Google| Subject | Re: Republicanism still an offence in England? (wasRe: Queen mother (of |
| From | Russ |
| Date | 2002-04-17 22:27 (2002-04-17 22:27) |
| Message-ID | <20020417162718.05173.00000785@mb-md.aol.com> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | alt.fan.tolkien |
| Follows | Tamim |
| Followups | paulh (20h & 35m) > Russ |
In article <a9kj02$3dq$2@oravannahka.helsinki.fi>, Tamim <hallaril@hotmail.com> writes:
TamimI know. Both are arguably terrorist acts by that definition.
Russ <mcresq@aol.com>wrote:A common definition of terrorism I've seen around here is deadly violence purposefully directed against and intended to kill civilians.That would include Hiroshima and Dresden.
Dresden has little to recommend it. However, I think Hiroshima (and Nagasaki) are defensible *despite* their falling under the definition above: they ultimately saved more lives than they cost. The cost in human life in an attack on the Japanese home islands would have been horrific. I'll concede this can be called subjective on my part.
A side note, as you probably know, the incendiary bombings of Japanese cities were much mroe deadly than the two atomic attacks. The atomic attacks have more a psychological impact however.
Russ
2002-03-30-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
