Results 76 to 90 of 190
Thread: Presumption Of Innocence
-
30th July 2007, 12:54 PM #76
-
30th July 2007, 12:54 PM #77
What, is no-one gong to argue? Come on!! Hiroshima was a terroist act: discuss.
"I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person I'm preaching to."
-
30th July 2007, 01:00 PM #78I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
My Other Toys
-
30th July 2007, 01:00 PM #79In 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."I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person I'm preaching to."
-
30th July 2007, 01:03 PM #80I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
My Other Toys
-
30th July 2007, 01:03 PM #81
-
30th July 2007, 01:04 PM #82I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
My Other Toys
-
30th July 2007, 01:06 PM #83
That is a special type of terrorism known as State terrorism.
"I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person I'm preaching to."
-
30th July 2007, 01:10 PM #84Member
- Join Date
- Jul 2006
- Location
- Queensland
- Posts
- 50
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.
-
30th July 2007, 01:14 PM #85
-
30th July 2007, 01:22 PM #86
so back to my first comment on this thread... valid? Discuss!
Zed
-
30th July 2007, 01:26 PM #87
Why? What an odd thing to say.
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 don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person I'm preaching to."
-
30th July 2007, 01:27 PM #88
-
30th July 2007, 01:37 PM #89
-
30th July 2007, 01:39 PM #90
And BM passes his Ethics in warfare exam on a technicality...
"I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person I'm preaching to."
Similar Threads
-
corby's innocence
By Zed in forum NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH RENOVATIONReplies: 123Last Post: 1st June 2005, 10:37 PM
Bookmarks