Quote:
|
Originally Posted by scaeagles
That could be a reference to Hiroshima and Nagasaki (because I'm a bit slow on the keyboard and of the mind today I'm taking about Alex's post, #44 of this thread). Probably the biggest example of that I can think of.
Another fine question, which again I will admit partially comes down to the side I'm on. I can cite all the arguments that everyone knows as justification of those two bombings, but it is still an issue that basically comes down to what Alex is alluding to.
|
Yes those fit, but they aren't what I was alluding to. I was alluding to the conventional weapon carpet bombing we had engaged in (both in Germany and Japan) well before the atom bomb came into the picture.
As root definitions this is the folly of fighting a war against a tactic. The firebombings of Tokyo were essentially terrorism carried out by uniformed military (the goal was terrorize civilian populations and therefore weaken military and political leadership). That's why we can never win against "terrorism." Once all ability to resist through conventional means are removed then terrorism is easily justified in the eyes of those doing it. And, sometimes they're right.
That's why I find it hard to universally condemn the PLO (most other groups it is easier since they are involving themselves in something that need not involve them). It is hard to dismiss out of hand the idea that they have a valid complaint and right to resist Israel's presence. If their resistance is just it is hard to argue that they should not use the only form of resistance that is available to them. History isn't always written by the victors but the vocabulary usally is.
That isn't to say I endorse the resistance either. If people would just get over the silly attchment to geography, and the idea of "birthright," and the superstition of religion, then it seems to me that both parties to the violence could find ways to peacefully coexist. So I don't really buy into the idea that violent resistance is justified but many people do and therefore the tactics are justified. But then we're not arguing about methods but axioms. And discordant axioms can never be brought into alignment through discussion.
Nephythys: You're the one who brought god into it. I'd happily leave it out of the equation but if you want it in the middle of things you have to admit it seems to have cocked things up pretty good.