I do not think they are terrorist acts because they saved American lives in open war. I don't think that it has much to do with who attacked first.

 

How did the attacks save American soldier's lives?

How did the attacks save American soldier's lives?

 

You break the will of your enemy to make war. You eliminate resources through open bombing. You also eliminate civilian personell that can eventually become military personell. Ending war in the quickest fashion possible saves lives on your side. It just doesn't always save lives on your enemie's side. I know it is very harsh, but it is true.

Overall, Anglo-American bombing of German cities claimed between 305,000 and 600,000 civilian lives. Whether these attacks hastened the end of the war is a controversial question.

 

I know that the contreversy exist, I just don't understand how.

You break the will of your enemy to make war. You eliminate resources through open bombing. You also eliminate civilian personell that can eventually become military personell. Ending war in the quickest fashion possible saves lives on your side. It just doesn't always save lives on your enemie's side. I know it is very harsh, but it is true.

 

Thought that would be your response.

 

Al-Quida will tell you that their terrorists attacks are trying to break the will of their enemy to make war.

 

They simply want to drag it out and make it have some sort of cost, human lives, till our country has no more taste for doing it's job in Iraq. They are breaking the will of the US to make war.

 

And they will be allowed to do more of what they want because we will have no will to make war against them.

 

What we did in Japan with breaking their will, Al-Quida is similarly, but on a smaller scale, doing to us. And it is working.

 

Are there attacks terrorists attacks or attacks designed to break the will of their enemy? US?

How did the attacks save American soldier's lives?

 

Um, it ended the war sooner????

Thought that would be your response.

 

Al-Quida will tell you that their terrorists attacks are trying to break the will of their enemy to make war.

 

They simply want to drag it out and make it have some sort of cost, human lives, till our country has no more taste for doing it's job in Iraq. They are breaking the will of the US to make war.

 

And they will be allowed to do more of what they want because we will have no will to make war against them.

 

What we did in Japan with breaking their will, Al-Quida is similarly, but on a smaller scale, doing to us. And it is working.

 

Are there attacks terrorists attacks or attacks designed to break the will of their enemy? US?

 

Thats why I said earlier that some people's terrorist are other people's soldiers. That is why I believe the term terrorist largely depends on one's point of view. I think better terms to use are allies and enemies.

Um, it ended the war sooner????

 

But why?

 

And see the post above yours.

Um, it ended the war sooner????

Japan yes, Germany no. At best, it kept the Germans from bringing weapons to the front that could have been used against Allied Forces. However, you must remember that the firebombings of Hamburg and Dresden took place late in the war after the German war machine (factories) had been battered by Allied bombing raids. If the firebombings had been effective as the atomic bombs had been in Japan, Hitler would have sued for peace in February 1945 instead of awaiting the complete destruction of Germany, the Battle for Berlin, and Hitler's suicide three months later. There were over 800,000 casualties in the Battle for Berlin alone.

 

Does motivation, for example, "to end the war earlier" equal justification? If so, couldn't the Moslem terrorists use the same justification? End the war, get the U.S. to leave us alone, etc.

Japan yes, Germany no. At best, it kept the Germans from bringing weapons to the front that could have been used against Allied Forces. However, you must remember that the firebombings of Hamburg and Dresden took place late in the war after the German war machine (factories) had been battered by Allied bombing raids. If the firebombings had been effective as the atomic bombs had been in Japan, Hitler would have sued for peace in February 1945 instead of awaiting the complete destruction of Germany, the Battle for Berlin, and Hitler's suicide three months later. There were over 800,000 casualties in the Battle for Berlin alone.

 

Perhaps those were acts of revenge as well. Like I stated earlier, it is tough to decide where someone becomes a soldier, and somone else becomes a terrorist. IMO, there are enemies and allies.

Terrorism is being forced to watch a "Best of Rosie O'Donnell" video 24 hours a day for an indefinite period of time.

 

It's also being forced to choose between Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton as your leader...:scared:

The United States has defined terrorism under the Federal Criminal Code. Chapter 113B of Part I of Title 18 of the United States Code defines terrorism and lists the crimes associated with terrorism. In Section 2331 of Chapter 113b, terrorism is defined as:

"..activities that involve violent... ... that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and... appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and ......© occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States......© occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States..."

It's tough to say. I mean, war is war is war. There is really no way to get around it. We do have the Geneva Convention, but if a state doesn't abide by this during a war are they terrorists? No, I think not.

 

In my opinion, terrorism is three parts, with shades of gray. The first, of course, is perspective. It depends how you view it. Do we consider the CIA a terrorist organization? No. Do some in other states? Probably. We attribute a lot of the violence in Palestine to terrorism, but the Palestinians may consider it something else, something more righteous. The second part is the group or person responsible, the terrorist. They are people who are not members of a state; they are believers in an idea or ideology, which is their bond. Sure, they probably don't wear uniforms, but more importantly, they have no accountability. Once their act is complete, there is no retribution toward a state or government. We may find conspirators, or terrorist cells scattered throughout, or we may not as the terrorists are often sacrificed to complete their mission, which is my last part. The way the act is undertaken is unorthodox, improvised, and often enacted towards the indefensible. Our military may find an enemy jet on radar and shoot it down before it causes harm, but no military can identify a person strapped with explosives walking into a market.

The United States has defined terrorism under the Federal Criminal Code. Chapter 113B of Part I of Title 18 of the United States Code defines terrorism and lists the crimes associated with terrorism. In Section 2331 of Chapter 113b, terrorism is defined as:

"..activities that involve violent... ... that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and... appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and ......© occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States......© occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States..."

So terrorism is when people from other countries do bad things to us.

Japan yes, Germany no. At best, it kept the Germans from bringing weapons to the front that could have been used against Allied Forces. However, you must remember that the firebombings of Hamburg and Dresden took place late in the war after the German war machine (factories) had been battered by Allied bombing raids. If the firebombings had been effective as the atomic bombs had been in Japan, Hitler would have sued for peace in February 1945 instead of awaiting the complete destruction of Germany, the Battle for Berlin, and Hitler's suicide three months later. There were over 800,000 casualties in the Battle for Berlin alone.

 

Does motivation, for example, "to end the war earlier" equal justification? If so, couldn't the Moslem terrorists use the same justification? End the war, get the U.S. to leave us alone, etc.

 

If they had the means, I'm afraid they would at least try.

So terrorism is when people from other countries do bad things to us.

 

I think the United States track record speaks for itself. We have given humanitarian aid to several countries through the years. Billions of dollars to rebuild countries with food, medicines, etc...

 

"Terrorist" countries can't say that. At least the U.S. seems compassionate at times. When we have attacked other countries, it's mostly been based on retallition.