General > General Technical Chat

Oppenheimer Movie Review

<< < (30/46) > >>

KE5FX:
"Terrorist" traditionally implies a non-state actor.  Of course the distinction is largely lost at the receiving end.

dietert1:
Nowadays the term "terrorist" is used for state actors (e.g. Russia). It's in the news everyday. So the modern western world considers massive bombing of civilians a cruelty of past ages. Of course, we can never be shure. More than enough nuclear weapons on this planet.
Everybody who has weapons of mass destruction needs to demonstrate they are willing to use them in the most horrible way possible? Obviously those people thought they are exempt from all rules and standards.

Regards, Dieter

Stray Electron:

--- Quote from: KE5FX on August 04, 2023, 05:05:01 am ---"Terrorist" traditionally implies a non-state actor.  Of course the distinction is largely lost at the receiving end.

--- End quote ---

   A terrorist is also someone that is willing to strike at PURELY civilian targets and in countries that his country is NOT at war with. And usually their objective to achieve a political or religious object and not any kind of military objective.  Consider all the bombings in civilian mosques in Iraq between the two different Islamic religious factions.  And just a week ago the bombing of a civilian market place in Pakistan. And going back some years, the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York and then later the aircraft attack on the Twin Towers in New York.

   Some of you can bury your heads in the sand and claim that the atomic bomb attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima are in the same category but they're not.

   In the first place those attacks were carried out by countries at war with each other. Second, the attacks were carried out by recognized and uniformed members of their country's military forces, just as the attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese was. An attack BTW that did kill a large number of civilians and by a county that was not yet at war with the U.S.  Third, all of the cities in Japan were involved in war production and in supporting the war, even if the city had nothing more than a road junction in it. That made every city in Japan a legitimate military target, just as it did in Germany and Austria and until they surrendered, Italy.  I defy anyone of you to go find any kind of supporting documents that shows that Hiroshima and Nagasaki produced nothing of benefit to Japan during the war or aided, in anyway directly or indirectly, to the continuation of the war. Just from what I know of the two cities, Hiroshima was the headquarters of a large reserve army that would have been committed if the U.S. had invaded Japan, and Nagasaki had the large steel production center. Both were military targets that had already been considered for fire bombing but the U.S. high command spared them (temporarily) so that the effects of the atomic bombs could be accessed without the effects of other bombing.

TimFox:
The reason it's called "terrorism" is that the aim is not so much to damage or destroy infrastructure, military units, etc., but to instill fear in the population.

themadhippy:

--- Quote ---but to instill fear in the population.
--- End quote ---
bit like what the mainstream media and government do in the uk

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod