Muslims:
http://revoltoftheplebs.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/palestine_gaza_operation_cast_lead_001.jpg

Americans:
Angry Taco Bell customer fires at cashier and then police because the price of a burrito rose from $0.99 to $1.49

What motivates people to commit violence


That, is a very good question to ask Abu.

My commiserations to the family of the child.




Personally, i regard all examples of wilful, directed violence as not just criminality, but as proof of insanity.

And i would suggest [that a measure of real sanity, is] that sane ppl don't engage in wanton violence.
.....excluding [in my opinion] legitimate self defence.

Dictionary,
wanton = = (a cruel or violent action) deliberate and unprovoked.



A VERY SIMPLE DEFINITION OF 'SANITY' AND 'INSANITY'.....

I believe that typically, an unrestrained sane person will act in ways which are harmless to others, and in ways which are creative, and productive [for himself, others, and society].

And typically, an unrestrained INSANE person will act in ways which are harmful and destructive to himself and, or, others around him.





+++

More, on the right of self defence...

Selected paragraphs below, from.....

   1690
   CONCERNING CIVIL GOVERNMENT, SECOND ESSAY
   by John Locke

   ......Chapter III
   Of the State of War


Quote:

16.  The state of war is a state of enmity and destruction; and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but sedate, settled design upon another man's life puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other's power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction; for by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred, and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion, because they are not under the ties of the common law of reason, have no other rule but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as a beast of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power.   17.  And hence it is that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life.  For I have reason to conclude that he who would get me into his power without my consent would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for nobody can desire to have me in his absolute power unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom- i.e.  make me a slave.  To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation, and reason bids me look on him as an enemy to my preservation who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it; so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me thereby puts himself into a state of war with me.  He that in the state of Nature would take away the freedom that belongs to any one in that state must necessarily be supposed to have a design to take away everything else, that freedom being the foundation of all the rest; as he that in the state of society would take away the freedom belonging to those of that society or commonwealth must be supposed to design to take away from them everything else, and so be looked on as in a state of war.   18.  This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than by the use of force, so to get him in his power as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose that he who would take away my liberty would not, when he had me in his power, take away everything else.  And, therefore, it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me- i.e., kill him if I can; for to that hazard does he justly expose himself whoever introduces a state of war, and is aggressor in it.   19.  And here we have the plain difference between the state of Nature and the state of war, which however some men have confounded, are as far distant as a state of peace, goodwill, mutual assistance, and preservation; and a state of enmity, malice, violence and mutual destruction are one from another.  Men living together according to reason without a common superior on earth, with authority to judge between them, is properly the state of Nature.  But force, or a declared design of force upon the person of another, where there is no common superior on earth to appeal to for relief, is the state of war;

See also...
Deuteronomy 19:16-20

It is far too easy to be critical of people who have undergone suffering beyond anything that most of us could ever truly imagine, but alternately, it is also too simplistic to infer that a person's suffering is therefore a legitimate reason why we should accept them committing violence, in response to their suffering.

I have told the story before about the IRA bombing, in the town of Omagh, in Ireland.
It was another in a long line of horrors, where innocent people lost their lives, but instead of sparking a new wave of reprisals, it sparked a new introspection from the Irish people, who asked, when will it ever be enough?
It inspired a response of THAT'S IT, enough is enough, retaliation and reprisals will just mean more families burying their children, and it was time to let the violence, retribution, and retaliation end.

Cheering on from the sidelines of the Muslim World, can seem like an act of solidarity, of support for the downtrodden, exploited, and persecuted, who through no fault of their own have been born into a world of violence, and injustice, but it is not the only thing people can do for them.
People can still offer them support, while encouraging them to seek non-violent ways to pursue their goals for freedom and independence.
People can support them by freeing them from an implied obligation to mete out retaliatory violence in the name of some perverted ideal of honour, by offering support for the ideals of non-violent protest.

You gave the example of an American committing a violent act over a ridiculously trivial matter, as a counterpoint to the image of an Arab who was carrying a dead, or dying child, which raises the question, do you provide tacit approval for the grieving man to perpetrate any act of violence in response?

Gosh Mozza .. that was beautifully put.

Much respect for your insight.

Let us readeth from the book of Foolosophy 57:3

...it cometh to passeth that GOD the almighty shall never treatheth one tribe in a better manner than the other. GODeth shall not yield to immoral ravages of racism and hatred.

Foolosophy 41:1
...those that writeth and witnesseth so called Holy Books shall be exposed as the true sinners, the uncovered souls of discontent. They shall deceive the masses with their priesthoods and fraudulant scriptures that pretend to be in my name - Listen NOT my children for thy truth is clear and crystal and resides within us all if seeketh is undertaken - my children

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/03/2011322162920193682.html

At least eight Palestinians, including children, have been killed in mortar attacks and airstrikes in the Gaza Strip.

The deaths occurred in two separate attacks on the eastern part of Gaza City on Tuesday, witnesses said.

Two of the dead were aged 11 and 16, and four of them were from the al-Quds Brigade, the armed wing of the Islamic Jihad movement, a spokesman for the group said.

Four people died when a shell slammed into a family home  in Shejaiya, medical sources told AFP news agency. Several hours later, another four were killed - all of them fighters - in an air raid in the nearby Zeitun neighbourhood.

On Tuesday, the military said it was responding to rocket attacks from Gaza. It also confirmed it had fired mortar rounds towards the eastern outskirts of Gaza City on Tuesday, shortly after four rockets hit Israel, and expressed "regret" over reports that civilians had been hurt.

It was the third time Shejaiya had been targeted on Tuesday, following an earlier one which wounded one fighter and a burst of tank fire, which left two civilians wounded shortly after dawn.

Al Jazeera's Bernard Smith, reporting from Gaza, said that more tit-for-tat attacks could be expected.

"Tensions look to be rising here, and violence could increase," he said.

The latest incident also comes after at least 19 people were wounded in a series of raids on Monday, in the northern town of Beit Lahiya and Gaza City.

Witnesses said a security compound for Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip, a training camp north of the city and a brickworks and metal foundry in northern Gaza were among the targets.

Rising cross-border violence has occurred, also increasing tensions between Israel and Hamas and once again raising fears of another large-scale Israeli invasion.

it_is_the_light wrote on Mar 24^th, 2011 at 9:26am:

At least eight Palestinians, including children, have been killed in mortar attacks and airstrikes in the Gaza Strip.

it_is_the_light,

Your post did not reveal what provoked such an attack upon the people of Gaza [...excluding the explanation of what provoked a previous attack, on the people of Gaza, by those dastardly Jooos].

i.e.
"What motivates people to commit violence"
???


Thank you.

All is becoming clear.

hello

your inanity does not reflect reality

enjoy your hoodwink and masonic mind control

also bliss,yes enjoy this while it lasts

[ignorance = bliss]

holier than thy all racisms will be dealt with,without judgement

observation yes,i do not judge

fear not beloved one



namaste

-:)

Listen NOT my children for thy truth is clear and crystal and resides within us all if seeketh is undertaken - my children

___________

and so it is,beloveds ones..flee within in these now moments

the wheat is about to be seperated from the chaff

so be it

Yadda,

The only thing that provokes anything in Palestine is the fact a bunch of foreign imports are squatting in people's homes, and they are standing up not accepting it.

That's the only thing that provokes any of this....

Rubbish! The real owners are coming back home to find the Palestinians have been squatting on their property.

Hence the conflict!

Lisa, you don't "come home" 1800+ years later.

If in 1600 years time, Indonesians come to Australia and say "In our cultural history we once roamed this land you're on, get out" and want to boot your descendants out of Australia... how do you think they'd be met?

I've never come across a single "Issrael-supporter" who can answer this one.

That's an invalid comparison Abu ... in so many ways.

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 24^th, 2011 at 6:35pm:

Yadda, The only thing that provokes anything in Palestine is the fact a bunch of foreign imports are squatting in people's homes, and they are standing up not accepting it. That's the only thing that provokes any of this....

But it's the Jews promised land - God said it!

Lisa it's not invalid at all.

In fact it's a little too much in your favour, as many Arabs have lived there fore well over 2500 years, and they have always been from the general area anyway, you on the other hand came here from half way around the world.

Either way, how would you or how do you think your descendants would react to a people coming along and saying "Vacate your home/farm, my ancestors were here 1800 years ago, so this is really my land"....

When you can answer honestly how you'd deal with such a situation, then you might have a leg to stand on in this discussion.

Bobby. wrote on Mar 24^th, 2011 at 8:55pm:

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 24th, 2011 at 6:35pm: Yadda, The only thing that provokes anything in Palestine is the fact a bunch of foreign imports are squatting in people's homes, and they are standing up not accepting it. That's the only thing that provokes any of this.... But it's the Jews promised land - God said it!

You mean the Judaic GOD or the Talmudian entity?

oh you must meant the GOD that tried to drown the planet and everyone in it - except for a big wooden boat that some bloke built - what's his name again? Noel - thats right

Nope, you've got that ALL wrong, Noel was the bloke they nailed up, that is why they sing about him at christmas, you know, The First Noel?

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 24^th, 2011 at 6:35pm:

Yadda, The only thing that provokes anything in Palestine is the fact a bunch of foreign imports are squatting in people's homes, and they are standing up not accepting it. That's the only thing that provokes any of this....

Abu,

In making such an assertion, you completely pass over the duality [of 'position'] within your own thought processes.




+++

When moslems have invaded non-moslem lands in the past, moslem conquests have been justified, and such land conquests are then always considered by every moslem to be forever immutable.
e.g.
All good moslems, consider that today, modern Spain REALLY IS THE LAWFUL PROPERTY OF MOSLEMS, because they once invaded and occupied Spain [before being later turfed out <-- that is a technical term].
When are moslems formally going to demand that Spain be returned to them Abu ????



'Palestine'

Abu,

Moslem armies have attacked Israel in 1948, 1956, 1967 & 1973, trying to destroy the state of Israel.

On every occasion that they tried, they failed, miserably.

And the ISLAMISTS of the region, continue their war of attrition against the state of Israel, even to this day.

Abu,
Using the the very same moral justification which moslems themselves use [i.e. that using violence to seize the land, and property, of other is OK], isn't Israel, aren't the Jewish people, using the exact same moral justification as what moslems use, to secure, and hold, their small plot of land on the Mediterranean,  ???

Except, in the case of the Jewish people and Israel, the Jewish people and Israel have an extra 'component', in their justification to defend their nation, in that the Jewish people are merely defending what was, THEIR ANCIENT HOMELAND?

And that the Jewish people have merely seized back, land which was taken from them in the past [by the use of force] by others [including moslem hoards] ???





Abu,

Further, there is a concept in ISLAMIC culture, that nothing can happen in this world, except by Allah's will.

And moslems do actively promote such a concept, such a paradigm, within their own communities.

Ergo;
It should therefore, be clear to every moslem, that Allah does not want moslems to 'drive the Jews into the sea'.

Otherwise, 'logically', Allah would have brought that circumstance about, already, probably in 1948.

THEREFORE, tallowood's advice to moslems, in this OzPol forum;


'You [moslems] should submit to the will of your god and accept Israel's [existence] as your god's will.'



Abu,

As a good moslem, don't you believe, that moslems should accept the will of Allah ???

It is a fair question.

Yadda...that's naughty, you know you're NOT supposed to use 'truth' and logic on muslims...it confuses them...

Yadda wrote on Mar 25^th, 2011 at 9:05am:

Abu, Using the the very same moral justification which moslems themselves use [i.e. that using violence to seize the land, and property, of other is OK], isn't Israel, aren't the Jewish people, using the exact same moral justification as what moslems use, to secure, and hold, their small plot of land on the Mediterranean,  ??? Except, in the case of the Jewish people and Israel, the Jewish people and Israel have an extra 'component', in their justification to defend their nation, in that the Jewish people are merely defending what was, THEIR ANCIENT HOMELAND? And that the Jewish people have merely seized back, land which was taken from them in the past [by the use of force] by others [including moslem hoards] ???

Abu,
Put simply, if moslems are justified in using violence to steal the land and property of non-moslems, aren't the non-moslems ALSO then justified, in using violence to 'steal' back their own land and property, from moslems ???




And isn't that exactly what the Jewish people have done???

They have taken back that which was taken from them, by a stronger moslem force.



Today, the Jewish people can certainly justify themselves in defending their nation, in that the Jewish people are now, merely defending that land which was, always, THEIR ANCIENT HOMELAND.

And the local moslems surrounding Israel, are now all in a tizzy, because they [the moslems] have found themselves powerless to impose the authority of ISLAM upon those Jewish people within their own Jewish land, a land which the Jewish people have seized back, from a people who stole it from them.

Poor things [i.e. the moslems].
/sarc off

But Jews reject Jesus Christ and his teachings

WHY would the Chosen People do that?

Why do Orthodox Jews burn copies of the Gospels in Israeli city streets?

What is going on here - really?

Yadda,


Quote:

When moslems have invaded non-moslem lands in the past, moslem conquests have been justified

First and foremost, Muslims never took over a land and expelled the inhabitants, like the Jews have tried to do, and like the Russians for instance did in Chechnya, completely purging the land of its people. This kind of despicable inhuman action seems to be completely the domain of Westerners (and the Jews now being Westerners, it's no surprise they've followed suit).

Secondly that was in the age of empires. In those times if you did not annex adjoining lands, you were annexed, that was the simple cold harsh reality of the world and ALL states, without exception, in those times operated under those conditions. Your pretense that Muslims did so in a vacuum is really dishonest Yadda, but on par for your usual behaviour in such discussions.


Quote:

All good moslems, consider that today, modern Spain REALLY IS THE LAWFUL PROPERTY OF MOSLEMS

Another case of where Westerners completely cleansed an entire land of its inhabitants, thanks.


Quote:

When are moslems formally going to demand that Spain be returned to them Abu ????

Well if the Jews can 'save their seat' for 2000 years, I guess it's much more relevant for us to save our seat for 600 years isn't it? The West have set a dangerous precedent in Palestine, and I am quite sure one day the descendants of the West will curse their ancestors for brining such calamities upon them, when the scales are tipped back into balance.


Quote:

Moslem armies have attacked Israel in 1948, 1956, 1967 & 1973, trying to destroy the state of Israel. On every occasion that they tried, they failed, miserably. And the ISLAMISTS of the region, continue their war of attrition against the state of Israel, even to this day.

The West created the Arab nationalist entities, and then pitted them against their Zionist creation. The entire episode in history was a farce, staged to dupe the Muslim masses into believing the Zionist entity was invincible. It failed miserably, as the Muslims never adopted this view, except for the sold out secularist and atheist minority. In the next few decades as Muslims take back control of their lands, we'll see how the Zionists stand up against a true Muslim army. And believe me, they will be scrambling back to their real homes in Europe and America, long before it even takes off.


Quote:

Abu, Further, there is a concept in ISLAMIC culture, that nothing can happen in this world, except by Allah's will. And moslems do actively promote such a concept, such a paradigm, within their own communities.

By this stupendously simple and inaccurate misunderstanding of yours, people would never need to try and eat and drink either, as if it were the divine will, the food and drink would find its own way into their systems.

Again more dishonest drivel.

First and foremost, Muslims never took over a land ..

- Abu

Yes they did .. and they've been squatting in that land.

The rightful inhabitants are back and the squatters have to leave.

The squatters however don't want to leave .. hence the conflict we see today.

If you can't even have the basic intellectual integrity to quote my sentence in full, then you really do not deserve a response.

When you can start to be a little more honest, at least with yourself Lisa, feel free to participate.

P.S if you knew even your own ancestors' history, you'd know that when the Muslims took over Palestine, it was ruled by Byzantine Greeks, not Jews. It is your fellow Greco-Romans who expelled the Jews. By the time the Muslims arrived, the Jews were long gone.

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 9:27am:

Yadda, Quote: When moslems have invaded non-moslem lands in the past, moslem conquests have been justified First and foremost, Muslims never took over a land and expelled the inhabitants, like the Jews have tried to do, and like the Russians for instance did in Chechnya, completely purging the land of its people. This kind of despicable inhuman action seems to be completely the domain of Westerners (and the Jews now being Westerners, it's no surprise they've followed suit).

Mohammed exiled the Jews from the Arabian peninsula.

The words of Mohammed, speaking to Arabian Jews, about their land, their property, and the consequences of rejecting ISLAM...

"You should Know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to exile you from,,, this land,.."
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #009.085.077
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.053.392



Abu,

What you, and all moslems are suffering from, is a disturbance of your thought process called;

Cognitive dissonance
Cognitive dissonance is a psychological term to define the condition that results whenever an individual attempts to hold two incompatible, if not contradictory, thoughts at the same time even in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance


e.g.
Whenever moslems commit some miscreant behaviour [which is permitted by Sharia], that behaviour is halal [permitted].
[marrying young girls, stealing from 'unbelievers', lying to 'unbelievers', etc, etc]

But whenever 'unbelievers' do the very same thing, they, are SATAN's lap dogs.

i.e.
Moslems, are good, righteous.

Non-moslems [because they 'reject Faith'], are 'the friends of Satan', THEREFORE, it is justified for moslems to have enmity towards, to fight, and to kill, all non-moslems who 'reject Faith'.

"...And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah...Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith Fight in the cause of Evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan:.."
Koran 4.74-76

"O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him)."  
Koran 9.123



And THAT [in the real world], is violent religious bigotry.

But guess what ????

Moslems will not even 'front up', and moslems will not even 'stand up', and admit to their own violent religious bigotry.

Q.
And why not ????

A.
MOSLEMS CANNOT. Because ALL GOOD MOSLEMS, suffer from a psychological 'handicap' called Cognitive dissonance.


Moslems are only allowed to admit that their own behaviour is righteous and guided.

For a moslem to admit to any imperfection within ISLAM, or to criticise the wrong behaviour of fellow moslems, would be un-ISLAMIC.


And there is the problem with ISLAM.

ISLAM can never be reformed, because moslems will NEVER, EVER, admit that ISLAM is anything, but Allah's already perfect religion.


Again....

Cognitive dissonance
Cognitive dissonance is a psychological term to define the condition that results whenever an individual attempts to hold two incompatible, if not contradictory, thoughts at the same time even in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary.

Palestinians have suffered more than their fair share. However, this doesn't account for the fact than many terrorists against the West have been middle-class professionals with no personal experience of violence. And in the case of Osama, a member of the Saudi oligarchy.

The hot violence of war is different to the cold violence of planned suicide bombing. If I was a Palestinian, I'm sure I'd want to stick it up Moshe as far as I could.

The violence of a September 11, Madrid or London bombing, however, is a different phenomenon. It's a violence born of existential angst. It's a resentment against the hollow materialism of the West, a resentment many Westerners share. But instead of directing the struggle inwards - as the Prophet taught - the violence is directed outwards against empty targets and hollow enemies.

The cause of Palestine unites Muslims everywhere. I have a feeling, however, that if the problem of Palestine was solved tomorrow, people would be looking around for another cause to unite them.

Muslims are no different to anyone else. We should get busy living or get busy dying. For many, dying - matyrdom - is the easy way out.

It's much harder to be born again.

Karnal wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 3:17pm:

Palestinians have suffered more than their fair share. However, this doesn't account for the fact than many terrorists against the West have been middle-class professionals with no personal experience of violence. And in the case of Osama, a member of the Saudi oligarchy. The hot violence of war is different to the cold violence of planned suicide bombing. If I was a Palestinian, I'm sure I'd want to stick it up Moshe as far as I could. The violence of a September 11, Madrid or London bombing, however, is a different phenomenon. It's a violence born of existential angst. It's a resentment against the hollow materialism of the West, a resentment many Westerners share. But instead of directing the struggle inwards - as the Prophet taught - the violence is directed outwards against empty targets and hollow enemies. The cause of Palestine unites Muslims everywhere. I have a feeling, however, that if the problem of Palestine was solved tomorrow, people would be looking around for another cause to unite them. Muslims are no different to anyone else. We should get busy living or get busy dying. For many, dying - matyrdom - is the easy way out. It's much harder to be born again.

Were the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki terrorist acts?

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 7:31pm:

Karnal wrote on Mar 26th, 2011 at 3:17pm: Palestinians have suffered more than their fair share. However, this doesn't account for the fact than many terrorists against the West have been middle-class professionals with no personal experience of violence. And in the case of Osama, a member of the Saudi oligarchy. The hot violence of war is different to the cold violence of planned suicide bombing. If I was a Palestinian, I'm sure I'd want to stick it up Moshe as far as I could. The violence of a September 11, Madrid or London bombing, however, is a different phenomenon. It's a violence born of existential angst. It's a resentment against the hollow materialism of the West, a resentment many Westerners share. But instead of directing the struggle inwards - as the Prophet taught - the violence is directed outwards against empty targets and hollow enemies. The cause of Palestine unites Muslims everywhere. I have a feeling, however, that if the problem of Palestine was solved tomorrow, people would be looking around for another cause to unite them. Muslims are no different to anyone else. We should get busy living or get busy dying. For many, dying - matyrdom - is the easy way out. It's much harder to be born again. Were the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki terrorist acts?

NO they weren't...they were actions within a 'declared' conflict...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 10:25pm:

NO they weren't...they were actions within a 'declared' conflict...

I, for one, regard the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nukings as abominable acts of mass murder designed to terrorise a group of people into submission, i.e. state terrorism...

The latter bombing in particular was totally unwarranted - and therefore was a clear act of state terrorism!

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 10:25pm:

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 26th, 2011 at 7:31pm: Karnal wrote on Mar 26th, 2011 at 3:17pm: Palestinians have suffered more than their fair share. However, this doesn't account for the fact than many terrorists against the West have been middle-class professionals with no personal experience of violence. And in the case of Osama, a member of the Saudi oligarchy. The hot violence of war is different to the cold violence of planned suicide bombing. If I was a Palestinian, I'm sure I'd want to stick it up Moshe as far as I could. The violence of a September 11, Madrid or London bombing, however, is a different phenomenon. It's a violence born of existential angst. It's a resentment against the hollow materialism of the West, a resentment many Westerners share. But instead of directing the struggle inwards - as the Prophet taught - the violence is directed outwards against empty targets and hollow enemies. The cause of Palestine unites Muslims everywhere. I have a feeling, however, that if the problem of Palestine was solved tomorrow, people would be looking around for another cause to unite them. Muslims are no different to anyone else. We should get busy living or get busy dying. For many, dying - matyrdom - is the easy way out. It's much harder to be born again. Were the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki terrorist acts? NO they weren't...they were actions within a 'declared' conflict...

Really?

The Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks fit in rather nicely with the official definition of what a TERRORIST act is as given by the US military manuals.

I can only suggest that you look it up.

Equitist wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 10:31pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 26th, 2011 at 10:25pm: NO they weren't...they were actions within a 'declared' conflict... I, for one, regard the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nukings as abominable acts of mass murder designed to terrorise a group of people into submission, i.e. state terrorism... The latter bombing in particular was totally unwarranted - and therefore was a clear act of state terrorism!

And the REAL history gets worse

The USA likes to spread the propaganda that the nuking of these Japanese cites ended the war which is laughable and just spinned history as written by the victors.

The actuals events are very interesting. Japan had surrended several days before the bombings - BUT not soley to the USA but to one of the USA's allies in the war - namely the Soveit Union.

The USA demanded a surrender ONLY to the USA and under the terms they stipulate.

The other question one can ask is WHY didnt the USA drop a bom on Berlin? WOuld that have ended the war too?

These were civilian targets - the number 1 and number 2 war crimes of the last century were the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - classice text book defintion of a terrorist act (as defined by the USA military manuals).

I mean for people in here to be apologists for these atrocites is not only appaling but a testament to the effectiveness of Western propaganda since the war ended.



 

Pearl Harbor was likewise a civilian target. Surely the attack on Pearl Harbor was also state terrorism. A nation that delivers state terrorism can hardly complain when terrorism is visited upon it.

salad in wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 7:55am:

Pearl Harbor was likewise a civilian target. Surely the attack on Pearl Harbor was also state terrorism. A nation that delivers state terrorism can hardly complain when terrorism is visited upon it.

As was London, during the Blitz, and Dresden, in the retalitory bombings, and Sydney during the minisub attack...

It was a WAR.....

Nagasaki 'may' have been unnecessary, but alas, we'll never know...However, the atomic bombings DID end the war, and save a lot of lives...on both sides...

Quote:

The other question one can ask is WHY didnt the USA drop a bom on Berlin? WOuld that have ended the war too?

Well it 'could' have something to do with the fact that the German High Command had surrendered more than two months BEFORE the first atomic bomb was tested!!!!!

LOL talk about "the REAL history gets worse"

I always have a a laugh when those ignorant of history condemn the use of nuclear weapons on Japan.

The US had planned an invasion of the Japanese home islands beginning in November 1945. After the experience of the fanatical Japanese resistance (civilian as well as military) in the island hopping campaign, it was estimated that allied casualties would exceed one million in the opening stages of this campaign, and it may take until 1948 to achieve final victory. When the nuclear option was presented it was seized upon as a way to end the war with minimal casualties on both sides, which it did.

You can read a brief summary here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

salad in wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 7:55am:

Pearl Harbor was likewise a civilian target. Surely the attack on Pearl Harbor was also state terrorism. A nation that delivers state terrorism can hardly complain when terrorism is visited upon it.

????

The attack on Pearl Harbour was a standard military target operation - remember a fleet of US Naval ships were there.

At the time, Hawaii was NOT part of the USA - so it wasnt even an attack on the US mainland.

How can you classify the Peral Harbour attacks as terrorism against civlian targets?

Belgarion wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 2:59pm:

I always have a a laugh when those ignorant of history condemn the use of nuclear weapons on Japan.

Well of course you laugh

You refuse to accept (or perhaps understand) such a simple ethic as the Pinciple of Universality.

You also classify the worth of poeple based on the melanonin content of their epidermal covering or other superficial genetic traits.

I think I uderstand where you are coming from now

cheers

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 3:12pm:

salad in wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 7:55am: Pearl Harbor was likewise a civilian target. Surely the attack on Pearl Harbor was also state terrorism. A nation that delivers state terrorism can hardly complain when terrorism is visited upon it. ???? The attack on Pearl Harbour was a standard military target operation - remember a fleet of US Naval ships were there. At the time, Hawaii was NOT part of the USA - so it wasnt even an attack on the US mainland. How can you classify the Peral Harbour attacks as terrorism against civlian targets?

So an attack on a neutral nation (uninvolved in the conflict) is NOT an act of Terrorism???

Do you actually STUDY to be this dumb...or is it natural talent???

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 3:59pm:

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 3:12pm: salad in wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 7:55am: Pearl Harbor was likewise a civilian target. Surely the attack on Pearl Harbor was also state terrorism. A nation that delivers state terrorism can hardly complain when terrorism is visited upon it. ???? The attack on Pearl Harbour was a standard military target operation - remember a fleet of US Naval ships were there. At the time, Hawaii was NOT part of the USA - so it wasnt even an attack on the US mainland. How can you classify the Peral Harbour attacks as terrorism against civlian targets? So an attack on a neutral nation (uninvolved in the conflict) is NOT an act of Terrorism??? Do you actually STUDY to be this dumb...or is it natural talent???

Let me summarise your position - the nuking of civilian cities in Japan IS NOT a terrorist attack but the bombing of the US Navy sitting in Pearl Harbour is?

lol

Have you looked up a typical definition of what terrorism is yet? These sound familiar to you? Or do you apply them in a very selective manner?

"...the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature....through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear."US Army Manual definition of terrorism

"Terrorism is the use or threat of action which is violent, damaging, or disrupting, and is intended to influence the government or intimidate the public and is for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause"
British government definition of terrorism

Perhaps ladies and gentlement gizmo may consider educating himself as some point in the future (for the first time)
;D

Quote:

Perhaps ladies and gentlement gizmo may consider educating himself as some point in the future (for the first time)

Don't hold your breath.