Whatever. Your statement was "thank God we were victorious, not imperialist Japan, communist USSR, or Nazi Germany."
And if Al Qaeda considers itself to be 'at war' with the US, then their terrorism is also justified with this understanding, is it not? It seems to me that some folks want to have it both ways: when the other guy kills civilians, it's terrorism, but when we do it, it was an unfortunate necessity. Btw, we're not just talking about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We also firebombed Tokyo and many other Japanese cities plus Dresden and a number of other civilian targets in Germany. FF, I hope you're not saying the thousands of Japanese civilians deserved to die because soldiers from the same country committed atrocities in China. If soldiers commit atrocities, shouldn't they be the ones to die? Here's an alternative definition that can leave good ole US of A relatively unscathed. Terrorism is attacking civilian targets with little military value. I don't know of any 20th century examples of the US doing this (19th century is a different story). I don't like the definition though because everyone can argue their way out of a terrorist label. Given that the Muslim world suffers from the US mostly be economic imperialism, Al Qaeda could argue the WTC is a valid target because they want to destroy the machinery of that imperialism. I think a better solution is to accept the fact that mankind fights wars and, when desperate enough, they will use any and every advantage they can think of, sinking to whatever level they must to secure victory. Al Qaeda does it, the US does it, everybody does it. It's just that some must resort to more desperate means than others. If the roles were reversed and Al Qaeda was a monolithic power and the US was a small band trying to break its stranglehold on the world, I'm sure we would not hesitate to employ terrorism in that cause.
I would think 'terrorists' might necessarily be non-state actors. States use militaries, and have codified conduct and responsibility for those militaries. The 'terrorist' or 'freedom fighter' problem is harder to define but intentionally slaughtering civilians with the express purpose of causing terror greater than the magnitude of the damage inflicted might define a 'terrorist.' In Dresden and nagasaki/hiroshima, the goal was to press home the point that continued support for the state was useless and ultimately more destructive than the alternative.
My two cents: Intentionally attacking civilian targets makes you a terrorist. Yes, the U.S. has attacked civilian targets in the past (nuking Japan has been pointed out). We have, therefore performed terrorist acts. We've also supported terrorists (selling weapons to contras?). Does anyone really believe that the U.S. has never intentionally preformed a terrorist act and/or has never supported terrorists? I would venture to say that most major powers have done so numerous times in the past. I'm sure there's tons of dirty government stuff that civilians like me don't know about. I can only take in heart in saying that I believe that the U.S. greatly avoids performing terrorist acts and support, and encourages a battlefield between two military targets. We also try to follow the Geneva convention and the rules of engagement very, very closely. We nuked Japan with the intent of ending the war (and it worked). But the way it worked was: Our nukes made a statement to Japan that "we're willing to kill and capable of killing millions of your civilians if you don't surrender to us". If that isn't terrorism, I don't know what is. BTW - I would feel better about the nukes to Japan if the U.S. had chosen to nuke military targets instead of civilians. I think it was a mistake to choose civilian targets instead of military targets. -- droxford
Anyone notice that the line between when the 'times' were dismissed as different, or when they serve as relevent history, always seem to be drawn just after whichever event we were in the wrong that is mentioned occured? Supprting terrorists/tyrants: Cold War...doesn't count. Targeting civilians: Too far back...doesn't count. Bombing markets from the air as opposed to from a truck: Collateral damage...doesn't count. Etc. etc.
Which occurred AFTER WWII. I agree that it is good that we won the Cold War, but that has very little to do with WWII.
Not everyone follows that sentiment (read my post above). It would be hypocritical for us to make excuses and say "it's different when the U.S. does it." -- droxford
Appreciated, but being in history as I am, and thus tending to use historical parallels, I am pretty fed up with the " Times are different." response, with no attempt to explain how or why...I only kept the statement as a universal in an attempt to not appear to be attacking Cohen alone.
Your continually attempt to equate America morally with these terrorists, and it's simply missing the point. All you are doing is looking at tactics, and you fail to acknowledge that America is a free democracy that respects human rights, respects the rights of enemy combatants, ETC etc. Now, supporting tyrants? That in itself is not terrorism. As ugly as it may be at times, it isn't. Bombing markets from the air? Are you insinuating that we targeted civilian markets? Because we did not. I just see more moral equivalence here...I'm glad American leaders of the past (Lincoln, FDR) didn't succumb to this flawed way of thinking.
You are right...we must be right...so when Lincoln said that we will be better off when every damned redskin is dead...and supported targeting their civilian population...that was different, and thus not terrorism....right? That we are a free democracy is a matter of debate...that being a free democracy somehow gives us a pass on all our actions is, I suppose, but you'd have to doa lot of work to convince most neutral observers. The logic that we are X, therefore our actions, even if akin in nature and occurence with terrorists, are not terrorists acts becase we are X is a point I gladly miss. If you explain it maybe I'll get it, but I doubt it. That we respect huma rights is also a latter of serious debate, particularly given our history. But that we respect the rights of enemy combatants is exactly the matter of argument here, so how can you suggest it's a fact. We sacrifice those rights all the time fwhen it suits our purpose: Guantanamo Bay, showing the pictures of Saddam's sons, etc. Then add to that the nukes we have used, napalm, and other methoids deemed irresponsible because they naturally result in high 'collateral damage'...and again we are left with a circular argument: We are right. How do you know? Because we're us, and us is what's right...therefore we are right.
I was referring to the Civil War. Had he thought of himself as no better than a terrorist, America would probably be split in half and a majority of the Afircan American population may still be slaves. For he would have not mustered the moral courage to do what was RIGHT in the Civil War. Yet you attempt to feed me this stuff that Lincoln is morally repugnant. It is not a matter of debate, let us not steer this debate into a bizarre left wing angle. I never said that we should get a pass, and I didn't say it means we can't commit terrorism. What it does mean is that we are NOT morally equivalent, despite your repeated attempts to make that assertion. The evidence that we are no different than the terrorists or totalitarian regimes is so laughable that you only attempt to prove it through roundabout means. Why don't you just say it? Sorry, but your repeated insunuations that I am an arrogant American are growing thin. I understand you think all Americans are stupid idiots who think they reside in the center of the world, and all I can say about that is that you are grossly out of touch with the common American. We showed the pictures of Saddam's sons? We keep people at Guantamo Bay? If those are the best instance of human rights violations that you can come up with, then I have to say I am proud of the way the US has conducted the war on terror.
wow...did he really do that? say that?? the treatment of Native Americans...plus the institution of slavery...are, in my mind, the two biggest black eyes on our history...unspeakably awful.
Gosh, thanks for the edumacation! I didn't know the discussion was limited to WWII. I thought we were just reminiscing about idiot nations that we are glad we did not have to succumb to...
I completely agree. It's too bad Macbeth has to continually bring them up in an attempt to prove that we are no better than the terrorists or murderous dicatorships. The connection is questionable at best.
In history, there have been a number of instances where a country has committed dreadful evils, were forced to acknowledge them, and by scourging itself for these past crimes were able to do penance for them. One such example is Germany which lived through a period of self-debasement for its Nazi past and their agency in World War II and the Holocaust. The Soviet Union went through a similar process after Stalin's death in which they repudiated the excesses of the Stalinist era, the purges, the dekulakization, the starvation of Ukraine and everything else. I appreciate Macbeth bringing are own history up again because I think it would be good for our own nation's soul to scourge ourselves for the sins we have corporately committed. But most of us would still deny them. Post-war Germany was forced to acknowledge their sins because of their utter defeat, the American and Soviet occupation and the realization of the depths of depravity they'd sunk to (like Vin Baker finally reaching the bottom of the bottle). The Soviet Union entered into the process differently, as a result of a top-down decision by Kruschchev and other top Party members that they must reform. The US currently doesn't seem to have any impetus to conduct such a self-examination. We've done it to a degree on the slavery issue, but so many other misdeeds have gone unaddressed. I think the fact that we can't define terrorism without having trouble keeping the US on the outside of the fence indicates that there are other things to address. I don't think it is a matter of "moral equivalency" but rather a simple willingness to reproach ourselves when we do wrong.
