3 ms·

> Groups that use terrorism to get their way almost always fail. Totally untrue. When the US used atomic bombs to level cities in Japan, that was terrorism.

> Groups that use terrorism to get their way almost always fail. Totally untrue. When the US used atomic bombs to level cities in Japan, that was terrorism. The goal was to strike fear into the regime and the people for an unconditional surrender. It was not an attack against the military or government, it was an act of terrorism. When the US uses drone strikes to blow up weddings, that's terrorism. They are not actively engaged in a military conflict, even if there is allegedly some 'terrorist' they are trying to kill. The communist revolutions in various places heavily employed terrorism.

salawat 6y ago
I actually think there may be a legitimate criticism here if you define demonstrating nuclear weapon/asymmetric warfare capability as employing terror toward political ends and stop there. I'd tread carefully there though. That's a lot of sensitive history you're coloring with a rather unattractive brush. There is a lot that prevents that particular viewpoint from being convincing without dragging down a lot of the framework of Western political discourse, however, to the point you may find astonishingly few people willing to entertain it. In the West, it is generally accepted that application of violence is justifiable. Those examples you called up fit within that justifiable envelope, in the first case, near unanumously, and in the latter case, it fit enough for majority buy in, but with significant controversy as well. Point being, the label of terrorism in the eyes of Western political discourse necessarily connotes violence of an unjustifiable or unsanctioned by the majority nature. I'm curious on your view of the Civil War. Would the secession and war waged by the Southern States (or by the Union retaking them) also qualify as terrorism?
- streb-lo 6y ago
  > Those examples you called up fit within that justifiable envelope, in the first case, near unanumously I don't think this is true at all. Maybe if we define the West as America, but even then I think that's a stretch. I can say anecdotally in my circles that the trading of unwitting Japanese civilian lives en masse in exchange for American military lives is looked on with disgust.
  - Floegipoky 6y ago
    I also think it's important to be aware that much of the available intelligence at that time and reasoning behind it was classified, allowing the perpetrators to establish a narrative that went unchallenged for decades. For instance most Americans are completely unaware that the Japanese were actively trying to negotiate a surrender before Hiroshima was bombed. Most Americans are unaware that a ground invasion of the Japanese mainland was not being seriously considered, this ignorance let the government establish the false narrative you allude to. And most Americans aren't aware that American leadership intercepted communications indicating that the Japanese intended to surrender unconditionally if the Soviets entered the war, which happened on the day that Nagasaki was bombed.
    - linuxftw 6y ago
      We had to murder them is still what's being taught in schools today. In the USA, the ends always justify the means. CIA Black Sites? Indefinite detention? Extrajudicial assassination of citizens? Torture? It's okay, these people are terrorists and don't deserve any rights.
      - salawat 6y ago
        I'm sympathetic toward your reasoning; and Floegipoky also makes a good point as well. I've become increasingly uncomfortable with the power that classification confers to the executive branch to shape the national discourse; but I don't know as that will realistically change without an unprecedented shift in Congressional and Executive sentiment. As to the narrative still being taught in schools; I certainly don't have a great answer for that one either. We have to teach them something, and you certainly don't have the most room within a child's worldview for being able to address the type of nuance the historically correct narrative creates without difficulty. At least that is the assumption I'm led to by assuming that there is a compelling reason the "System" has converged on the solution it has (locking the knowledge outside of normal curricula, and requiring extra independent digging to get at the truth of it, notionally done on the student's own initiative once they get older). You run into the indoctrination outcome more often than not; but you should have an eventual consistency effect over the timescale of generations. That doesn't seem fundamentally unreasonable to me. Pain in the ass? Yes. Fraught with hazard to the stability of the national identity? Assuredly. However, if we respect that we the Citizenry represent the standard bearers of national truth, then we must be the ones to change the history books; just as those who came before us did. Keeping society moving along is a lot of work.
- linuxftw 6y ago
  > Those examples you called up fit within that justifiable envelope All terrorists feel justified, or they wouldn't do what they do. > the label of terrorism in the eyes of Western political discourse necessarily connotes violence of an unjustifiable or unsanctioned by the majority nature That's not true. There's a definition for terrorism, and it's the use of violence against non-combatants to create fear for the purposes of political change. Most people don't actually know the definition, so they're easily confused. > Would the secession and war waged by the Southern States How would secession qualify as terrorism? The battles were mainly among two military parties. Also, the term "Civil Warm" is a misnomer. The most neutral correct term is "War Between the States." Military conscription and execution of defectors, while terrible, also not terrorism, just despotic.
  - salawat 6y ago
    Didn't say anything about definitions. I'm speaking in a descriptive sense of the "way-of-life" that the word has become a nominative signpost for. That frequently differs from the strict dictionary definition; and those that stick strictly to the dictionary are not the vast majority of the populace. It doesn't make them 'wrong' either. Language flows like a river; and at best one can end up in the same spot one came to before, but the overall state and meaning are constantly evolving. >RE: Civil War/War of Northern Aggression/War of State's Seceession Eh... The folks who's ancestors were among the victims of Sherman's March to the Sea may beg to differ that the conflict was largely constrained to being between just the military. Again, very fluid and slippery if you're going to allow Hiroshima/Nagasaki as being an act of terrorism. The entire concept of terrorism is so murky and ambiguous that I'm of the opinion it is evolving to become the rhetorical boogeyman of our generation; something kept around to scare people into falling in line. I don't like it... And I try to make sure kids understand it when they seem capable of it. It's just such a damn complicated swamp to navigate through.
    - linuxftw 6y ago
      If you attack civilians for the purpose of creating fear or political change, it's terrorism. > Sherman's March to the Sea I'm well aware of this, but try to find a mainstream source that articulates his crimes and they are few and far between.
btilly 6y ago
It is a question of how you define terrorism. What I meant was asymmetric use of violence where a much weaker force uses their ability to show up unexpectedly and cause damage to cause fear and terror far out of proportion with the true damage that they are capable of inflicting. Those are the defined underdogs. This is as opposed to war where a force capable of large sustained violence actually engages in sustained violence (though often by following certain rules of conduct - see the Geneva conventions) to force an enemy to capitulate. This use of force may indeed cause terror but does not indicate an inherent weakness in the force using the tactic.

salawat 6y ago

I actually think there may be a legitimate criticism here if you define demonstrating nuclear weapon/asymmetric warfare capability as employing terror toward political ends and stop there. I'd tread carefully there though. That's a lot of sensitive history you're coloring with a rather unattractive brush. There is a lot that prevents that particular viewpoint from being convincing without dragging down a lot of the framework of Western political discourse, however, to the point you may find astonishingly few people willing to entertain it. In the West, it is generally accepted that application of violence is justifiable. Those examples you called up fit within that justifiable envelope, in the first case, near unanumously, and in the latter case, it fit enough for majority buy in, but with significant controversy as well. Point being, the label of terrorism in the eyes of Western political discourse necessarily connotes violence of an unjustifiable or unsanctioned by the majority nature. I'm curious on your view of the Civil War. Would the secession and war waged by the Southern States (or by the Union retaking them) also qualify as terrorism?

streb-lo 6y ago
> Those examples you called up fit within that justifiable envelope, in the first case, near unanumously I don't think this is true at all. Maybe if we define the West as America, but even then I think that's a stretch. I can say anecdotally in my circles that the trading of unwitting Japanese civilian lives en masse in exchange for American military lives is looked on with disgust.
- Floegipoky 6y ago
  I also think it's important to be aware that much of the available intelligence at that time and reasoning behind it was classified, allowing the perpetrators to establish a narrative that went unchallenged for decades. For instance most Americans are completely unaware that the Japanese were actively trying to negotiate a surrender before Hiroshima was bombed. Most Americans are unaware that a ground invasion of the Japanese mainland was not being seriously considered, this ignorance let the government establish the false narrative you allude to. And most Americans aren't aware that American leadership intercepted communications indicating that the Japanese intended to surrender unconditionally if the Soviets entered the war, which happened on the day that Nagasaki was bombed.
  - linuxftw 6y ago
    We had to murder them is still what's being taught in schools today. In the USA, the ends always justify the means. CIA Black Sites? Indefinite detention? Extrajudicial assassination of citizens? Torture? It's okay, these people are terrorists and don't deserve any rights.
    - salawat 6y ago
      I'm sympathetic toward your reasoning; and Floegipoky also makes a good point as well. I've become increasingly uncomfortable with the power that classification confers to the executive branch to shape the national discourse; but I don't know as that will realistically change without an unprecedented shift in Congressional and Executive sentiment. As to the narrative still being taught in schools; I certainly don't have a great answer for that one either. We have to teach them something, and you certainly don't have the most room within a child's worldview for being able to address the type of nuance the historically correct narrative creates without difficulty. At least that is the assumption I'm led to by assuming that there is a compelling reason the "System" has converged on the solution it has (locking the knowledge outside of normal curricula, and requiring extra independent digging to get at the truth of it, notionally done on the student's own initiative once they get older). You run into the indoctrination outcome more often than not; but you should have an eventual consistency effect over the timescale of generations. That doesn't seem fundamentally unreasonable to me. Pain in the ass? Yes. Fraught with hazard to the stability of the national identity? Assuredly. However, if we respect that we the Citizenry represent the standard bearers of national truth, then we must be the ones to change the history books; just as those who came before us did. Keeping society moving along is a lot of work.
linuxftw 6y ago
> Those examples you called up fit within that justifiable envelope All terrorists feel justified, or they wouldn't do what they do. > the label of terrorism in the eyes of Western political discourse necessarily connotes violence of an unjustifiable or unsanctioned by the majority nature That's not true. There's a definition for terrorism, and it's the use of violence against non-combatants to create fear for the purposes of political change. Most people don't actually know the definition, so they're easily confused. > Would the secession and war waged by the Southern States How would secession qualify as terrorism? The battles were mainly among two military parties. Also, the term "Civil Warm" is a misnomer. The most neutral correct term is "War Between the States." Military conscription and execution of defectors, while terrible, also not terrorism, just despotic.
- salawat 6y ago
  Didn't say anything about definitions. I'm speaking in a descriptive sense of the "way-of-life" that the word has become a nominative signpost for. That frequently differs from the strict dictionary definition; and those that stick strictly to the dictionary are not the vast majority of the populace. It doesn't make them 'wrong' either. Language flows like a river; and at best one can end up in the same spot one came to before, but the overall state and meaning are constantly evolving. >RE: Civil War/War of Northern Aggression/War of State's Seceession Eh... The folks who's ancestors were among the victims of Sherman's March to the Sea may beg to differ that the conflict was largely constrained to being between just the military. Again, very fluid and slippery if you're going to allow Hiroshima/Nagasaki as being an act of terrorism. The entire concept of terrorism is so murky and ambiguous that I'm of the opinion it is evolving to become the rhetorical boogeyman of our generation; something kept around to scare people into falling in line. I don't like it... And I try to make sure kids understand it when they seem capable of it. It's just such a damn complicated swamp to navigate through.
  - linuxftw 6y ago
    If you attack civilians for the purpose of creating fear or political change, it's terrorism. > Sherman's March to the Sea I'm well aware of this, but try to find a mainstream source that articulates his crimes and they are few and far between.

btilly 6y ago

It is a question of how you define terrorism. What I meant was asymmetric use of violence where a much weaker force uses their ability to show up unexpectedly and cause damage to cause fear and terror far out of proportion with the true damage that they are capable of inflicting. Those are the defined underdogs. This is as opposed to war where a force capable of large sustained violence actually engages in sustained violence (though often by following certain rules of conduct - see the Geneva conventions) to force an enemy to capitulate. This use of force may indeed cause terror but does not indicate an inherent weakness in the force using the tactic.