4 ms·
"It was always a terroristic, offensive force." Even during WW2?
by UltraSane 6mo ago
"It was always a terroristic, offensive force." Even during WW2?
- lazyasciiart 6mo agoYes. Netanyahu has pretended to justify destroying civilians in Gaza by saying the US did it first in Dresden.
- ambicapter 6mo agoWell if Bibi says it then it must be true!
- UltraSane 6mo agoI don't care what Netanyahu says. Why do you?
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- lazyasciiart 6mo agoBecause in this instance he’s correct.
- UltraSane 6mo agoHe is just a scumbag trying to justify his own despicable behavior.
- dudefeliciano 6mo agoOk then, always in our lifetime, assuming you are < 81
- carlosjobim 6mo agoWWII was won by terror bombings of German cities, and terror nuclear bombing of Japanese cities. That's common knowledge. Not mentioning the Soviet terror in Germany during and after the war, since the topic is the US.
- UltraSane 6mo agoIt isn't really accurate to describe those bombings as terrorism when they happened during the largest war in human history.
- antiframe 6mo agoWhile I agree there's not a universally agreed upon definition of terrorism, I want to hear more about why you think bombing with novel munitions expressly delivered to dense urban areas which killed 250k people 90% of whom were civilian, in an attempt to scare them into surrender, is not "terrorism".
- Dylan16807 6mo agoKilling people while trying to scare them into surrender is a feature shared by both terrorism and wars. A big bombing campaign done by an army is a war, not a terrorism.
- antiframe 6mo agoEven when they specifically target civilians? What would you call a bomb exploded in times square? What if it were placed there by Iranian soldiers? Is that war, or terrorism?
- Dylan16807 6mo agoIf those soldiers are in full uniform bringing in an unconcealed bomb, and it's part of a broader campaign that's also going after military targets, I would not call that terrorism.
- carlosjobim 6mo agoThere is no distinct line between war and terrorism. Even before World War II, leaders would proudly and openly call for terrorism against their enemies and civilians. Most notably communist leaders like Lenin, who didn't shy away from using the word "terror" and "terrorism" to describe their own campaigns. As for allied bombings, there is a chapter here on the term "Terror bombings": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing#The_term_%22terror_bombing%22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing#The_term_%22... The war was won by systematic, deliberate terror bombings, these weren't accidents or rare incidents. From the great general Patton: "We then went to the town hall and saw the Mayor, the Chief of Police, etc. I told Truscott to do the honors as he had captured Messina. The town is horribly destroyed – the worst I have seen. In one tunnel there were said to have been 5,000 civilians hiding for over a week. I do not believe that this indiscriminate bombing of towns is worth the ammunition, and it is unnecessarily cruel to civilians." As for the Germans, they were among other things conducting terror attacks on civilan ships with their submarines, and openly calling their population to "total war".
- michaelsshaw 6mo agoSure. The unnecessary nuclear bombing of two civilian population centers is proof enough. Do you know the ratio of civilians to military deaths in those bombings? Nagasaki is particularly bad: 0.25% military personnel, 99.75% civilian deaths, and that's the most generous count. Not to mention Tokyo, or the numerous other cities which were firebombed. The idea that nuking civilians saved lives is a statement so stupid that only an American could believe it. Let me ask you a question, directly, UltraSane. Is killing 60,000(minimum) civilians in an instant not terrorism?