Chit-Chat thread.

[yisk]

History is written by the winners. If these now-called "terrorists" were able to overthrow the ruling government and instill their dogma on the masses, they will be viewed as liberators and their "terrorism" was a neccessary evil in the purging and redemption of the country.

This comparison is inappropriate in this case. People from the North Caucasus is too far behind in the culture.
In fact, they have primitive tribal system. Their women have no rights. These people are not able to impose their culture or history of another country.

And if I'm not mistaken, Yeltsin gave freedom for Chechnya on probation in four years. This check Chechnya could not stand it, attacking Dagestan. Therefore Chechnya attached back. I am in favor of separating from Russia throughout the Caucasus with these aggressive highlanders. But then, Chechnya, Ingushetia and Dagestan became a powerful terrorist base.

[grobblewobble]

Edit: I am replying to Jellyslayer.

From a legal / judicial point of view, actions of states may technically not fall under the definition of terrorism. But my point is, that the Allied forces in the second world war performed some actions that are not much different from what terrorists are doing, at least from a moral point of view. They have diliberately bombed civilians, rather than just military targets. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are perhaps the clearest and most dramatic examples. These civilians were "innocent" in the same sense that the civilians killed by terrorist bombings today are innocent: they were unarmed, defenseless and not directly involved in the conflict.

There are nuances and you could argue that I'm comparing apples to oranges, but I do think the line that morally seperates these actions is quite thin.

[nathrakh]

What's this dead-serious political crap discussion doing on MY ADOM forums??

[Silfir]

If we define terrorism as an act of violence against innocents with the purpose of achieving a political goal through the power of fear, I think we're there. Though it should be realized that the "political conflict" we're talking about was a full blown state of war that had already cost millions of casualties, military and civilian, and the "political goal" in this case was to put an end to it as quickly as possible, hoping to avoid further casualties. (Basically, the two atomic bombs were a gigantic American "SERIOUSLY GUYS, SURRENDER ALREADY".)

I have a hard time condemning or defending the bombings, actually. It was a war. It was the first time atomic bombs had been used in war, and the last, even though the nations possessing them have been in a fair number of wars since. Each time they were contemplating whether to use them, they knew, or at least had more of a clue, what would be the consequences. Without Hiroshima or Nagasaki, we would look to the other places they would have been first used (and I think we'd give humanity too much credit if we believed that they wouldn't).

Compared to modern-day small scale terrorism? The line isn't really that thin, I think. World War II is different from... well, basically anything that has come since.

[JellySlayer]

Edit: I am replying to Jellyslayer.

From a legal / judicial point of view, actions of states may technically not fall under the definition of terrorism. But my point is, that the Allied forces in the second world war performed some actions that are not much different from what terrorists are doing, at least from a moral point of view.

Perhaps. No side is completely blameless in WW2. But on the scale of atrocities committed by all powers, the atomic bombings probably wouldn't make the top 5. Maybe not even the top 10.

They have diliberately bombed civilians, rather than just military targets. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are perhaps the clearest and most dramatic examples. These civilians were "innocent" in the same sense that the civilians killed by terrorist bombings today are innocent: they were unarmed, defenseless and not directly involved in the conflict.

This is the point where we differ. Most of the powers involved in World War II, including Japan, were engaged in total war--every available resource was being put into the war effort. Hiroshima was home to several military and industrial complexes, and was hardly defenseless. Nagasaki was a major military industrial centre. Both were legitimate military targets that had no civilians in the sense of the term you are describing since the vast majority of the non-combattants would have been providing material support for the armed forces.

[Grey]

The atomic bombs notably didn't cause as much damage as the bombing of Dresden, which used purely conventional weapons. You don't need nuclear weapons to destroy a city.

[Silfir]

Depends on what you measure with "damage". Civilian casualties of the Dresden bombings are estimated at around 25.000; the atomic bombs claimed at least ten times as much (long-term, including irradation-induced sickness).

People don't care so much about cities destroyed. As corny as it sounds, cities can be rebuilt, the dead cannot be revived.

[gut]

> History is written by the winners.

> jury is out on whether states are even
> capable of performing terrorist actions

> Allied forces in the second world war performed
> some actions that are not much different from
> what terrorists are doing,

Right and wrong aren't determined by what has
happened in the past. History Shmistory. I don't
need no stinking books, tv shows, politicians,
'holy' men, or other assorted sources of mental
illness to tell me (to, or) not to go around
killing people. Someone tells me to go kill
someone, I tell them no thanks. Or something
like that anyway. I do feel sorry for all the young
brains out there in the world that are so easily
washed though...

[fazisi]

Yeah, I'm with you on that one gut. The truth is the only real truth, not the interpretation others provide. But sadly, as time passes, only the (false) information provided becomes the real truth until it is all so skewed or forgotten it becomes irrelavent. At which point, history repeats itself.

[nathrakh]

Easter holidays are here and I thought of celebrating Jesus' death by drinking some beer. (I'm really not a satanist).

Thought of trying quite new "Korpisavu" beer. Literally "Wilderness smoke", or Backwoods smoke or something.. :-)