Creepy Jill Stein: Gushes over Putin and Russian support for human rights in video from Red Square in Moscow

[Angra Mainyu]

Note that chronic conditions are ones for which western medicine has no cure. Sometimes TCM can help--it doesn't take a lot of effectiveness to be light-years ahead of zero.

No, that's not true. There are chronic conditions that are chronic without treatment, but can be cured.
Regardless, if "chronic conditions" were those for which Western Medicine has no cure, it remains the case that they claimed that they're often "best cured by alternative medicine.", implying that they are in fact cured by alternative medicine, and they listed among those alternative medicines "homeopathy".
But homeopathy is never better than Western medicine as a means of curing anything.
(someone might say that they're best cured by homeopathy because even though they're not cured at all, Western medicine also doesn't cure them at all, so they're equally good, and without anything that works, they're all the best; but clearly, that is not what they meant).

 

[lpetrich]

Seems like she wants to do what Ralph Nader did in 2000. Fortunately, she isn't being very successful, and another possibility, Bernie Sanders, is taking her side.

As to her and Putin, she doesn't seem as big a Putin-lover as Donald Trump and certain of his associates seem to be.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So, are you saying that neither the fire bombing nor the nuclear bombing targeted civilians?
Please clarify.

There were militarily relevant targets scattered throughout Japanese cities.

And the bomb wasn't about creating fear in the people--Japan was not a democracy, fear in the people wouldn't accomplish much. The bomb was about creating the illusion that we could utterly destroy them with impunity. They fell for it and surrendered.

It seems to me that plenty of terrorist attacks intent on creating fear (among other goals) have been carried out against civilians in non-democratic countries in the Middle East.

Much of what we see is the Middle East is Sunni/Shia religious cleansing.

Also, it's not clear that they surrendered because of the atomic bombs.

Then I suggest a trip to the optometrist.

But regardless, granting for the sake of the argument that the US didn't intend to create fear, do you also deny that the bombs targeted civilians?
I still do not know whether instilling fear is a requirement under your concept of terrorism, or whether targeting civilians is enough. Could you clarify that, please?

Continuing to assert they targeted civilians doesn't make it so. Every Japanese city was a valid military target.

Being willing to sell them weapons isn't the same as military support or aid.

Being willing to sell them weapons and train their forces, and if necessary defend them (from Saddam in the past) looks like support to me. But if it doesn't under your use of "support", then I will point out that the claim you were originally replying to (by barbos) was "And have great collaboration with all kind of terrorists all over the world...". Why did you reply to that with a statement about support, requiring all sorts of conditions for something to count as support?
Regardless, the fact remains that the Egyptian regime receives military aid from the US. Does the Sisi regime not engage in terrorism?

What we did wasn't about defending the Saudis, it was about stopping Saddam.

And what terrorism by Egypt are you talking about? Egypt is somewhat sloppy in hunting the Islamists, that's not the same as terrorism.

Peacefully criticizing the government counts as "acts hostile to the state", and is enough to block the categorization of "terrorism" under your definition of "terrorism" in cases in which a regime tortures people who peacefully criticize the government, as a means to silence them and the rest of the population?
If so, then this may just be a case of miscommunication. I don't understand what you mean by "terrorism". I also think you and barbos may be talking past each other. But I admit different people seem to use the word so differently, that it may be that your usage is more or less common. Could you explain what you mean by "terrorism", please?

By your definition the entire criminal justice system is terrorism as much of it's purpose is to deter people from committing crime.

Actually, I have not even given a definition, or implied something like that. Why do you think I did?
What does a government has to do for their actions to be considered state terrorism, under your definition?
Torturing peaceful critics is not enough, it seems. Is there anything at all that would count?

Terrorism is by it's nature targeted at the uninvolved. Critics are not uninvolved. Just because something is undesirable doesn't make it terrorism.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

There were militarily relevant targets scattered throughout Japanese cities.

Civilians are sometimes (often) "military relevant" targets, as one could obtain a military victory by killing civilians until a surrender, a rebellion, coup, etc., happens.
But if you're saying there were military targets, sure, and they could have been targeted with conventional weapons.
What I'm asking is whether you think that those military targets were the only targets of the nuclear bombs, and civilians weren't also targeted.

Much of what we see is the Middle East is Sunni/Shia religious cleansing.

But that does not deny that instiling fear is part of the motivation.
Regardless, if you prefer a different example: there's been plenty of terrorist attacks against Russian civilians, even though Russia is not a democracy.

Then I suggest a trip to the optometrist.

Your sarcasm is out of place, but again, that's not the point, so let's say that the main reason Japan surrendered was the nukes, rather than - say - the Soviet attack, or the combination of the Soviet attack and the nukes, etc.
Are you claiming that the nukes didn't target civilians as well as military targets?

Continuing to assert they targeted civilians doesn't make it so. Every Japanese city was a valid military target.

First, I wasn't continuing to assert that they targeted civilians. I asserted it at first, but you gave me a surprising yet ambiguous answer, so ever since, I have continued to ask you whether you claim they targeted only military targets, not civilians.
Second, suppose they could have targeted and destroyed the military targets in a city without destroying the rest of the city. Are you telling me that destroying the rest would have been a valid target too?
Third, in addition to asking you whether you claim they targeted only military targets, not civilians, I have continued asking you where instilling fear (i.e., an intent to instil fear) is a requirement under your concept of terrorism, or whether targeting civilians is enough. Could you tell me whether that's also a requirement?

What we did wasn't about defending the Saudis, it was about stopping Saddam.

Yes, about stopping Saddam from attacking Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

And what terrorism by Egypt are you talking about? Egypt is somewhat sloppy in hunting the Islamists, that's not the same as terrorism.

What about mass killings of protesters, torture, arbitrary imprisonment + torture, etc.?

Does any of that count as state terrorism, or does your definition of "terrorism" exclude it all? (I'm seriously asking so that I can reply depending on your answer).

Terrorism is by it's nature targeted at the uninvolved. Critics are not uninvolved. Just because something is undesirable doesn't make it terrorism.

So, by that definition, if Islamic State, Al-Qaeda or some other group decides to target and kill people who call them "evil", "terrorists", etc., and/or who criticize their methods, in order to punish them but also in order to silence potential critics by creating fear, that's not terrorism because they were involved.
If Islamic State, Al-Qaeda or some other group decides to target and kill people who argue for atheism, in order to punish them and also in order to silence atheists by making them afraid, that's not terrorism, either, because by denying the existence of God, we were involved.
When atheist bloggers are hacked to death (or shot, etc.), and others threatened with the same fate ( https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/28/bangladeshi-blogger-ananya-azad-named-hitlis ), that's not terrorism, either.

 

[untermensche]

Seems like she wants to do what Ralph Nader did in 2000. Fortunately, she isn't being very successful, and another possibility, Bernie Sanders, is taking her side.

As to her and Putin, she doesn't seem as big a Putin-lover as Donald Trump and certain of his associates seem to be.

What did Nader do?

You mean he ran and some people voted for him?

And why is it fortunate she isn't successful?

What does her success have to do with anything?

You're not one of these people who believe in "vote stealing"?

When all there is is "vote not attracting".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Civilians are sometimes (often) "military relevant" targets, as one could obtain a military victory by killing civilians until a surrender, a rebellion, coup, etc., happens.
But if you're saying there were military targets, sure, and they could have been targeted with conventional weapons.
What I'm asking is whether you think that those military targets were the only targets of the nuclear bombs, and civilians weren't also targeted.

I see--you don't understand the situation. "Target" refers to what they were aimed at. People and things caught in the area that weren't objectives are called collateral damage.

Much of what we see is the Middle East is Sunni/Shia religious cleansing.

But that does not deny that instiling fear is part of the motivation.
Regardless, if you prefer a different example: there's been plenty of terrorist attacks against Russian civilians, even though Russia is not a democracy.

1) It's not terrorism just because fear is a component--as I said, the whole deterrent aspect of the criminal justice system would be considered terrorism if you apply that standard.

2) I do agree there is terrorism against Russia--but note that it's not very effective at getting Russia to do things.

What we did wasn't about defending the Saudis, it was about stopping Saddam.

Yes, about stopping Saddam from attacking Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

Stopping Saddam from getting his hands on enough oil that he could have used it as a weapon.

And what terrorism by Egypt are you talking about? Egypt is somewhat sloppy in hunting the Islamists, that's not the same as terrorism.

What about mass killings of protesters, torture, arbitrary imprisonment + torture, etc.?

Does any of that count as state terrorism, or does your definition of "terrorism" exclude it all? (I'm seriously asking so that I can reply depending on your answer).

Mass killings of protesters? Now, or are you thinking of things that happened in their brief foray into Islamism?

Torture isn't terrorism. Once again you seem unable to understand that something can be bad without being terrorism.

Terrorism is by it's nature targeted at the uninvolved. Critics are not uninvolved. Just because something is undesirable doesn't make it terrorism.

So, by that definition, if Islamic State, Al-Qaeda or some other group decides to target and kill people who call them "evil", "terrorists", etc., and/or who criticize their methods, in order to punish them but also in order to silence potential critics by creating fear, that's not terrorism because they were involved.
If Islamic State, Al-Qaeda or some other group decides to target and kill people who argue for atheism, in order to punish them and also in order to silence atheists by making them afraid, that's not terrorism, either, because by denying the existence of God, we were involved.
When atheist bloggers are hacked to death (or shot, etc.), and others threatened with the same fate ( https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/28/bangladeshi-blogger-ananya-azad-named-hitlis ), that's not terrorism, either.

Targeting those who criticize them isn't terrorism. When is the last time they killed such a reporter, though?

If they target atheists in their own lands that's vile and religious cleansing but it isn't terrorism.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I see--you don't understand the situation. "Target" refers to what they were aimed at. People and things caught in the area that weren't objectives are called collateral damage.

No, you don't see. You don't understand my question and parts of my post, for some reason. Of course I realize what "target" refers to.
If there is a military base within a city, and you can target it with conventional bombs, but instead you decide to aim a nuke a the military base, in order to destroy both the base and the city (i.e., you intend to destroy both, not merely the base), then the targets are both the city and the base. But if you only intend to destroy the base, the destruction of the city is collateral damage, or more precisely collateral casualties.
I have no idea why you thought I didn't understand what a target is.
I understand what it is, and I keep asking is whether you think that those military targets were the only targets of the nuclear bombs, and civilians weren't also targeted.
Could you please clearly answer my question?
I'll get to the rest of your points later.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

1) It's not terrorism just because fear is a component--as I said, the whole deterrent aspect of the criminal justice system would be considered terrorism if you apply that standard.

You're changing the subject. You claimed that there was no reason to make the population fear because Japan wasn't a democracy. I challenged that claim. I wasn't applying that standard at all.

2) I do agree there is terrorism against Russia--but note that it's not very effective at getting Russia to do things.

Even so, it doesn't mean the American government didn't intend to instil fear in the population.

That said, I still do not know whether you demand intent to cause fear in order for an act to be terrorism. Could you clarify that, please?

Stopping Saddam from getting his hands on enough oil that he could have used it as a weapon.

Regardless, it was about defending Saudi Arabia.

Mass killings of protesters? Now, or are you thinking of things that happened in their brief foray into Islamism?

No.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/06/08/egypt-year-abuses-under-al-sisi

Okay, let's say the source exaggerated, so let's say "killings of a good number of protesters, wounding of many more, torture of many others, etc.", with intent to cause fear in yet other potential protesters, among other reasons.

Torture isn't terrorism. Once again you seem unable to understand that something can be bad without being terrorism.

Of course, it's not remotely true that I seem unable to understand that something can be bad without being terrorism, and you have no good reason to even suspect that.

Targeting those who criticize them isn't terrorism. When is the last time they killed such a reporter, though?

If they target atheists in their own lands that's vile and religious cleansing but it isn't terrorism.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/11/flogging-global-outrage-saudi-arabia-silent
Was he imprisoned and tortured and threatened with worse stuff even because he supported atheism, or because he criticized the government for suppressing speech, or both?
Regarless, again, what does a government have to do to count as terrorism?
You say imprisonment and torture of peaceful critics isn't. But why not?
It surely terrorizes people. And the targets are noncombatants. Why is that not terrorism? What does it lack? What is terrorism, as you use the word?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I see--you don't understand the situation. "Target" refers to what they were aimed at. People and things caught in the area that weren't objectives are called collateral damage.

No, you don't see. You don't understand my question and parts of my post, for some reason. Of course I realize what "target" refers to.
If there is a military base within a city, and you can target it with conventional bombs, but instead you decide to aim a nuke a the military base, in order to destroy both the base and the city (i.e., you intend to destroy both, not merely the base), then the targets are both the city and the base. But if you only intend to destroy the base, the destruction of the city is collateral damage, or more precisely collateral casualties.
I have no idea why you thought I didn't understand what a target is.
I understand what it is, and I keep asking is whether you think that those military targets were the only targets of the nuclear bombs, and civilians weren't also targeted.
Could you please clearly answer my question?
I'll get to the rest of your points later.

You're forgetting about the factories dispersed through the Japanese cities. We couldn't bomb them directly, all we could do was hit the cities--which is exactly what the war was doing at that point, we were destroying the Japanese cities.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're changing the subject. You claimed that there was no reason to make the population fear because Japan wasn't a democracy. I challenged that claim. I wasn't applying that standard at all.

2) I do agree there is terrorism against Russia--but note that it's not very effective at getting Russia to do things.

Even so, it doesn't mean the American government didn't intend to instil fear in the population.

That said, I still do not know whether you demand intent to cause fear in order for an act to be terrorism. Could you clarify that, please?

Reality: The primary role of the criminal justice system of any country is deterrence. Deterrence only happens through fear of being caught. Fear--something you are insisting is the hallmark of terrorism.

Stopping Saddam from getting his hands on enough oil that he could have used it as a weapon.

Regardless, it was about defending Saudi Arabia.

While defending Saudi Arabia was something that happened it wasn't the actual objective.

Mass killings of protesters? Now, or are you thinking of things that happened in their brief foray into Islamism?

No.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/06/08/egypt-year-abuses-under-al-sisi

I don't put much credence in them. They're quite gullible when it comes to the word of the underdog and thus are routinely played by politically savvy bad guys.

Torture isn't terrorism. Once again you seem unable to understand that something can be bad without being terrorism.

Of course, it's not remotely true that I seem unable to understand that something can be bad without being terrorism, and you have no good reason to even suspect that.

You keep using "terrorism" to refer to bad acts that aren't terrorism.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

No, you don't see. You don't understand my question and parts of my post, for some reason. Of course I realize what "target" refers to.
If there is a military base within a city, and you can target it with conventional bombs, but instead you decide to aim a nuke a the military base, in order to destroy both the base and the city (i.e., you intend to destroy both, not merely the base), then the targets are both the city and the base. But if you only intend to destroy the base, the destruction of the city is collateral damage, or more precisely collateral casualties.
I have no idea why you thought I didn't understand what a target is.
I understand what it is, and I keep asking is whether you think that those military targets were the only targets of the nuclear bombs, and civilians weren't also targeted.
Could you please clearly answer my question?
I'll get to the rest of your points later.

You're forgetting about the factories dispersed through the Japanese cities. We couldn't bomb them directly, all we could do was hit the cities--which is exactly what the war was doing at that point, we were destroying the Japanese cities.

I'm not forgetting about any factories. I'm asking a question. Do you think the targets of the nuclear bombs were only military factories, rather than military factories + other stuff, including the civilian population?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Reality: The primary role of the criminal justice system of any country is deterrence. Deterrence only happens through fear of being caught. Fear--something you are insisting is the hallmark of terrorism.

First, no, it's not something I'm insisting is the hallmark of terrorism. I'm asking whether you consider the attempt to instil fear as a necessary condition for an act to be an act of terrorism. You're just making up all sort of stuff, attributing it to me, and then attacking the straw men you make. You may not do any of that deliberately, but it's still annoying.
Second, no, I don't think deterrence is the primary role. I think justice is. But regardless, let's say it's deterrence. My point remains the same. I still do not know whether you demand intent to cause fear in order for an act to be terrorism. Could you clarify that, please?

While defending Saudi Arabia was something that happened it wasn't the actual objective.

You said the actual objective was "Stopping Saddam from getting his hands on enough oil that he could have used it as a weapon.".
Suppose Saddam's personnel had found massive, easy to access oil fields in Iraq. Would the US have invaded to prevent him from getting his hands on the oil?
You may further suppose that it's discovered that Saudi Arabia had been lying about how much oil they had left, and they had only a little.

I don't put much credence in them. They're quite gullible when it comes to the word of the underdog and thus are routinely played by politically savvy bad guys.

I already assumed they exaggerated, and the argument still works.

You keep using "terrorism" to refer to bad acts that aren't terrorism.

Of course, I'm not remotely suggesting that, say, the acts of a bank robber are terrorism, even if they're bad, so it should be apparent that it's not true that I seem unable to understand that something can be bad without being terrorism. It's ridiculous, and you should not believe it.

As for whether I keep using "terrorism" to refer to bad acts that aren't terrorism, well they are according to the usage of the word "terrorism" by many other people. I'm trying to figure out what you mean by terrorism. But you've been extremely reluctant to explain your concept, in any way.

For instance, I asked about the following example:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-arabia-silent
Was he imprisoned and tortured and threatened with worse stuff even because he supported atheism, or because he criticized the government for suppressing speech, or both?
Regarless, again, what does a government have to do to count as terrorism?
You say imprisonment and torture of peaceful critics isn't. But why not?
It surely terrorizes people. And the targets are noncombatants. Why is that not terrorism? What does it lack? What is terrorism, as you use the word?

You do not seem to consider that terrorism, but give no explanation whatsoever as to why.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're forgetting about the factories dispersed through the Japanese cities. We couldn't bomb them directly, all we could do was hit the cities--which is exactly what the war was doing at that point, we were destroying the Japanese cities.

I'm not forgetting about any factories. I'm asking a question. Do you think the targets of the nuclear bombs were only military factories, rather than military factories + other stuff, including the civilian population?

You still don't get it--in war other things get hit. That doesn't make it terrorism, it doesn't make it a war crime.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I'm not forgetting about any factories. I'm asking a question. Do you think the targets of the nuclear bombs were only military factories, rather than military factories + other stuff, including the civilian population?

You still don't get it--in war other things get hit. That doesn't make it terrorism, it doesn't make it a war crime.

Just means you're willing to make human sacrifices just like in the old days.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

First, no, it's not something I'm insisting is the hallmark of terrorism. I'm asking whether you consider the attempt to instil fear as a necessary condition for an act to be an act of terrorism. You're just making up all sort of stuff, attributing it to me, and then attacking the straw men you make. You may not do any of that deliberately, but it's still annoying.
Second, no, I don't think deterrence is the primary role. I think justice is. But regardless, let's say it's deterrence. My point remains the same. I still do not know whether you demand intent to cause fear in order for an act to be terrorism. Could you clarify that, please?

The problem is that you are treating that as sufficient when it's not.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-arabia-silent
Was he imprisoned and tortured and threatened with worse stuff even because he supported atheism, or because he criticized the government for suppressing speech, or both?
Regarless, again, what does a government have to do to count as terrorism?
You say imprisonment and torture of peaceful critics isn't. But why not?
It surely terrorizes people. And the targets are noncombatants. Why is that not terrorism? What does it lack? What is terrorism, as you use the word?

You do not seem to consider that terrorism, but give no explanation whatsoever as to why.

Because they're the "guilty" parties. It doesn't matter that we don't consider their actions criminal, by their standards they are.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I'm not forgetting about any factories. I'm asking a question. Do you think the targets of the nuclear bombs were only military factories, rather than military factories + other stuff, including the civilian population?

You still don't get it--in war other things get hit. That doesn't make it terrorism, it doesn't make it a war crime.

No, you still don't get it, and this is already bizarre.
How can you still fail to realize that you're not even addressing what I'm asking, while attributing to me beliefs, statements and/or implications that have zero to do with what I believe, state and/or imply?
I do realize that in war other things get hit, apart from the targets. I realize that that doesn't make it terrorism, under any common concept of terrorism. You had and have no good reason whatsoever to even suspect that I didn't realize that.
But could you state, plain and simple, whether you think the targets of the nuclear bombs were only military factories, rather than military factories + other stuff, including the civilian population? Could you even understand what I'm asking?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

First, no, it's not something I'm insisting is the hallmark of terrorism. I'm asking whether you consider the attempt to instil fear as a necessary condition for an act to be an act of terrorism. You're just making up all sort of stuff, attributing it to me, and then attacking the straw men you make. You may not do any of that deliberately, but it's still annoying.
Second, no, I don't think deterrence is the primary role. I think justice is. But regardless, let's say it's deterrence. My point remains the same. I still do not know whether you demand intent to cause fear in order for an act to be terrorism. Could you clarify that, please?

The problem is that you are treating that as sufficient when it's not.

No, I'm not treating them as sufficient. For example, if someone intended to cause fear just for the sadistic pleasure of it, I wouldn't consider it terrorism, under common concepts of the term.
But what I'm asking you to tell me is whether you use the word "terrorism" in such as way that the intent to instil fear is a necessary condition for an act to be an act of terrorism. Again, why do you keep failing to understand what I'm asking?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-arabia-silent
Was he imprisoned and tortured and threatened with worse stuff even because he supported atheism, or because he criticized the government for suppressing speech, or both?
Regardless, again, what does a government have to do to count as terrorism?
You say imprisonment and torture of peaceful critics isn't. But why not?
It surely terrorizes people. And the targets are noncombatants. Why is that not terrorism? What does it lack? What is terrorism, as you use the word?

You do not seem to consider that terrorism, but give no explanation whatsoever as to why.

Because they're the "guilty" parties. It doesn't matter that we don't consider their actions criminal, by their standards they are.

Finally an answer to one of my questions (the correct link is https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/11/flogging-global-outrage-saudi-arabia-silent ).
Now, in the thread that you started entitled "ISIS in their own words"), you posted a link to an article where ISIS makes it clear that they believe that their targets are in fact guilty and deserve what they're doing to them.
You take their words at face value, when you say "Now can you apologists quit ascribing them motives they explicitly deny? Or do you not care one bit about the truth?"
Granting they're being sincere about their motives, they clearly believe - for example - that if they kill "liberalist sodomites", they're killing guilty parties.
So, by ISIS standards, their targets are the guilty parties.
Would you then conclude that ISIS doesn't engage in terrorist activities, because ISIS members believe that the parties they target are guilty?
If not, why not?
What makes ISIS terrorist, but Saudi Arabia not terrorist?
After all, they both target people who are not combatants but whom they consider guilty.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Loren,

Assuming for the sake of the argument that the atomic bombs didn't target civilians (which you seem to believe, though you weirdly keep refraining from actually saying that you believe so), the fact remains that the UK did target civilians in WW2, and the US clearly supported the UK.
Sources (for example):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_bombing_directive
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Lübeck_in_World_War_II
http://www.secondworldwarhistory.com/raf-bombing-campaign.asp

That said, all that happened long ago, as I already pointed out - I kept debating the matter because of your odd replies, misconstructions of my words, etc. -, so I'd rather discuss the case of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc., and your recent claims about terrorism (like the condition you now seem to raise that if the perpetrators believe they're hurting a guilty party, it's not terrorism, or at least that that is so in the case of Saudi Arabia for some reason).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You still don't get it--in war other things get hit. That doesn't make it terrorism, it doesn't make it a war crime.

No, you still don't get it, and this is already bizarre.
How can you still fail to realize that you're not even addressing what I'm asking, while attributing to me beliefs, statements and/or implications that have zero to do with what I believe, state and/or imply?
I do realize that in war other things get hit, apart from the targets. I realize that that doesn't make it terrorism, under any common concept of terrorism. You had and have no good reason whatsoever to even suspect that I didn't realize that.
But could you state, plain and simple, whether you think the targets of the nuclear bombs were only military factories, rather than military factories + other stuff, including the civilian population? Could you even understand what I'm asking?

Because what you're asking is irrelevant.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

No, you still don't get it, and this is already bizarre.
How can you still fail to realize that you're not even addressing what I'm asking, while attributing to me beliefs, statements and/or implications that have zero to do with what I believe, state and/or imply?
I do realize that in war other things get hit, apart from the targets. I realize that that doesn't make it terrorism, under any common concept of terrorism. You had and have no good reason whatsoever to even suspect that I didn't realize that.
But could you state, plain and simple, whether you think the targets of the nuclear bombs were only military factories, rather than military factories + other stuff, including the civilian population? Could you even understand what I'm asking?

Because what you're asking is irrelevant.

First, even if what I'm asking were irrelevant, that would not justify the repeated misrepresentations of my posts.
Second, in this particular part of the exchange, I'm asking whether you think the targets of the nuclear bombs were only military factories, rather than military factories + other stuff, including the civilian population. You say that that's irrelevant. Now, given that you claim that the nuclear bombs were not terrorist attacks, it seems that you think they weren't terrorist attacks regardless of whether, in addition to military targets, there were civilian targets. Either way, the existence of military targets among the targets gets the attacks classified as non-terrorist.
Is that correct?
So, for example, if IS detonated a nuke in Washington D.C., in order to kill the POTUS (who is the commander in chief of the US armed forces), and to kill as many civilians as they can kill, you would classify their action as not a terrorist one, because there was a military target?
If that's not your position, then how is my question irrelevant?