Feisty Repartee

I suggest you review your history before you assert that the bombing campaigns of World War II resulted in "unfortunate casualties of civilians." When incendiary weapons were used in Dresden to the extent they were, and even more notably in Japan in cities built out of wood, it was *well* understood that it would "enhance" civilian casualties.

That "enhancement" was sought, deliberately, especially in the case of bombing Japan.

So, the "unfortunate casualties of civilians" were not viewed as "unfortunate".

I did not assert that the tactics used were wrong, I asserted (and continue to assert) that they were tactics of terror, deliberately designed to create fear and civilian casualties.

Which by most reasonable definitions is "terrorism", regardless of who is perpetrating the acts.

Don't let the identities of the actors blind you to the nature of the acts.

-Jack

Geez, if I were ANY smarter, I'd know better than to comment. Heh...

What I love about Jack is the fact that no matter how OUT THERE his thesis is, he's put enough thought and presentation into it be provoke his reader to think outside the box for a moment.

But as I like to do, I MUST bring intent into the debate.

If the intent of the attacker is to RULE THE WORLD!, that's gotta be a little less noble than slapping down he who would rule the world.

I know, a simple debate, but I had to say something to my buddy who seems to have lost all respect for his fellow citizens. Frankly, I'm crushed. ;)

It's not accurate to refer to the bombings of Dresden and Tokyo, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki as "terrorist" in nature, and doing so shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what terrorism is.

Terrorism is a form of asymmetrical warfare chosen by non-nation-state actors (or nation states that make a considerable effort to hide their involvement) where the aggressors deliberately go after a target state's noncombatants in order to influence the policies of that target state.

In other words, the deaths caused by terrorists aren't expected to have any physical effect on the target state's ability to wage war or carry out policies. Instead, they are meant to intimidate the target state's leadership into changing their course. Take Spain, for example, and the recent bombings in Madrid. Spain's ability to project power was unaffected as was the nation's economy or military, yet the Spanish public was intimidated into voting the Socialists into power... who promptly yanked their troops out of Iraq in an act of appeasement to al Quaida. That act of appeasement was in large part a reason that London is being attacked today by terrorists.

The reason groups (and nation-states) resort to terrorism is because they realize they cannot prevail in a conventional military conflict, nor can they withstand the devastating riposte that would be expected if they could be openly identified and located. So they take the cheap shots. The reason terrorism is universally condemned by the civilized world is that since the attackers hide among the civilian populace, nation-states under attack must act more forcefully towards suspicious civilians and inevitably, as happened recently in London, accidents will occur. This hiding behind noncombatants is what removes terrorists from the protections of the Geneva Convention.

Terrorism is ineffective against totalitarian states where the leadership is not answerable to the public... unless the leadership itself is targeted. However, terrorist attacks against despotic leaders and their families most often causes fearful reprisals against the terrorist groups and their possible supporters... again because the leaders aren't worried about any negative backlash from the public. Terrorist attacks during the Communist insurrection in Malaysia failed because the government response was quick, brutal, and somewhat indiscriminate in its application. The terrorists came to fear the government more than the government feared the terrorists. And that is the only proper way to handle terrorists; make them more afraid of us than we are of them.

The aerial bombings referred to above all happened during a time of war, were all openly committed by the armed forces of a nation-state, were all intended to affect the enemy's ability to resist, and targeted civilians and cities that were directly involved in the war effort. While these attacks certainly terrorized the population, the direct effect they had on the German and Japanese war machines was immense.

So, in short, despite the fact that some today refer to the bombings of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki as "terrorism", this referral doesn't make it so.

The first casualty of any war no matter what size or who is fighting is innocence. Sure it could be called mass scale terrorism today but the alternative would have killed many more on both sides. I believe japan admitted that one, many more would have died storming the beaches and the like.. Often using ultamate force has a just and right reason (even if only at the time.) Think of the pressure the people who made the decision were under. Do the commit to a land war or do they not. The world changed forever on that day 60 yrs ago but look at it now. In many ways it's better in others worse. Would you rather be speaking german or japanese and be under foriegn rule or are you glad of the abilities you have of free speech. JohnClif is right in what he says about terrorism. The spanish did pull out due to madrid but only because of public fear. I'm British and Proud to be it. London is back to normal, all tube services are back and running 1 month after parts were shut down due to bomb damage.. Japan was rebuilt, Germany rebuilt. Japan grows stronger, but germany is in the mire due to being part of the EU with all it's rules (they all suck btw).