11-30-2011, 10:51 PM
|
|
|
Liv Benson to You, Bitch
Industry Role:
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Maryland and WV
Posts: 6,060
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
The original post I quoted you said "terrorism has no universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition.". That's just the problem. Terrorism has no real definition, and it's definition changes from country to country and even further depending on what side your on.
But you cannot call a military force bombing a country that it's at war at an act of terrorism. Smacking around your wife is spousal abuse, not terrorism, and bombing a city is an act of war. The surprise attack on Pearl Harbor wasn't a terrorist attack; It was a military strike against a military target. Hiroshima was an Army depot, and Nagasaki had important war related industrial targets including factories building bombs and naval ordnance, as well as other military equipment.
When a military force drops a bomb it's not an act of terrorism, it's a act of war.
Learn the difference.
|
Dumbo, Its not me who needs to learn something...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism
Quote:
|
Professor of Political Science Michael Stohl cites the examples that include Germany?s bombing of London and the U.S. atomic destruction of Hiroshima during World War II. He argues that ?the use of terror tactics is common in international relations and the state has been and remains a more likely employer of terrorism within the international system than insurgents." They also cite the First strike option as an example of the "terror of coercive diplomacy" as a form of this, which holds the world hostage with the implied threat of using nuclear weapons in "crisis management."
|
Dooooh
 |
|
|