Exactly what were the intentions of this attack? To destroy the factory or flex a little military might at the expense of Sudanese civilians. Perceived military target? Why then did the US block the UN investigation into the attack? Why did they compensate the Saudi owner but not the victim’s families or the Govenment of Sudan? It’s called terrorism!!
As for the generous offer. Three separate areas, accessible only by passing through Israeli check points, hardly seems like a a workable blueprint for peace!
Chung: you rant but show no evidence that this was a terrorist attack. Plus, you appear to have no definition of terrorism to work from. You are not adding anything to the discussion. The offer gave Arafat almost all he wanted. He held out for everything and lost everything instead. A victory of misguided idealism over pragmatism. A costly mistake.
No one can be sure that millions witnessing – and feeling – this cataclysmic event for the first time in history ten miles off the mouth of Tokyo Bay wouldn’t have had an equally terrified reaction and clamored for peace. Especially if followed by loud and clear threats. There was no real threat of a counter-attack by the Imperial Japanese Army. The threat was of a protracted war of attrition on Japanese soil. But time was not an issue as far as that threat was concerned. The US could have afforded a few days more and a single atomic weapon in a first demonstration strike in order to avoid certain hundreds of thousands of civilian casulties.
[/quote]
I agree with you there, I am just not sure that it would have done any good. That does not mean that I outright support the bombing. I think I have sort have justified the first bombing. All that indoctrination in US History I guess. But, I do really wonder about the second bombing, which I just don’t see any reason for. I would really like to go to the memorials next time I am in Japan. I have heard they are quite powerful.
[quote=“Guest”]
This much I do know though. As a believer in an afterlife, I would never have made that choice knowing that I would have had to eventually face the souls of tens of thousands of infants, children, grandmothers and grandfathers – none of whom had any say in the conduct of the war whatsoever – and tried to explain to them that I had had no other choice but to incinerate them and their entire families. I would rather have died a thousand deaths in battle myself.[/quote]
Can’t argue with that! Along those same lines, as a person, I would be hard pressed to explain to those who survived, only to face the ravages of radiation poisoning and die a slow painful death.
I guess that is why I always have these real mixed feelings about acts of war.
Guest - your conjecture is fascinating. I tend to be persuaded. Nuclear weapons’ peace-keeping in the cold war (Mutually Assured Destruction) arose from just this demonstration of their awful power. An offshore detonation might have had similar results. I wonder if Truman considered it? I think he must have; I also think he was obliged to try it first.
An aside of sorts but has anyone else wondered if the US war machine didn’t ponder popping the first, or second, nuke on Taiwan?
Makes sense to me. The US did seem intent on keeping Japan relatively intact for it to control/rebuild post war. Taiwan on the other hand… Chiang was seemingly doing alright against the commies and even he, I’m sure, didn’t really think of Taiwan as anything other than a Jap wannabe. Therefore if the yanks really wanted to demonstrate the power of their weapon Taiwan would have offered a perfect opportunity.
Wonder why they didn’t?
I’m quite willing to accept the previous definitions of terrorism in this thread whether they be the use of violent and intimidating methods to coerce a government or community or the intentional targeting of civilians with the focus on maximizing casualties to further political goals. I only brought the bombing in Sudan to light as an example of how difficult it is to neatly categorize atrocities. Would you consider a group of Sudanese men setting off a bus full of explosives in the commercial aircraft division of Boeing terrorism? IMHO, this would certainly meet all the criteria. What if a few weeks later the group issues a statement that it was all a mistake, they thought jet fighters were being built there. Does this somehow change the fact that civilians were targeted? It seems to me there is a distinct double standard labelling acts of violence directed as us as “terrorism” and our butchery “an act of war” or “operation just cause”.
As for your rant that I have contributed nothing to this discussion, I find it a bit disappointing that you are so unwilling to consider other views.
I would want to know about their intelligence and how it was that they misunderstood the goings-on of the largest commercial aircraft producer in the world.
It wasn’t the civilians that were targeted, but the military facility (mistakenly).
I think there is a distinct difference in the manner that the US targets and the way Al Qaeda and Hamas target.
[quote=“Huang Guang Chen”]An aside of sorts but has anyone else wondered if the US war machine didn’t ponder popping the first, or second, nuke on Taiwan?
Makes sense to me. The US did seem intent on keeping Japan relatively intact for it to control/rebuild post war. Taiwan on the other hand… Chiang was seemingly doing alright against the commies and even he, I’m sure, didn’t really think of Taiwan as anything other than a Jap wannabe. Therefore if the yanks really wanted to demonstrate the power of their weapon Taiwan would have offered a perfect opportunity.
Wonder why they didn’t?
HG[/quote]
In fact, we did bomb Taiwan quite often, once striking the Long Shan temple in Wanhua, which was burned except, miraculously, for the statue of Guan Shih Yin.
Perhaps it was feared that the power of this goddess might be sufficient to ward off the destructive effects of the bomb.
Incorrect. These groups thrive on this issue. Without it, they probably could not exist and would definitely have nothing like the support that they do now.[/quote]
Of course Al Qaeda will attempt to enlist other enemies of the US… what is the old saying? “My enemy’s enemy is my friend”.
That however, does not mean that OBL’s goals are linked to the goals of the Palestinians or Arab states. It means merely that OBL has with the Pals a common enemy.
There is a distinction.[/quote]
Of course is a horse…
Sorry, I meant that of course there is a distinction. I do not disagree with you on Al-Qaeda’s motivations and goals. You do not seem to grasp my contention, which is that people would not be hurling themselves at us jacketed in passenger and fuel laden 747s for Al-qaeda if it were not for the Palestine issue. Thus in a very real sense, terrorist action against the US is connected to the Palestine issue.
He is wrong. You are talking about ancient history. It’s irrelevant to the question at hand. Palestinian arabs went from a small Jewish minority at the beginning of this century, to seeing their land taken over, in the space of a lifetime. Now you may not call that stealing, why I don’t know, but you may not, anyway, If I went to your house and appropriated it claiming I had lived there once 10 years ago i bet you would be pretty ticked off about it, and would feel justified in doing whatever it took to get me out, without troubling yourself much over the semantic niceties of who had actually lived there at whatever point in the past as you do above.
If the result is the same, why the need to make distinctions about the manner in which they are targeted?[/quote]
Bad things happen all the time, especially in a war. But I think there is a very significant difference between targeting civilians and targeting military targets while taking precautions to not harm civilians.
General principles of law make a distinction between intentional, negligent and unintentional when bad things happen. There is murder and their is manslaughter. Why should it be any different in war?
If you are one day driving your car and you accidentally run over a child in the street and kill the child, should we treat you any differently than if you had seen the child in the street and purposely gunned your car to hit and kill the child? After all, the result is the same, no?
No. Of all the recent terrorist attacks that have been targeted at the US, none that I know of were done by or in the name of Palestinians. The two attacks on the WTC were committed by OBL’s gang, and their goals are well stated, i.e., to get the US out of Saudi Arabia and to spread their brand of Islamic fundamentalism. Even the attacks on US military and embassy targets of recent years were committed by OBL’s gang… not by Palestinians or their supporters or sympathizers.
As OBL is not concerned with the Israeli-Palestine issue, there is no real connection between the US policy in regard to the Israeli-Palestine issue and OBL’s attacks.
If I am wrong, then so are you, as I merely used your own argument, but stated that the same was not a valid argument.
They could have stayed in Israel, some did. And those that live in Israel live better than most Palestinians anywhere else in the mid-east. In Israel, Palestinians have democratic rights. They are left alone so long as they don’t try to kill Israeli civilians and IDF soldiers.
In 1948, the ARAB nations told the Palestinians to leave Israel in preparation for the war that the Arabs initiated on Israel as soon as Israel declared itself a state. The ARABS attacked, got their collective asses kicked, and ever since then have been screaming about how they were robbed.
The facts are a bit different than the hypothetical about appropriating homes that you provided.
Because INTENTIONS matter. You were not contributing when you had no logical framework. Your subsequent posts do make an argument. Always ready to hear opposing views. I think, in your abstract case, that if Sudanis were sincere in their beliefs, then it would be an act of (undeclared) war, not terrorism. See? Intentions matter.
Ancient history? Yes. (the usual Palestinian response to Israeli claims.) Stealing? Yes. Palestinians also stole from Jews (the ancient history). “Ticked off?” Yes. You, too, I think - otherwise why take the house in the first place? See?
Mr D. My view: Both Arab and Jew lived on the land but neither really set up a modern state structure. The Ottoman’s had a go - then the British. But there was never really a Palestinian state or a Jewish one. So, do you accept that both Palestinian and Jew have a right to build their own states on that land? The usual Palestinian response to this question is “No.”
I can accept the ancient history argument, Mr D. Really. Because, as Mr T. says, we all are living on someone elses land. But, if we discard ancient history, we are left with current realities - that there is a state of Israel and the Palestinians must surely agree that it has a right to exist. Then, we can get down to the problem of dividing up the land. Would you agree?
Terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Terrorist: Those who engage in the above.
Fit the description - that’s a terrorist.
So, who is a terrorist? I think the dictionary needs to expand the definition.
Unlawful Use… who determines was is lawful and unlawful… the UN??? or the USA?
"…people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. "
I think this is also called war… wars are are started and fought often “for ideological or political reasons”
I think terrorist and freedom fighter are like butchers and war heroes…
One sides great general is often labelled as a butcher or murderer by the other side
