Quote:
Originally Posted by silentC
Timothy McVeigh apparently...... damn another theory bites the dust:)
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by silentC
Timothy McVeigh apparently...... damn another theory bites the dust:)
What, is no-one gong to argue? Come on!! Hiroshima was a terroist act: discuss.
:p
Well there is arguments for and against that definition, I believe the difference was it was a declared war, most terrorist organizations are not "officially" at war with the other side.. But it is a minor difference... I could be wrong there though (Usually are)Quote:
Originally Posted by silentC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleedin Thumb
See - he became an agnostic, but I bet he wasn't one when he blew that building up :)Quote:
In a recorded interview with Time Magazine he professed his belief in "a God", though he said he had "sort of lost touch with" Catholicism and "never really picked it [back] up." The Guardian reported that McVeigh wrote a letter claiming to be an agnostic, though his execution included a Roman Catholic ceremony.
Yeah he was a southern Christian redneck wasn't heQuote:
Originally Posted by Bleedin Thumb
Pol Pot.... infact I would have to say that most Communist insurgents/freedom fighters/liberationalist would all have a pretty bad track record.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gra
Mate they wrote the book.
I thought he was the government not a terrorist?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleedin Thumb
That is a special type of terrorism known as State terrorism.
If the bombing of Hiroshima etc was a "terrorist act" I guess you would class the murder,rape, decapitation,vivisection,medical experimentation and other assorted niceties committed by the Japanese against Chinese civilians as acts of kindness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by silentC
Mate I could let the Hiroshima remark get by, but I'm afraid you're clutching at straws this time :D Those Catholic priests are like flies around a camp stew come execution time...doesn't mean diddly.
so back to my first comment on this thread... valid? Discuss! :D
Why? What an odd thing to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by pedro the swift
Here is the definition of a terrorist act in summary:
1. It involves violence
2. It is intended to have a Psychological impact
3. It is perpetrated for a political goal
4. It deliberately targets non-combatants
There is a 5th which is added in legislation to differentiate between what they are trying to target, and acts of war like bombing of civilian areas: the act is unlawful or not carried out by a legitimate government.
However, the term originates from the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution and the perpetrators were very much legitimate government agents.
Some people believe the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were war crimes. I'm not arguing that, but acts of terror, most definitely by strict definition. Not making any comment on whether or not they were warranted. I kind of think that blowing up hundreds of thousands of ordinary people is a bad thing and to be avoided. I know that the chief argument is that it brought the war to an early end, and therefore probably saved lives. Tough one.
But this is not my point. I am just trying to point out that terrorism has nothing to do with religion and has been used as a serious political strategy in the past.
I'm talking about his 'professed belief in "a God"'. You can't be agnostic and have one of those. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleedin Thumb
I gong to argue! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by silentC
Hiroshima was a city in Japan. It still is according to my atlas, albeit apparently completely re-built after an act of terrorism mid last century.
How do those Airforce planes get through airport security anway?? :?
Cheers,
P
:D
And BM passes his Ethics in warfare exam on a technicality...
:p