It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
While reading the last posts here I remembered of an article I read in which terrorism and our use of the term is discussed in a philosophical-scientific way. It's quite interesting and as it's result the biggest act of terrorism in History wasn't 9/11 but the bomb droppings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Sadly the article is in German but if someone is still interested to read it:

Unser Terrorismus-Tabu
avatar
viperfdl: While reading the last posts here I remembered of an article I read in which terrorism and our use of the term is discussed in a philosophical-scientific way. It's quite interesting and as it's result the biggest act of terrorism in History wasn't 9/11 but the bomb droppings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Sadly the article is in German but if someone is still interested to read it:

Unser Terrorismus-Tabu
History is written by the winners. Regardless of one's view on history, it's usually how things go.
Not really "new" for us.... Actually, we even joke that our nuclear plants will end up Chernobyl-style (due to silly politics) long before terrorists could nuke them.
avatar
viperfdl: While reading the last posts here I remembered of an article I read in which terrorism and our use of the term is discussed in a philosophical-scientific way. It's quite interesting and as it's result the biggest act of terrorism in History wasn't 9/11 but the bomb droppings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Sadly the article is in German but if someone is still interested to read it:

Unser Terrorismus-Tabu
Isn't war one big act of terrorism in itself?
avatar
catpower1980: Not really "new" for us.... Actually, we even joke that our nuclear plants will end up Chernobyl-style (due to silly politics) long before terrorists could nuke them.
You can't nuke nuclear plants. To have them fail to the point of leaking deadly radiation the interested party must have an extensive knowledge of how they work and how to do it. Besides, these plants are always guarded even in peaceful times quite seriously.
P.S. Chernobyl is a price of human arrogance, not silly politics.
Post edited March 24, 2016 by AzureKite
avatar
viperfdl: While reading the last posts here I remembered of an article I read in which terrorism and our use of the term is discussed in a philosophical-scientific way. It's quite interesting and as it's result the biggest act of terrorism in History wasn't 9/11 but the bomb droppings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Sadly the article is in German but if someone is still interested to read it:

Unser Terrorismus-Tabu
avatar
Jacob_1994: Isn't war one big act of terrorism in itself?
Not neccessarily. Terrorism is about creating a state of constant fear and that's why the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima as well as many happenings in the cold war later fit the bill extremely well, just like the carpet bombing of civilian areas of Dresden at the end of WW2 btw.
War is most certainly an act of aggression as soon as it leaves the defense inside of your own borders but it's mostly about getting wealth by force and not primarily about creating fear also quite often secondarily as in "Remember what we were capable of? So do as we say or you may see it again up close and personal.".
Most of the civil war going on in Africa seems to be about terrorism / control by fear though and many stuff the mass media do in order to create fear to keep the civilians easy to control (not only in America although they seem to have mastered this).
Post edited March 24, 2016 by Klumpen0815
avatar
AzureKite: But that is subjective and you're in full rights not to agree with that. It is an act of agression, but calling it an act of terror is stretching it too far.
But if we drop the precise definitions and blur them in the way that we won't call any such act towards civilians as a terrorist act then we will have fargoing issues in the future. Someone has to stick to the dictionary.
I agree with you in theory, but it does not matter if a few stick to the dictionary when everyone talks differently.
avatar
Jacob_1994: Isn't war one big act of terrorism in itself?
avatar
Klumpen0815: Not neccessarily. Terrorism is about creating a state of constant fear and that's why the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima as well as many happenings in the cold war later fit the bill extremely well, just like the carpet bombing of civilian areas of Dresden at the end of WW2 btw.
War is most certainly an act of aggression as soon as it leaves the defense inside of your own borders but it's mostly about getting wealth by force and not primarily about creating fear also quite often secondarily as in "Remember what we were capable of? So do as we say or you may see it again up close and personal.".
Most of the civil war going on in Africa seems to be about terrorism / control by fear though and many stuff the mass media do in order to create fear to keep the civilians easy to control (not only in America although they seem to have mastered this).
Not really, the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima was done to force japan to surrender, is that terrorism? to force somebody (albeit in an extreme way) to stop a war. These bombing seems to have no motive other then causing mass destruction and fear.
Post edited March 24, 2016 by Jacob_1994
avatar
Jacob_1994: Not really, the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima was done to force japan to surrender, is that terrorism? to force somebody (albeit in an extreme way) to stop a war. These bombing seems to have no motive other then causing mass destruction and fear.
It was a demonstration of nuclear power creating a pretty long-term fear, wasn't it?
Actually the fear effect was so extreme that lots of Japanese people emigrated to Brazil and from there to other areas like Germany, where I met my ex-gf who's family had this backstory like so many others since they came from the area of Nagasaki.
I think that's exactly what it was supposed to be and it was the point of reference for the cold war, the nuclear threat how it looked in real life.
They could have used other weapons with less catastrophic effects on the environment and an insane number of civilians but it wouldn't have had the same effect.
So yeah, it was probably the biggest act of terrorism in the last centuries and the USA have used this damocles sword of a-bombs hanging over any nation that doesn't do as they're told ever since.
Post edited March 24, 2016 by Klumpen0815
avatar
Jacob_1994: Not really, the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima was done to force japan to surrender, is that terrorism? to force somebody (albeit in an extreme way) to stop a war. These bombing seems to have no motive other then causing mass destruction and fear.
avatar
Klumpen0815: It was a demonstration of nuclear power with a pretty threatening long-term effect, wasn't it?
I think that's exactly what it was supposed to be and it was the point of reference for the cold war.
They could have used other weapons with less catastrophic effects on the environment and an insane number of civilians.
So yeah, it was probably the biggest act of terrorism in the last centuries.
I agree with the latter part. Still, apart from forcing Japan to surrender it also played the role of a stopper for Soviet Union, which in its victory wake would've been able to widen the influence across Europe, but at that point didn't wield equal destructive power in its posession.
avatar
Jacob_1994: Not really, the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima was done to force japan to surrender, is that terrorism? to force somebody (albeit in an extreme way) to stop a war. These bombing seems to have no motive other then causing mass destruction and fear.
avatar
Klumpen0815: It was a demonstration of nuclear power with a pretty threatening long-term effect, wasn't it?
I think that's exactly what it was supposed to be and it was the point of reference for the cold war.
They could have used other weapons with less catastrophic effects on the environment and an insane number of civilians.
So yeah, it was probably the biggest act of terrorism in the last centuries.
Long term effect? We didn't know much about the bomb back then other then it made a big bomb, and does japan hate us now?
avatar
Jacob_1994: Long term effect?
Fear of a-bombs (which were only owned by the USA back then and they still have most of those).
Post edited March 24, 2016 by Klumpen0815
avatar
Jacob_1994: Long term effect?
avatar
Klumpen0815: Fear of a-bombs (which were only owned by the USA back then and they still have most of those).
Dosen't everybody fear the a-bombs today, and we only know the effects of the bombs thanks to the bombings
avatar
Klumpen0815: Fear of a-bombs (which were only owned by the USA back then and they still have most of those).
avatar
Jacob_1994: Dosen't everybody fear the a-bombs today, and we only know the effects of the bombs thanks to the bombings
Everyone is scared shitless of them now. Especially when every freak tries to make them at some point (like the "beloved" North Korea). I am a proud member of nation that was, and I predict will remain, the only one that gave off its nuclear arsenal. Substitute _proud_ for anything you like.
Post edited March 24, 2016 by AzureKite
I didn't even know about the tourism advert from january:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrb02a1FzX4

Nothing is as cynical as reality.
Post edited March 27, 2016 by Klumpen0815