew it was a terrorist safehouse, what with all the guns & bombs & terrorist stuff around. Tough one to say who is to blame for the innocent child's death ultimately. :naughty:

[Qfwfq]

Dresden was definitely an act of terrorism, it had no whatsoever tactical or strategic purpose other than the psychological effect on the German people. Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't without alternative either.

 

But everyone knows that human shieldng a terrorist with a bulls eye on his back can be harmful to your health. The latter have the option to stay clear of the bulls eys, while the former are given no fair warning.

The human sheilds are not always consenting or even in the know, or simply may have little choice but to accept the risk. I don't see that as much of an excuse.

[TheFaithfulStone]

There's no such thing as good guys. Only less bad guys.

 

TFS

[Boerseun]

I agree - there surely was alternatives to Nagasaki & Hiroshima.

 

For instance, the US could have nuked a forest somewhere in Japan so that the physical damage done by the nukes are clearly visible, like the trees blown over at Tunguska. And then warn the Japanese that some big city will be next.

 

Besides, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were blown up when the Japanese were in retreat already. They wouldn't have been able to prosecute the war for very much longer in any case, if only for a crippling lack of resources.

 

I actually think the nuking was to impress not the Japanese, but the rest of the world as to where America saw itself in the post-war world, militarily speaking. At the time, the Russians were already busy developing a bomb, and the US had to beat them to the post.

 

So a couple o' thousand Japanese had to die as unwilling participants in a vast international dick-measuring contest.

 

I fail to see the consistency here, let alone honour.