Terrorism

[Freewill]

First of all I am an America first kinda guy. Been a lot of places but never thought to live anywhere else.

But that does not mean I think everything we have done is the greatest. For example, the bombing of Dresden Germany during WW2, that was nothing more then an act of terror, in my opinion. Prior to WW2 cities and civilian population areas were out of bounds for modern warfare. Other wars were basically fought in fields away from civilian population. The ally countries changed all of that for good or bad. Using the hydrogen bomb was basically the same thing, terror on a huge scale to force Japan into surrender. Of course the outcome was good for those heading to Japan to invade but it was an act of terror none the less.

The bombing of Serbia which basically attacked the Serbian infrastructure. Every bridge over the Danube was blown to pieces. The bombing got so bad that even Chinese officials were killed. How is using an F-16 different then a pressure cooker? What if Russia did the same in the Ukraine?

Now we have drones. Drones that apparently will and have bombed anywhere the CIA chooses, without any sort of due process.

Now I am not necessarily condemning decisions made where I was not part of the process to know fully what was the reasoning. But when you think about nuclear war what do you think of the targets? I never once thought they would be anything but civilian targets. I guess my point is that the more "civilized" the world has become the more barbaric we have also become. Or I am just ranting, it is hard to tell.

 

[Kosh]

Well from 2003 to 2009 the far left was all about due process.

 

[Iceweasel]

The difference is that we were at war with countries, neither Japan nor Germany were going to surrender. Dresden was a major industrial site, it wasn't targeted just for civilians. Same with Nagasaki and Hiroshima, being military sea ports. It was the age before smart bombs or pinpoint accuracy.

I don't see it as the same as terrorists targeting civilians, with no country to negotiate with or ability to reason with. It's all their way or death.

 

[Freewill]

The difference is that we were at war with countries, neither Japan nor Germany were going to surrender. Dresden was a major industrial site, it wasn't targeted just for civilians. Same with Nagasaki and Hiroshima, being military sea ports. It was the age before smart bombs or pinpoint accuracy.

I don't see it as the same as terrorists targeting civilians, with no country to negotiate with or ability to reason with. It's all their way or death.

From the following article which seems to be somewhat objective:

1953 United States Air Force report written by Joseph W. Angell defended the operation as the justified bombing of a military and industrial target, which was a major rail transportation and communication centre, housing 110 factories and 50,000 workers in support of the Nazi war effort.[3] Against this, several researchers have argued that not all of the communications infrastructure, such as the bridges, were in fact targeted, nor were the extensive industrial areas outside the city centre.[4] It has been argued that Dresden was a cultural landmark of little or no military significance, a "Florence on the Elbe," as it was known, and the attacks were indiscriminatearea bombing and not proportionate to the commensurate military gains.[5][6]

Bombing of Dresden in World War II

By the time that Big boy was dropped Japan didn't have ships to sail out of the harbor and if they did they were quickly dispatched. Here is why it was really picked, the rest is just window dressing, in my opinion.

Why was Hiroshima and Nagasaki chosen as a target for the A-Bombs

The Target Committee at Los Alamos met May 10-11 1945 and recommended Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Kokura and Kyoto as possible nuclear targets. Though these were among the seventy largest Japanese cities, none had been heavily bombed so far. After the Committee's recommendation these cities were taken off the list for conventional or incendiary bombing, to preserve them as nuclear targets. The scientists wanted an undamaged, pristine target city so the blast effect of the nuclear bombs could be accurately assessed. Criteria used were that the target be larger than three miles in diameter and be such that blast damage would be effective.

 

[Iceweasel]

From the following article which seems to be somewhat objective:

1953 United States Air Force report written by Joseph W. Angell defended the operation as the justified bombing of a military and industrial target, which was a major rail transportation and communication centre, housing 110 factories and 50,000 workers in support of the Nazi war effort.[3] Against this, several researchers have argued that not all of the communications infrastructure, such as the bridges, were in fact targeted, nor were the extensive industrial areas outside the city centre.[4] It has been argued that Dresden was a cultural landmark of little or no military significance, a "Florence on the Elbe," as it was known, and the attacks were indiscriminatearea bombing and not proportionate to the commensurate military gains.[5][6]

Bombing of Dresden in World War II

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II.html
"It has been argued by several researchers..." isn't proof. 110 factories supporting the Nazi effort seems reason enough for me, and is the official position. How on Earth was civilian casualties going to sway the Nazis? They didn't give a fuck about the people.

By the time that Big boy was dropped Japan didn't have ships to sail out of the harbor and if they did they were quickly dispatched. Here is why it was really picked, the rest is just window dressing, in my opinion.

Why was Hiroshima and Nagasaki chosen as a target for the A-Bombs

The Target Committee at Los Alamos met May 10-11 1945 and recommended Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Kokura and Kyoto as possible nuclear targets. Though these were among the seventy largest Japanese cities, none had been heavily bombed so far. After the Committee's recommendation these cities were taken off the list for conventional or incendiary bombing, to preserve them as nuclear targets. The scientists wanted an undamaged, pristine target city so the blast effect of the nuclear bombs could be accurately assessed. Criteria used were that the target be larger than three miles in diameter and be such that blast damage would be effective.

The size and area, not how many civilians can we kill. If that was the purpose they had better targets.

 

[Freewill]

From the following article which seems to be somewhat objective:

1953 United States Air Force report written by Joseph W. Angell defended the operation as the justified bombing of a military and industrial target, which was a major rail transportation and communication centre, housing 110 factories and 50,000 workers in support of the Nazi war effort.[3] Against this, several researchers have argued that not all of the communications infrastructure, such as the bridges, were in fact targeted, nor were the extensive industrial areas outside the city centre.[4] It has been argued that Dresden was a cultural landmark of little or no military significance, a "Florence on the Elbe," as it was known, and the attacks were indiscriminatearea bombing and not proportionate to the commensurate military gains.[5][6]

Bombing of Dresden in World War II

"It has been argued by several researchers..." isn't proof. 110 factories supporting the Nazi effort seems reason enough for me, and is the official position. How on Earth was civilian casualties going to sway the Nazis? They didn't give a fuck about the people.

By the time that Big boy was dropped Japan didn't have ships to sail out of the harbor and if they did they were quickly dispatched. Here is why it was really picked, the rest is just window dressing, in my opinion.

Why was Hiroshima and Nagasaki chosen as a target for the A-Bombs

The Target Committee at Los Alamos met May 10-11 1945 and recommended Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Kokura and Kyoto as possible nuclear targets. Though these were among the seventy largest Japanese cities, none had been heavily bombed so far. After the Committee's recommendation these cities were taken off the list for conventional or incendiary bombing, to preserve them as nuclear targets. The scientists wanted an undamaged, pristine target city so the blast effect of the nuclear bombs could be accurately assessed. Criteria used were that the target be larger than three miles in diameter and be such that blast damage would be effective.

The size and area, not how many civilians can we kill. If that was the purpose they had better targets.

It was a different world. As outlined in the link, it was picked because they wanted a pristine area to measure the effects. Maybe civilians were not the target but they certainly were considered anything more then collateral damage.

But even those to cities pale in what we did to Tokyo.

Firebombing of Tokyo

On this day, U.S. warplanes launch a new bombing offensive against Japan, dropping 2,000 tons of incendiary bombs on Tokyo over the course of the next 48 hours. Almost 16 square miles in and around the Japanese capital were incinerated, and between 80,000 and 130,000 Japanese civilians were killed in the worst single firestorm in recorded history.

Again, I am not condemning anyone for what they did in the fog of war. I am not justifying the use of terrorism today. I am not saying that what we did in the past or present has created the terrorists we have today. All I am saying is to think about what was done and the implication. Think about how war changed during ww2 where enemy civilians no longer mattered.

 

[Abishai100]

Political Daydreams: The Devil's Stork


An IRA recruit named Ethan was on a munitions smuggling boat which washed ashore during a hurricane off the coast of Scotland. When Ethan awoke on a beach, he found a strange silver lamp, and when he picked it up, a giant Arabian genie emerged from it. The genie told Ethan that it would grant him any wish but it may change his life completely. Ethan wanted the wish regardless, so he wished to the genie that he would become a supremely skillful orator, primed for effective influence over Sinn Fein (the non-violent political arm of the IRA). The genie said his wish was granted, and Ethan was soon picked up by his cohorts and returned to his Ireland base.

Ethan soon discovered he was very good at using prepositions using a form of Irish-English hybridization language. Ethan also realized he was suddenly very creative at inventing adverbs and proliferating how they could be used, almost like a singer or poet. Ethan became a prominent influence over Sinn Fein.

Ethan wondered about the spiritual cost of this great gift. Would he lose his humble views about political struggle which he himself once cherished?

One day, Ethan met a beautiful English woman named Elsa who was also a poet and a librarian. Ethan fell in love with Elsa. However, Ethan was soon given word that the library Elsa worked in was targeted by a radical faction of the IRA as a civilian target. Ethan felt conflicted but loved Elsa. He decided to rescue her.

Ethan told Elsa about the radical terrorist scheme and snatched her away from her unsafe library. He fled with her to Sweden where they married. Ethan was very happy but then learned that his oratory skills were disappearing, perhaps because he changed his moral outlook. He was not dismayed, however, since Elsa, herself a poet, told him that she loved him simply for who he was and not what he was good at.

Ethan concluded that the powerful wish the genie granted him years ago was not important. In fear and humility, Ethan spent the remainder of his days with Elsa and their family and lived a life in contemplation of the dangers of political temptation.





The Terrorist 1997 film - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Abishai100]

The Art of Academics


Isn't it interesting that every time we talk about the complications associated with punishment and/or expulsion/termination, we think that pity is not so simple (i.e., terror of nuclear warfare by 1st world nations, guerrilla terrorism by 3rd world nations, etc.)?

We can try to approach this problem through the lens of criminal insanity.

For example, in the comic book universe of Batman (DC Comics), the valiant caped crusader who tackles his brooding Gotham City's criminally insane maniacs, we encounter a rogue and lethal eco-terrorist named Poison Ivy, a woman who wields eco-toxins against society in the name of anti-industrialization political upheaval but goes too far.

Is Poison Ivy worthy of socio-political empathy in our age of global warming or does she reveal a true 'jurisprudence mania?'

We can use 'psyche iconography' to understand humanist hellholes.







Poison Ivy (Wikia)

 

[Abishai100]

Clayface: Corporal Cleansing


Contracts are so important, especially in our age of mercantilism-gauged networking (i.e.,eTrade).

Seminal works such as "Guerilla Warfare" (Che Guevara) and "The Social Contract" (Jean-Jacques Rousseau) explore the ramifications of contract violation angst and expectation violations.

When we think of individuals who stalk our sensibilities about human traffic such as the London serial killer Jack the Ripper, we think about how social contract violations create terror itself.

When we read news stories of stewardesses involved in intricate modern-age airline narcotics rings, we think about how capitalism-traffic has created a new type of terrorism: the daredevil profiteer's labyrinth.

In various mythologies from Ancient Greece and Ancient India, we find stories about crusaders and rogues vying for dominion over leadership and influence even when it pertains to thoughts about 'forbidden fruits.' The Hindu goddess Kali, for example, creates anarchy and terror when vile men break contractual obligations to women. The Greek goddess Medusa turns anyone who stares into her deadly gaze into dead stone in a gesture meant to signify obedience, hypnosis, and contract punishments.

Maybe we find symbol structure presentations about terror/terrorism in modern-age circulation of Internet hacker stories and vigilantism-fantasy comic book avatars.

The fictional 'super-villain' Clayface (DC Comic) challenges the valiant caped crusader Batman and his assumptions about 'jurisprudence control.' Clayface was a regular fellow who went insane after a gross mutation turned his body completely into clay, enabling him to move through pipes and change shape and make weapons on-the-fly with great force but disabling him from appearing as a normal person.

Clayface captures a social curiosity about 'force dispersion' and 'ubiquitous terrorism.'

What does Clayface tell us about recent real-world terrorism reports surrounding ISIS?







ISIS

Clayface