Europe submits voluntarily

[DrZoidberg]

Civilian targets aren't valid under the Geneva convention. USA had signed it. It doesn't matter that Japan hadn't. USA was still bound by it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Geneva convention of 1929 that was in effect during WW2 was only about treatment of prisoners during war. The third Geneva convention that broadens the scope to other warfare wasn't written until 1949. So basically, there wasn't really any legal agreement not to target civilians at the time of Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.

Hmm... I did not know that. Thanks.

 

[whichphilosophy]

As for Islam my only real puzzle is why so many people had to write interpretations Hadiths rather than use the Koran on its own.

I can explain. Sometimes religious people want to do things that go right against what their holy text says. When that happens they re-interpret the holy text in whatever way is the most self serving. Sometimes the person doing the re-interpretation needs to have a funny hat. There may be money involved. The word "metaphor" is really useful.

I wonder if there are any Muslims who have decided to disregard and not believe in the Hadiths, if only to avoid confusion.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I can explain. Sometimes religious people want to do things that go right against what their holy text says. When that happens they re-interpret the holy text in whatever way is the most self serving. Sometimes the person doing the re-interpretation needs to have a funny hat. There may be money involved. The word "metaphor" is really useful.

I wonder if there are any Muslims who have decided to disregard and not believe in the Hadiths, if only to avoid confusion.

Yesterday I went out for beers with a Muslim. So yes. I know for a fact, that has happened.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I wonder if there are any Muslims who have decided to disregard and not believe in the Hadiths, if only to avoid confusion.

Yesterday I went out for beers with a Muslim. So yes. I know for a fact, that has happened.

That makes sense. I've never discussed this with Muslims though I've worked with them for several years.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The main motivation for striking Japan with a nuclear bomb was to spare the lives of many American soldiers given that the Japanese military were likely to refuse to surrender until Japan was nearly entirely destroyed. Two bombs were not going to destroy the military but would certainly terrorise the population and the government, and much less likely the military. So terror was the effect motivating the strikes. There was probably a second motivation which was to use the opportunity to test the physical effect of a nuclear bomb on a civilian population, and possibly infrastructure, given that the only sensible targets were big cities. Given the horror of the effect it was probably the only opportunity they were going to have to carry out this test and get away with it. I don't think for example that they would have done it against German cities to force Hitler to step down. Too many relatives there.
EB

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Japan was already on the retreat. Most of its colonies were recolonized. The allied powers dominated the land, sea and air in the Western Pacific and were already starting to bomb Japanese industrial areas.

So really we can question whether the bombs were necessary except for accelerating the end of the War for a couple of years.

Bombs vs the war going on another couple of years? The bombs were clearly superior.

Had we quit shooting entirely a couple of months would have been enough to drive the Japanese death toll above what the bombs did. (And this doesn't even count the ongoing fighting in China which would have added still more deaths.) We had torn up the Japanese infrastructure to the point that they couldn't feed themselves. Death by starvation would have been widespread in the winter of 45. With them surrendering when they did it was a close thing managing to ship in enough food.

- - - Updated - - -

So in your own words, what could the US supposedly have done since Japan had no intentions of surrendering.

You're missing the topic. The topic is whether or not Hiroshima and Nagasaki, on completely technically and legalistic terms count as "terrorism". Whether or not they were justified was not the topic.

BTW, by using "they had no intentions of surrendering" as a justification for terrorism you've given anybody a free pass to commit terrorist acts against anybody. A clue that a country has no intentions of surrendering is the fact that it is still at war.

"Is USA about to surrender to Al Qaeda? No? Destroy those skyscrapers with the planes. Hurrah for we are morally in the clear".

And have you quit beating your wife?

 

[DrZoidberg]

And have you quit beating your wife?

N/A

 

[bigfield]

No, they weren't. They were cities with lots of civilians in them. They had easily been able to find targets with only military targets. The object of the nuclear bomb bombings was exactly that... too terrify the Japanese to the point where they would have to give up.

Granted that this is nitpicking, and I really don't have a leg to stand on. You could argue any case and be correct. Is it terrorism if there's a full blown war on. Mmm... it's a question of definitions. I say yes, but I'm aware that it's quite possible to make a valid case against it as well.

Having lots of civilians in them doesn't make it terrorism. It would only be terrorism if they had only civilians in them--a totally nonsensical assumption as by then our primary bombing target was military production. Given the dispersed nature of that production the only way we could actually destroy it is to destroy the cities it was in. Thus our bombing campaign at that point was the systematic destruction of Japanese cities.

Whether it was by nuke or firebomb is irrelevant. Without the bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been destroyed anyway.

Even if the bombs were targeted exclusively at civilians, the bombings would not be considered terrorism, as a state military, acting within the laws of that state, cannot commit acts of terrorism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism
Using the 'most common definition' provided in the article:

[TABLE="width: 500"]
[TR]
[TD]It is the use of violence or threat of violence in order to purport a political, religious, or ideological change[/TD]
[TD]The US dropped the bombs to coerce Japan into immediate surrender.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]It can only be committed by non-state actors or undercover personnel serving on behalf of their respective governments.[/TD]
[TD]The bombings were committed by the US military, a state actor[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]It reaches more than the immediate target victims and is also directed at targets consisting of a larger spectrum of society.[/TD]
[TD]The bombs were targeted at entire cities, the 'immediate target' being the military industries in the city.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]It is both mala prohibita (i.e., crime that is made illegal by legislation) and mala in se (i.e., crime that is immoral or wrong in themselves).[/TD]
[TD]The bombings were not mala prohibita in the USA[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And have you quit beating your wife?

N/A

I highlighted the wifebeating part of your post. "N/A" isn't an appropriate response.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Having lots of civilians in them doesn't make it terrorism. It would only be terrorism if they had only civilians in them--a totally nonsensical assumption as by then our primary bombing target was military production. Given the dispersed nature of that production the only way we could actually destroy it is to destroy the cities it was in. Thus our bombing campaign at that point was the systematic destruction of Japanese cities.

Whether it was by nuke or firebomb is irrelevant. Without the bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been destroyed anyway.

Even if the bombs were targeted exclusively at civilians, the bombings would not be considered terrorism, as a state military, acting within the laws of that state, cannot commit acts of terrorism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism
Using the 'most common definition' provided in the article:

[TABLE="width: 500"]
[TR]
[TD]It is the use of violence or threat of violence in order to purport a political, religious, or ideological change[/TD]
[TD]The US dropped the bombs to coerce Japan into immediate surrender.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]It can only be committed by non-state actors or undercover personnel serving on behalf of their respective governments.[/TD]
[TD]The bombings were committed by the US military, a state actor[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]It reaches more than the immediate target victims and is also directed at targets consisting of a larger spectrum of society.[/TD]
[TD]The bombs were targeted at entire cities, the 'immediate target' being the military industries in the city.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]It is both mala prohibita (i.e., crime that is made illegal by legislation) and mala in se (i.e., crime that is immoral or wrong in themselves).[/TD]
[TD]The bombings were not mala prohibita in the USA[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

I would say that state actors can commit terrorism. For example, the Janjaweed.

 

[DrZoidberg]

If Mo wasn't a paedophile and a rapist, then what is such a monster called?

Paedophile assumes he got especially turned on by children. There's no evidence for that. Rapist assumes some sort of ethical breach or wrongdoing. In his day they wouldn't have seen it like that. The brides father would have taken it as an insult if he didn't sleep with her.

You're judging an ancient guy by moral standards. Like it or not what he did was being a dutiful moral and upstanding man. But only in his day.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Having lots of civilians in them doesn't make it terrorism. It would only be terrorism if they had only civilians in them--a totally nonsensical assumption as by then our primary bombing target was military production. Given the dispersed nature of that production the only way we could actually destroy it is to destroy the cities it was in. Thus our bombing campaign at that point was the systematic destruction of Japanese cities.

Whether it was by nuke or firebomb is irrelevant. Without the bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been destroyed anyway.

Even if the bombs were targeted exclusively at civilians, the bombings would not be considered terrorism, as a state military, acting within the laws of that state, cannot commit acts of terrorism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism
Using the 'most common definition' provided in the article:

[TABLE="width: 500"]
[TR]
[TD]It is the use of violence or threat of violence in order to purport a political, religious, or ideological change[/TD]
[TD]The US dropped the bombs to coerce Japan into immediate surrender.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]It can only be committed by non-state actors or undercover personnel serving on behalf of their respective governments.[/TD]
[TD]The bombings were committed by the US military, a state actor[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]It reaches more than the immediate target victims and is also directed at targets consisting of a larger spectrum of society.[/TD]
[TD]The bombs were targeted at entire cities, the 'immediate target' being the military industries in the city.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]It is both mala prohibita (i.e., crime that is made illegal by legislation) and mala in se (i.e., crime that is immoral or wrong in themselves).[/TD]
[TD]The bombings were not mala prohibita in the USA[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Common sense alone determines that terrorism can be committed by a mob or a state if the intent cause and effect are the same. Japan was in retreat and the allies were already bombing its cities, so what better time was it to test a nuclear device. Genocide is of course still a crime no matter how packaged. We can also argue that the genocide of millions of people by the Nazis was sanctioned because it was done by the state.

Anyway from the same part of WIKI:

In 2004, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1566 condemned terrorist acts as:

"criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act, which constitute offences within the scope of and as defined in the international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism, are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature,"

Also individuals and governments which may be part of human nature try to deflect responsibility by looking for justifications.

 

[whichphilosophy]

N/A

I highlighted the wifebeating part of your post. "N/A" isn't an appropriate response.

Do you still..... is nonsensical question where the question assumes an answer if one says answer YES or NO.

 

[Jayjay]

I think terrorism can be committed by state actors, but the term is meaningless in wartime. Who gives a fuck about an occasional car bomb, if they are being carpet bombed 24/7 by the enemy anyway?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If Mo wasn't a paedophile and a rapist, then what is such a monster called?

Paedophile assumes he got especially turned on by children. There's no evidence for that. Rapist assumes some sort of ethical breach or wrongdoing. In his day they wouldn't have seen it like that. The brides father would have taken it as an insult if he didn't sleep with her.

You're judging an ancient guy by moral standards. Like it or not what he did was being a dutiful moral and upstanding man. But only in his day.

So, he had sex with her while wasn't turned on? That's a physical trick.

And yes, we can judge him by today's standards. There's a billion reasons why we can do that, namely the people who offer him up as the standard of moral behaviour. The point of pointing out his immoral activities is to undercut his standing and to show that he's not worthy of that standing. When someone says that X is moral today because Mohammed's writings say that it is, the ability for Mohammed to measure up to modern morality is wholly relevant.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Common sense alone determines that terrorism can be committed by a mob or a state if the intent cause and effect are the same. Japan was in retreat and the allies were already bombing its cities, so what better time was it to test a nuclear device. Genocide is of course still a crime no matter how packaged. We can also argue that the genocide of millions of people by the Nazis was sanctioned because it was done by the state.

This isn't an argument based on common sense, but an argument based on a serious lack of understanding of the situation. We could have won the war without the bomb but far more would have died on both sides. Dropping the bombs killed fewer Japanese than any other sane option including doing nothing at all.

Furthermore, both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were valid military targets. They hadn't been bombed at that point because they were being deliberately held back as possible a-bomb targets, not because they weren't on the target list.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I highlighted the wifebeating part of your post. "N/A" isn't an appropriate response.

Do you still..... is nonsensical question where the question assumes an answer if one says answer YES or NO.

Fundamentally, it's an example of a question where you attempt to slip a claim through as an assumption rather than proving it. I was calling you on having done that--assuming it was terrorism.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Common sense alone determines that terrorism can be committed by a mob or a state if the intent cause and effect are the same. Japan was in retreat and the allies were already bombing its cities, so what better time was it to test a nuclear device. Genocide is of course still a crime no matter how packaged. We can also argue that the genocide of millions of people by the Nazis was sanctioned because it was done by the state.

This isn't an argument based on common sense, but an argument based on a serious lack of understanding of the situation. We could have won the war without the bomb but far more would have died on both sides. Dropping the bombs killed fewer Japanese than any other sane option including doing nothing at all.

Furthermore, both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were valid military targets. They hadn't been bombed at that point because they were being deliberately held back as possible a-bomb targets, not because they weren't on the target list.

At least around 200,000 people were killed from the two blasts where others dies progressively several years later.
Should we have bombed Germany in the same way and killed the same amount of civilians as well as those in the camps? The justification that the bomb would save lives but Japan was already almost defeated.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you still..... is nonsensical question where the question assumes an answer if one says answer YES or NO.

Fundamentally, it's an example of a question where you attempt to slip a claim through as an assumption rather than proving it. I was calling you on having done that--assuming it was terrorism.

The mechanics of terrorism are the same no matter who does it. Defining that a state cannot commit terrorism when a non state can is pure semantics.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So, he had sex with her while wasn't turned on? That's a physical trick.

I've had sex with lots of girls who looked hot in the nightclub but when we got home and I'd sobered up a bit I realised it was a disaster. How did I solve that problem without making a faux pas? It's easy. When I put my penis in them I fantasised of someone else, a sexy girl. If I can do it I'm pretty sure Mo could.

Besides, in his time he would have done it with an audience. He would have had the brides father as well as all his entourage around him to make sure the penis goes in. It's not a romantic and steamy sexy-time. That is not the time to try freaky shit you just saw on pornotube. It's a miracle any leader ever managed to do it back then. I personally, my penis tends to get stage fright if there's an audience.

And yes, we can judge him by today's standards. There's a billion reasons why we can do that, namely the people who offer him up as the standard of moral behaviour. The point of pointing out his immoral activities is to undercut his standing and to show that he's not worthy of that standing. When someone says that X is moral today because Mohammed's writings say that it is, the ability for Mohammed to measure up to modern morality is wholly relevant.

That's a completely different issue. I think it's more appropriate to accuse all Muslims today of being paedophiles rather than Muhammed. Only because they elevate Mohammed as a moral example we should follow today.

It is an ethical problem Muslims today need to deal with. Still doesn't make the man a pedo.

 

[angelo]

But moslems aren't dealing with it. They hold up this bloodthirsty butcher as the ultimate man, someone who every moslem man is to follow in his footsteps. It's the reason why in the 21st century we still have child brides and terrorism in many moslem countries.