Charlie Hebdo: Gun attack on French magazine kills 12

[piscator]

Like what the Russians did to Germany?

Or the Germans did to teh Jooz?

Or what the Palestinians did to the Joos, in Munich? Or to schoolbusses full of little Joos in Haifa?

[JimC]

there does not seem to be any tribal/ethnic motivations behind Boko Haram

Actually, that's not true at all. Most of Boko Haram is derived from the Kanuri ethnic group. Leaving aside the tribal nature of religion in the first place.

But do they base their killing sprees on hatred of another, clearly defined tribe like the situation in Rwanda?

[L'Emmerdeur]

For that matter, Hiroshima?

I've always considered the use of atomic weapons on civilians in Japan to have been an example of the use of terrorism by the government of the United States. Obviously many disagree with that opinion, and consider the targeting of civilian populations by the Allies in WWII to have been a legitimate military tactic.

[JimC]

XC, I have some difficulty in not regarding the killing of 2000 civilians as an act of terrorism, and any way you look at it, there's no getting away from the fact that 2000 unarmed humans were massacred.

A good point - the barbaric killings and rapes they inflict are deliberately designed to create terror, so that other villages will simply give in early in the piece, and accept their authority. If this isn't terrorism, I don't know what is...

If we call Baga terrorism, then we have to call Israeli bombing raids on Gaza that kill unarmed civilians terrorism too - by the same logic. For that matter, Hiroshima?

Well I consider what Israel do in Gaza "terrorism" without a shadow of a doubt. Collective punishment is without doubt a form of terrorism.

It (& the Nazi atrocities against European communities after armed resistance) shares some, but not all, of the typical features of terrorism. However, being State based, it also has significant differences in a practical sense. However, it does want to use the terror induced by extreme violence to coerce outcomes it desires....

[pErvinalia]

Like what the Russians did to Germany?

Or the Germans did to teh Jooz?

Sure, why not? Why can't terrorism be committed by states? The winners redefine the terms of engagement, but it still doesn't change what it actually is. A terror campaign.

[pErvinalia]

For that matter, Hiroshima?

I've always considered the use of atomic weapons on civilians in Japan to have been an example of the use of terrorism by the government of the United States. Obviously many disagree with that opinion, and consider the targeting of civilian populations by the Allies in WWII to have been a legitimate military tactic.

Like I said, this is just a classic example of the winners defining the terms of engagement.

[piscator]

For that matter, Hiroshima?

I've always considered the use of atomic weapons on civilians in Japan to have been an example of the use of terrorism by the government of the United States. Obviously many disagree with that opinion, and consider the targeting of civilian populations by the Allies in WWII to have been a legitimate military tactic.

There were 2 other options:

1. Waste a couple hundred thousand American lives invading and pacifying Japan.
2. Quit and let Japan build their own bomb.

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, that's a fair point.

[L'Emmerdeur]

I've always considered the use of atomic weapons on civilians in Japan to have been an example of the use of terrorism by the government of the United States. Obviously many disagree with that opinion, and consider the targeting of civilian populations by the Allies in WWII to have been a legitimate military tactic.

There were 2 other options:

1. Waste a couple hundred thousand American lives invading and pacifying Japan.
2. Quit and let Japan build their own bomb.

I'd rather not derail this thread, but there was at least one other option: The US government informs the Japanese that they are going to drop an atomic bomb 5 miles offshore, or on an unpopulated area. Once Japan had observed its effects, deliver an ultimatum: Unless Japan surrendered, the next bomb would be dropped on a major city.

Leaving aside the atomic bomb issue, the Allies had been deliberately targeting civilian populations for much of the war already.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

For that matter, Hiroshima?

I've always considered the use of atomic weapons on civilians in Japan to have been an example of the use of terrorism by the government of the United States. Obviously many disagree with that opinion, and consider the targeting of civilian populations by the Allies in WWII to have been a legitimate military tactic.

There were 2 other options:

1. Waste a couple hundred thousand American lives invading and pacifying Japan.
2. Quit and let Japan build their own bomb.

Neither is valid. Let's face it, the Merkans had one audience in mind when they dropped the bomb, and it wasn't Tokyo. They didn't need to drop it but wanted to send a clear signal to Stalin that his post-VE land-grabbing had gone far enough.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

there does not seem to be any tribal/ethnic motivations behind Boko Haram

Actually, that's not true at all. Most of Boko Haram is derived from the Kanuri ethnic group. Leaving aside the tribal nature of religion in the first place.

But do they base their killing sprees on hatred of another, clearly defined tribe like the situation in Rwanda?

They just hate everyone that is not them!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-30761963

There was no particular target in this attack. The city is mainly muslim with a large christian minority. The market attacked was the largest in the city and used by everyone.

And Baga was not a predominantly christian town either. It just happened to have a military base located in it and so became a target.


They are equal-opportunity vicious, god-mad cunts.

[piscator]

For that matter, Hiroshima?

I've always considered the use of atomic weapons on civilians in Japan to have been an example of the use of terrorism by the government of the United States. Obviously many disagree with that opinion, and consider the targeting of civilian populations by the Allies in WWII to have been a legitimate military tactic.

There were 2 other options:

1. Waste a couple hundred thousand American lives invading and pacifying Japan.
2. Quit and let Japan build their own bomb.

Neither is valid. Let's face it, the Merkans had one audience in mind when they dropped the bomb, and it wasn't Tokyo. They didn't need to drop it but wanted to send a clear signal to Stalin that his post-VE land-grabbing had gone far enough.

How many Brits and Australians died or got big parts blown off facing fanatical and suicidal resistance by civilians on Okinawa?

[AvtomatKalashnikova]

There were 2 other options:

1. Waste a couple hundred thousand American lives invading and pacifying Japan.
2. Quit and let Japan build their own bomb.

Would not be just life of American soldiers in Japan invading, many more Japan soldier and civilian would be kill in invasion of Japan mainland with conventional weapons. Is make atomic bomb ok? Nyet, does not. But possibly was less bad than other options. Who is know for sure without time machine?

[piscator]

Indeed...


OK, I'm a Decision Maker.
On the one hand, I got this bomb that's cost 1/4 of my budget for the last 5 years to develop. On the other hand, I have a million kids to throw at Japan to a bloodbath possibly big enough finish this current and ongoing bloodbath.

What should I do?

[pErvinalia]

Talking to yourself is probably not good sock etiquette, even on here.