Terrorism

July 17, 2006

I must to say it, i have friends in USA, i have friends in countries allied to USA, they are good people, i think that most of that people love the life and don’t agree with war. But when i hear people talking about terrorism and saying that people in the middle east are terrorist and evildoers to justify what is unjustifiable, i must to ask do you remeber wich is only one country in the human history who used atomic weapons against civil population?, was Irak, Iran, Pakistan, Agfanistan or Lebanon?, Until today we remeber what nazis did, and i hope that we never forget it. I hope we never forget what USA did at II World War, when they strike Japan with atomics bombs.

But the USA also have attacked civilians, his government also has committed terrorist acts around the world, and even so the civilized world is not able to condemn it in the same way. Please do not misinterpret to me but if you think that during last century USA has played the role of guardian of the humanity then you don’t want to see the reality. Deaths and murders have existed from both sides, to me, everyone is guilty, to fight we need two fighters and in both sides we found innocent people and with good will, but also there are anxious evildoers. Please think about it. If you don’t like the war, if you don’t like innocent people dying then stop the support to goverments who wants war, USA is one of them as well other countries in middle east and arround the world, war is no good for everybody, and always there is an alternative to fight. And if you think that i’m supporting Al Qaeda, ETA, IRA or another kind of violence, then you don’t understand me.

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. — Isaac Asimov

18 Responses to “Terrorism”

  1. Robin Munn Says:

    You love peace and hate fighting, and that is an admirable trait. However, the sad truth is that not everyone shares those qualities. And there’s one thing you said that’s sadly mistaken. You said, “to fight we need two fighters”. Sadly, that’s not true. To make peace, you need to people willing to agree on peace. But to make war, you only need *one* side willing to fight.

    And that, sad though it is, is why civilized societies still needs policemen who carry guns — and why peace-loving nations still need soldiers, and tanks, and airplanes, and bombs. Because sometimes, it’s not your decision whether to fight; someone else has already decided that a fight will be happening. You said “always there is an alternative to fight”. Perhaps. But sometimes, the only alternative to fighting… is dying.

    If you don’t understand this harsh reality, then aphorisms like “If you want peace, prepare for war” will seem nonsensical to you. But when you realize that it takes two to make peace, but only one to make war — then the saying will start to make sense.

  2. Anonymous Says:

    Ah, Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum.

    The way to defend yourself in a war is to win that war. The only way to win a war is to a) destroy infastructure and b) (as way of a) destroy the enemies will to fight.

    Its unfortunate that during WWII, no one had the technology to accurately target infastructure, and spare civilians. If you think the use of atomic weaponry was special in some way, compare the numbers of deaths to those in other bombing campaigns.

    Everything seems so incredibly black and white to you. A casualty is a casualty is a causulty. Its just not the case.

  3. Russ Says:

    Ah, Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum.

    The way to defend yourself in a war is to win that war. The only way to win a war is to a) destroy infastructure and b) (as way of a) destroy the enemies will to fight.

    Its unfortunate that during WWII, no one had the technology to accurately target infastructure, and spare civilians. If you think the use of atomic weaponry was special in some way, compare the numbers of deaths to those in other bombing campaigns.

    Everything seems so incredibly black and white to you. A casualty is a casualty is a causulty. Its just not the case.

  4. Anonymous Says:

    > I hope we never forget what USA did at II World War, when they strike Japan with atomics bombs.

    Is there much dispute that Japan wasn’t going to back down without the US doing what they did? It was an awful lose-lose situation, and the US made a tough decision. I think any country could have found themselves in that situation, sadly; it wasn’t anything special about the US that created the conflict.

  5. anonymous Says:

    “sadly; it wasn’t anything special about the US that created the conflict.”

    Except for the fact that the US refused to sell Japan the resources it needed to make its war on indochina.

    “Is there much dispute that Japan wasn’t going to back down without the US doing what they did?”

    Yes. General Eisenhower thought it was unnecessary. General MacArthur thought it was unjustified. Almost all of the scientists who developed the bomb thought that its use was immoral and an act of terrorism. See:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

  6. anonymous Says:

    “Everything seems so incredibly black and white to you. A casualty is a casualty is a causulty. Its just not the case.”

    Non-sequitor. You did not demonstrate that casualties differ. Furthermore, just because Mr. Woerner believes that war is never justified does not mean that “everything seems so incredibly black and white” to him.

  7. Anonymous Says:

    A civilized country should NOT murder anyone. War casualities are murders and we should not accept murders whatever circumstancies.
    I can understand why USA used atomic bomb but even if it was to protect a lot of lifes it should be considered a murder. If you think there is good reasons to make war or to kill someone then you do not want peace, you want your own security.

    I’m much more worried by people justifying a war than the war itself.

  8. Daniel Says:

    Thanks for this entry which gets syndicated on pgo, especially for the second paragraph. The best comment to this topic so far! Hope freedom will find its way some day …

  9. yury Says:

    “i must to ask do you remeber wich is only one country in the human history who used atomic weapons against civil population”

    Some people seem to be simply inlove with this “argument”, dug up from it’s 50-year old grave. Rock on.

  10. Alvaro Says:

    You are almost right.. although I disagree on this: “war is no good for everybody”.

    Actually, war is good for the states. It speeds up their economy. They wouldn’t give a damn for the middle east countries otherwhise.

    It’s sad, man.

  11. Lukas Says:

    Yury, history never dies. As a german, I know that.

  12. Anonymous Says:

    Japan attacked United States because they wanted to control the Pacific ocean area. They made a pact with Germany and figured that the United States couldn’t afford to make war with more powerfull and more modern armies on two fronts. Of course they learned that they were mistaken fairly quickly.

    The atomic weapons were horrible but the PALE in comparision to the distruction caused by conventional weapons in that war. Firebombings killed many more people in Nagasaki and Hiroshima then atomic weapons ever did. As with the successfull firebombings of Dresdin and numerious other areas.

    The atomic weapons were a persuasive device. Designed to utterly defeat Japan and convince them that were was only one exit for them… Their complete and unconditional surrendor.

    This act saved many many lives on both sides. Japan would of definately lost, there is no question about that. Germany military was gone. The Russians (whose hatred of Japan was fueled by historical conflicts and territorial disputes) were poised to invade Japan from the north. United States subs were unchallenged and cut Japan off from all supplies. American air force had complete freedom of operation over all areas and the high tech (at the time) high altitude bombers were untouchable.

    However what questions were not answered was how much conquering Japan would of cost in terms of lives and materials. The only real conflict of United vs Japan on historically Japanese soil (Okinawa) resulted in huge losses by American soldiers. On the Japanese side they fought virtually to the last man and the civilian population was marred by mass suicides.

    IF the United States and Russia was to invade the Japanese mainland what sort of carnage would of happenned? How many thousands or tens of thousands American and Russian casualties happenned. What would of happenned with Russian occupation. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions more of Japanese civilians would of died or gotten hurt.

    Instead they dropped two bombs on two cities that were already devistated by convential bombings. This convinced a quick surrender that the United States could be sure of. This left a relatively orderly and peacefull surrender and saved countless American (obviously more important to the U.S. government) and Japanese people.

    This is compared to Germany’s surrender which had a legacy of military dominance of the population. There were still guerralla things going on that lasted years after the official surrender. You had the ‘werewolves’ and such that fought US occupation. The U.S. completely dismantelled manufacturing capacity of germany and purposely destroyed what economic base they still had going. Ironicly germany had a higher industrial capacity at the end of the war then at the beginning.. They simply just ran out of people. It was a war of attrition, a total war. Pretty much a entire generation of men were gone out of German sociaty.

    Japan was wrong going into the war in the first place. It’s their fault completely what happenned to them. They were the aggressors, they were the ones that sided with Germany. They were the ones that invaded China and did things to the populations there that made the holicaust look like a unfortunate misunderstanding.

    Yet after the war the U.S. built up those countries. Reinstituted local governments. Rebuilt the economies. Now those countries the U.S. occupied are about the 2 most successfull, well adjusted, and richest countries in the world.

    Compare and contrast what happenned to Germany after WW1 with the reperations and economic punishments put out by the other European countries that left the country in ruines leaving it politically open for a socialistic take over by the Nazi’s. Or how eastern Europe is still trying to recover the the years and years of communistic (or excuse me: stalinistic) oppression. Compare how the Eastern Germany faired vs. Western Germany in the years and decades following WWII.

    Lets all just hope that this doesn’t happen again. Because nobody is going to win.. but definately one side is going to loose much much much harder then the other side.

    If Iraq wasn’t run by a assholes and it’s population controlled by a minority of oppressors then the United States would of had NO excuse to go into there. It simply wouldn’t of happenned. Same thing currently with Iran, North Korea, and numerious other countries.

    If Europe wants to avoid conflict then the best thing they could do is put huge amounts of pressure to do massive amounts of political reform in the Middle East. Get the populations out of from underneath the control of oppressive minorities who wrap themselves in the guise of ‘Muslim’.

    Note that I am not talking about the real religion, but the fake one that contrives with governments to control and manipulate populations. The ‘Extreme Muslims’. Or if you want it in linux terms ‘fakelims’.

    There are about a dozen or so major conflicts going on around the world right now. ALL of them. ALL OF THEM involve ‘muslims’ vs their neighbors. ‘muslims’ in africa. ‘muslims’ in philippines. ‘muslims’ in china. ‘muslims’ in middle east. It’s all over the entire world. Even if Isreal didn’t exist and U.S. never invaded Iraq it would still be going on. There would still be bombings and all sorts of horrible things going on. You could get rid of Isreal all together and it still would not stop anything.

    The United States does not have anything to do with 90% of that crap. This Isreal stuff is just a highly visable example of the problems faced by the majority of the world. Sure George Bush is a prick, and Isreal is acting like a asshole… But if they weren’t it wouldn’t change anything.

    Those ‘fakelims’, the people that have perverted the religion, are the people who are the threat to world peace. You need to pressure your governments to work hard at helping to eliminate these aggresive elements and institute REAL demographic and _secular_ governments. That’s the only thing that is going to put a long term stop to it.

  13. yury Says:

    “Yury, history never dies. As a german, I know that.”

    In that case Israelies that say that all the land up to Jordan river should be Israeli for *historical reasons* have a case, don’t they?

  14. Anonymous Says:

    I don’t see how you can make moral equivilence between the deaths of 200 at a night club, with the death of 200 while bombing a tank factory.

    I’m sure that you would have been smart enough to come up with a non-violent means to end the german occupation of europe, and the japanese occupation of the pacific. Oh yeah, the solution is to just let them do it. Thats so enlightened.

  15. chris Says:

    A Ridiculous comment of course from the coward.

    There is no such thing as the word “moral equivalence”. It means only what you want it to mean. If “moral equivalence” was something calculable there would not be conflict.

    In war, people kill each other because they are impotent to solve the conflict in other ways. A war-like provocation justifies a war-like response is simply war-mongering. Their are other solutions, but they are only available to humble peoples. Neither the Israeli government or Hezbollah are humble. They’ll happily spill blood to save face.

  16. Russ Says:

    Really? What other solutions? Do you allow attacks to continue unchecked?

    Germany invades polland. You sound like an enlightened fellow who would know exactly what to do to solve the problem without violence. What do you do?

    Its really easy to say that violence is not the answer, and that war or show of force is never necessary. Its a far different thing applying that in the real world.

    Capitulating to violence only allows others who are willing to use violence as currency. You are mistaken if you believe the world consists of only rational human beings.

  17. chris Says:

    No problem is being solved with violence here. What problem is Israel “solving”? The only thing is it solving is to ensure the dictum that “a provocation always justifies a response” is a truism (since it always happens …), and will continue to happen, forever.

    This is not a question of “Capitulating to violence”. How is it “capitulating to violence” if there is any response, other than violence, from the aggrieved party? That is your stated thesis. The idea that if violence is not always met with violence it will spread is false. It ignores the entire history of mankind if you believe that violence leads to less of it.

    Last you ask “what would I do”. I would talk. I would invite others to share in the problem. I would understand and contain the problem. I would think about it. I would give aid and help to the government of Lebanon to solve the problem, using the law. I would be patient and explain all this, and counteract calls for war with the truth that it would fail. I would not use violence first. Ever. I would not succumb to the outrageous fallacy that if I don’t respond with violence, the problem will likely get worse. NO EVIDENCE ANYWHERE, EVER that a violent response makes the violent problem better. Period.

    You might ask well “talking wouldn’t work” or “We’ve tried being reasonable”, or “we’ve talked all we can, and said all we have had to say”. No. False. Wrong.

    You may not like it, it may not fair or just (it isn’t fair to Israel that Hezbollah launch attacks on them. It is true that Hezbollah is in the wrong and must stop), but that is just the way it is. It doesn’t help to think that just because Hezbollah is wrong and violent and launches attacks, that the response must be in kind, or worse, and that it will lead to a solution.

  18. Anonymous Says:

    Resolution 1559 attempted to do this in the right way, and was working. Until of course the leader of lebanon was murdered. After which, Hezbollah continued to operate with impunity.

    So, Hezbollah and Syria murder the leader of Lebanon, no action is taken against Lebanon. Response? Crack down ends, Hezbollah expands. Lebanon is not willing/able to remove Hezbollah, they don’t want to end up dead. Non violent means have been tried, they have failed, and not just failed, but been responded to with violence.

    Hezbollah has now reached such a strength that they are willing to strike Isreal. Which you call “unfair”. It might seem a little different to you when an average of one rocket per minute is headed towards your neighborhood.

    Your response, talk to them. Well lets see, they’ll have a list of demands. I suppose you would negotiate with them, and stop the violence by meeting some of their demands. Only a fool would think you have not made yourself a bigger target by doing so.

    So you would have “talked” to Nazi germany. Oh please hitler, stop invading countries, stop gassing the jews. Its true that britain could have reached a peace with “Nazi Europe”. Would that have been your prefered solution?

    You have a very short memory if you think a violent response doesn’t make a violent problem better.


Comments are closed.