Glasgow Airport terror attack analysis
Why would they've been deeply dissapointed? They planned a spectacular terrorist attack and it largely worked. Also it'd take a remarkble degree of shortsightedness bordering on mind-numbing imbecility not to think that the USA would respond forcefully.xxxx wrote:For all anyone knows, they might have been deeply disappointed. As for their wildest hopes, I certainly have doubt and this paper suggests they are precisely the opposite, see page 26/27.They were probably extremely satisfied with the loss of life in 9-11 and the reaction it provoked. Our invasion of Iraq and the carnage unleashed no doubt exceeded their wildest hopes.
9-11 was a deliberate provocation.
If your stated aims are to rid an area of an enemy, then giving them the excuse to consolidate its power in the region is perverse.
Their enemy was already fairly well consolidated in the region and didn't show signs of leaving anytime soon. In those circumstances attacking your enemy makes reasonble sense. To provoke a response, to stir up anger and resentment.
My granfather, at the end of the war, was stationed in Palestine. They used to police Zionist demonstrations quite often and occassionally they'd be shot at out of the crowd. Initially they put up with it. Then they started shooting back.
Which was, of course, what the original snipers wanted. They wanted to provoke a reaction that would swell resentment against the British. It was hardly a unusual tactic. It's been used before and since.
I think an important question would be whether our invasion of Iraq has;
a) increased resentment and anger with the West in the Middle East or
b) reduced resentment and anger with the West in the Middle East
If a) I think Al Qaeda would be pretty happy. If b) I think they'd be a little dissapointed.
I'd be suprised if the US didn't have a plan for invading just about every country in the world, just in case the need should arise. Though given the evidence of Iraq they're probably not too well thought through.And as it very likely that theafghanistan campaign was preplanned (or here) it would seem that america was doing what it wanted to do before the 911 event, not responding to it.
-
Marguerite-the-Poet
- Posts: 135
- Joined: 02 Aug 2006, 17:49
You are thoughtful Porty. No harm done. In all honesty, gentle men/women, I think that I may be getting a hangPorty wrote:Me too. I 'm off home. Sorry MTPxxxx wrote:last reply,
on Scottish humor! 
Then again there are the bright ones whose stellar intellect deserve recognition like myself and seanie 
and without a doubt those moments when you too Porty shine like a brand new penny and xxxx pre-emptying us with a splash of comedy tied up in knots with politico-economico social relations. 
If you want an example closer to home of provoking an enemy to advance a cause you could look to Ireland.
On the morning of Easter Monday 1916 just over a thousand people, ill equiped and underarmed, attempted in an seemingly futile and even suicidal gesture, to take on the might of the British state. They had very little support amongst the wider community who, whatever their discontents, had no truck with violent rebellion. Most saw these people as troublemakers. Yet these troublemakers were determined to make a stand, to sacrifice themselves, in the cause of Irish freedom.
They marched in full view through the streets of Dublin and seized the centre of the city.
The British reacted predictably. Such open defiance, even from such a small and inconsequential group, could not be tolerated. The rebels had to be crushed. No quarter was given. The British had determined on a resolute response. A demonstration of their power.
They shelled the city.
Somewhat indiscriminately. Any building thought to contain a rebel was flattened. Many civillians died, either in the bombardments, shot by "mistake" (many of the rebels inconveniently wearing civillian clothes), or killed in the fires that ran unchecked, fire engines and ambulances unable to pass through the cordons as the British laid siege to the city.
The uprising was crushed within days. The outlaws arrested, tried and executed within weeks. As a final touch James Connolly, injured in the fighting, was tied to a chair to face his firing squad.
And what did this firm and resolute response achieve?
It transformed what had been regarded as an insignificant band of malcontents into national heroes. Martyrs.
And it ignited a flame of rebellion and a spiral of violence and bitterness that drove the mighty British Empire to retreat to the mainland and their Ulster redoubt within a few years.
I'm not making any comment on legitimacy or otherwise but simply pointing out that, as a tactic, provoking a crushing military response from your enemy can work to your advantage on occassion.
On the morning of Easter Monday 1916 just over a thousand people, ill equiped and underarmed, attempted in an seemingly futile and even suicidal gesture, to take on the might of the British state. They had very little support amongst the wider community who, whatever their discontents, had no truck with violent rebellion. Most saw these people as troublemakers. Yet these troublemakers were determined to make a stand, to sacrifice themselves, in the cause of Irish freedom.
They marched in full view through the streets of Dublin and seized the centre of the city.
The British reacted predictably. Such open defiance, even from such a small and inconsequential group, could not be tolerated. The rebels had to be crushed. No quarter was given. The British had determined on a resolute response. A demonstration of their power.
They shelled the city.
Somewhat indiscriminately. Any building thought to contain a rebel was flattened. Many civillians died, either in the bombardments, shot by "mistake" (many of the rebels inconveniently wearing civillian clothes), or killed in the fires that ran unchecked, fire engines and ambulances unable to pass through the cordons as the British laid siege to the city.
The uprising was crushed within days. The outlaws arrested, tried and executed within weeks. As a final touch James Connolly, injured in the fighting, was tied to a chair to face his firing squad.
And what did this firm and resolute response achieve?
It transformed what had been regarded as an insignificant band of malcontents into national heroes. Martyrs.
And it ignited a flame of rebellion and a spiral of violence and bitterness that drove the mighty British Empire to retreat to the mainland and their Ulster redoubt within a few years.
I'm not making any comment on legitimacy or otherwise but simply pointing out that, as a tactic, provoking a crushing military response from your enemy can work to your advantage on occassion.
Excellent.seanie wrote:I'm not making any comment on legitimacy or otherwise but simply pointing out that, as a tactic, provoking a crushing military response from your enemy can work to your advantage on occassion.
Cue Al Q or whoever was responsible for 9/11. I'm not in any way condoning what they did or how they did it. I suspect xxxx is playing the devils advocate when he suggests that they may have underachieved in terms of their ambition.
What these guys "achieved" is nothing short of phenomenal. They managed to destabil;ise the entire western world and much of the rest of it, driving a wedge between peoples and countries that had been bosom buddies, they also brought down a number of leaders. And they didn't fire a shot, drop a bomb or open a gas cylinder. They did it all with only 6 willing kamikazes, 3 passenger jets and some box cutter stuff. And they did it in less than an hour.
-
Marguerite-the-Poet
- Posts: 135
- Joined: 02 Aug 2006, 17:49
seanie,seanie wrote:
And what did this firm and resolute response achieve?
It transformed what had been regarded as an insignificant band of malcontents into national heroes. Martyrs.
And it ignited a flame of rebellion and a spiral of violence and bitterness that drove the mighty British Empire to retreat to the mainland and their Ulster redoubt within a few years.
I'm not making any comment on legitimacy or otherwise but simply pointing out that, as a tactic, provoking a crushing military response from your enemy can work to your advantage on occassion.
If I understand you correcty, rationalisation is a condition of survival which may play a role in liberation though draw us further apart. In your opinion, what's the basic affinity that could bring humans together in a positive growth collectively?
Thanks in advance for your consideration in this matter,
Marguerite
A basic affiniy that unites us?
Oh dear....well since you ask...
The loss of innocent life is regarded as acceptable by most people in some circumstances. We engage in military action knowing that civilian life will be lost. We might not actively target civillians (though we have done in the past) but we know they'll die none the less. That's regarded as an acceptable price for the greater good. Most people believe the end justifies the means.
I think many terrorist organisations would take a similar view. They're not necessarily driven by a desire to kill innocent civillians but see it as a 'regretable' price that has to be paid in order to achieve a greater goal. Even if they target civillians those victims are merely collateral damage in a greater cause.
Looking at something closer to home for me, when you look at the history of the troubles in Northern Ireland you see a sort of horrible inevitable slide into terrorism. It starts small then just escalates out of control until people (on all sides), who in other circumstances would have lived normal lives, are willing to engage in horrific acts.
Now maybe the terrorist organisations had more than their fair share of psychos who were enjoying themselves, but many members were fairly normal people who found they were able to justify to themselves actions that most would consider unjustifiable.
Going back to what I said about most people believing that the end justifies the means that's not completely true. There are limits to those means. When it comes to state military action those limits seem to be set by public squeamishness about loss of 'innocent' life. We'll go along with killing some innocent people for the greater good but not too many (though what constitutes too many will vary).
But I think the vast majority of people believe that violence is justified in certain circumstances.
They only disagree on what those circumstances are.
Trying to kill somebody else might be OK.
Someone trying to kill me is a definite no no.
I think there is a common principle shared my most (not all) people. The British government, the IRA, Ehud Olmert, Hamas, Hezbollah, George Dubya and Osama all agree.
The ends justify the means.
Ok they disagree on the ends and the means. But they're all willing to kill 'innocent' people for the greater good. Some might be more keen than others but it's a matter of degree not principle.
It's a cost/benefit analysis. What do I want? How do I achieve it? What are the risks? Will it be worth it?
The 'principle' that lies behind terrorism is a 'principle' that most people actually agree with, no matter how much they might claim they don't.
The ends can justify the means. Killing innocent people is OK for the greater good. It's excusable. (As long as it's not me you're going to kill)
I've heard the speech a hundred times from a hundred different people.
'Of course we regret the loss of any innocent life caused by our actions.'
'However...'
'...the responsibility for those deaths ultimately lies with;
a) The British Government
b) Slobodan Milosevic
c) Saddam Hussein
d) The Palestinians
e) The Israelis
(delete as applicable)
It's the same bollocks from everyone.
And guess what!
Everyone happens to believe that their own conduct is 'just'.
What a coincidence huh?
Pacifists differ. However most people aren't pacifists. Most believe violence can be justified.
They may perform some fancy footwork and ingenious definitions to try and make a clear distinction between their violence which is 'good' and somone elses which is 'bad' but they still believe killing is a legitimate option.
I'd go along with that. I'm no pacifist. I'm not sure whether I'd call war justified but sometimes it's the least worse option. A necessary evil if you will.
Again you come back to the question of not whether violence can be justified but when.
And so we come to the thing that unites (almost all of us)...
Brothers.
Sisters.
Let's put aside our differences.
Let's celebrate what we have in common.
A flexible attitude to homicide.
Oh dear....well since you ask...
The loss of innocent life is regarded as acceptable by most people in some circumstances. We engage in military action knowing that civilian life will be lost. We might not actively target civillians (though we have done in the past) but we know they'll die none the less. That's regarded as an acceptable price for the greater good. Most people believe the end justifies the means.
I think many terrorist organisations would take a similar view. They're not necessarily driven by a desire to kill innocent civillians but see it as a 'regretable' price that has to be paid in order to achieve a greater goal. Even if they target civillians those victims are merely collateral damage in a greater cause.
Looking at something closer to home for me, when you look at the history of the troubles in Northern Ireland you see a sort of horrible inevitable slide into terrorism. It starts small then just escalates out of control until people (on all sides), who in other circumstances would have lived normal lives, are willing to engage in horrific acts.
Now maybe the terrorist organisations had more than their fair share of psychos who were enjoying themselves, but many members were fairly normal people who found they were able to justify to themselves actions that most would consider unjustifiable.
Going back to what I said about most people believing that the end justifies the means that's not completely true. There are limits to those means. When it comes to state military action those limits seem to be set by public squeamishness about loss of 'innocent' life. We'll go along with killing some innocent people for the greater good but not too many (though what constitutes too many will vary).
But I think the vast majority of people believe that violence is justified in certain circumstances.
They only disagree on what those circumstances are.
Trying to kill somebody else might be OK.
Someone trying to kill me is a definite no no.
I think there is a common principle shared my most (not all) people. The British government, the IRA, Ehud Olmert, Hamas, Hezbollah, George Dubya and Osama all agree.
The ends justify the means.
Ok they disagree on the ends and the means. But they're all willing to kill 'innocent' people for the greater good. Some might be more keen than others but it's a matter of degree not principle.
It's a cost/benefit analysis. What do I want? How do I achieve it? What are the risks? Will it be worth it?
The 'principle' that lies behind terrorism is a 'principle' that most people actually agree with, no matter how much they might claim they don't.
The ends can justify the means. Killing innocent people is OK for the greater good. It's excusable. (As long as it's not me you're going to kill)
I've heard the speech a hundred times from a hundred different people.
'Of course we regret the loss of any innocent life caused by our actions.'
'However...'
'...the responsibility for those deaths ultimately lies with;
a) The British Government
b) Slobodan Milosevic
c) Saddam Hussein
d) The Palestinians
e) The Israelis
(delete as applicable)
It's the same bollocks from everyone.
And guess what!
Everyone happens to believe that their own conduct is 'just'.
What a coincidence huh?
Pacifists differ. However most people aren't pacifists. Most believe violence can be justified.
They may perform some fancy footwork and ingenious definitions to try and make a clear distinction between their violence which is 'good' and somone elses which is 'bad' but they still believe killing is a legitimate option.
I'd go along with that. I'm no pacifist. I'm not sure whether I'd call war justified but sometimes it's the least worse option. A necessary evil if you will.
Again you come back to the question of not whether violence can be justified but when.
And so we come to the thing that unites (almost all of us)...
Brothers.
Sisters.
Let's put aside our differences.
Let's celebrate what we have in common.
A flexible attitude to homicide.
-
Marguerite-the-Poet
- Posts: 135
- Joined: 02 Aug 2006, 17:49
No.seanie wrote:A basic affiniy that unites us?
What's the basic affinity that could bring humans together in a positive growth collectively? Ever heard of that Beatles song? "All we need is LOVE!" 
(The Beatles weren't liars!) Don't forget education plays an important role in the future of kids. 
Last edited by Marguerite-the-Poet on 05 Jul 2007, 23:51, edited 1 time in total.
-
Marguerite-the-Poet
- Posts: 135
- Joined: 02 Aug 2006, 17:49
Abba who? As far as education goes, older adults don't change their point of view whereas young minds do. You could argue older adults might have a young mind only if you apply it to happiness isn't related to intelligencePorty wrote:Don't forget education plays an important role in the future of everyone.Marguerite-the-Poet wrote: Don't forget education plays an important role in the future of kids.
Abba weren't liars.
I am an unrepentant pacifist, and in no no need of fancy footwork, as that is the work of charlatans, not normal caring human beings.Pacifists differ. However most people aren't pacifists. Most believe violence can be justified.
They may perform some fancy footwork and ingenious definitions to try and make a clear distinction between their violence which is 'good' and somone elses which is 'bad' but they still believe killing is a legitimate option.
I'd go along with that. I'm no pacifist. I'm not sure whether I'd call war justified but sometimes it's the least worse option. A necessary evil if you will.
Give me a reason why one mother's child should be legitimallly killed and i will entertain 'necessary' evils
xxxx wrote:Who says I'm irked? I'm just fascinated by the whole thing. Th guff the colour television comes out with, the effect it has on people, look at epykat. Meet her in the street and you'd think she's a sweet dotty old lady, but show her a cherokee on fire and:
Who could suspect the sadism that lurks within her savage breast?I would offer to burst his blisters by hand with a non sterile needle for him.
. I confess - I am an eye for an eye kind of person. None of this nambypamby "I forgive you because you are a nutter and you didn't mean to potentially blow up my son who had you done it two days earlier would have been in the airport" kind of thing. Bring back capital punishment pronto as far as I'm concerned. Don't have a compassionate bone in my body - unless it's to do with injured pigeons. The telly hasn't had an effect on me at all - I've always been a 'sadist' when it comes to lowlife who rape, mug, murder, torture, take away small children and try to blow people up. It really, really, really sticks in my throat that the burnt terrorist is taking up a bed, time and medication that somebody not predisposed to acts of sheer madness could have instead - so I stand by my offer.Enough of your nonsense - get back to the Play Pen!
Are you busy tonight?Epykat wrote:xxxx wrote:
Who could suspect the sadism that lurks within her savage breast?
You sound like you have a lot of sympathy for sharia law, do you think a little terrorism is worth enduring for it to become universal?Epykat wrote:]
xxxx wrote:You sound like you have a lot of sympathy for sharia law, do you think a little terrorism is worth enduring for it to become universal?Epykat wrote:]
I'm afraid i didn't make my point clearly enough, I have no more idea how 'they' felt about it than you do. 'They' could have been overjoyed or crestfallen, but the prevailing consensus is that they were overjoyed, that is what I meant by 'their' motivations being projected, rather than stated. I cannot state anything with confidence about 'their' motives and i am sceptical about anyone who does.seanie wrote:Why would they've been deeply dissapointed? They planned a spectacular terrorist attack and it largely worked. Also it'd take a remarkble degree of shortsightedness bordering on mind-numbing imbecility not to think that the USA would respond forcefully.xxxx wrote:For all anyone knows, they might have been deeply disappointed. As for their wildest hopes, I certainly have doubt and this paper suggests they are precisely the opposite, see page 26/27.They were probably extremely satisfied with the loss of life in 9-11 and the reaction it provoked. Our invasion of Iraq and the carnage unleashed no doubt exceeded their wildest hopes.
I certainly agree with that9-11 was a deliberate provocation.
[/quote]If your stated aims are to rid an area of an enemy, then giving them the excuse to consolidate its power in the region is perverse.
Their enemy was already fairly well consolidated in the region and didn't show signs of leaving anytime soon. In those circumstances attacking your enemy makes reasonble sense. To provoke a response, to stir up anger and resentment.
Again I agree, but I tend think it was to stir up anger and resentment in the west, not the orient.
I repeat, the opaque motivations of 'al queda' are a mystery to me, but the palestine/zionist analogy is weak, if this is such a wonderful strategy why did they not do these things in london, the 'homeland' of the occupiers?My granfather, at the end of the war, was stationed in Palestine. They used to police Zionist demonstrations quite often and occassionally they'd be shot at out of the crowd. Initially they put up with it. Then they started shooting back.
Which was, of course, what the original snipers wanted. They wanted to provoke a reaction that would swell resentment against the British. It was hardly a unusual tactic. It's been used before and since.
I think an important question would be whether our invasion of Iraq has;
a) increased resentment and anger with the West in the Middle East or
b) reduced resentment and anger with the West in the Middle East
If a) I think Al Qaeda would be pretty happy. If b) I think they'd be a little dissapointed.
[/quote]I'd be suprised if the US didn't have a plan for invading just about every country in the world, just in case the need should arise. Though given the evidence of Iraq they're probably not too well thought through.And as it very likely that theafghanistan campaign was preplanned (or here) it would seem that america was doing what it wanted to do before the 911 event, not responding to it.
Indeed they do, and the annoying thing is they carry them out
Last October in a speech at the University of Alabama Gen. Wesley Clark again recounted his conversation with a general at the Pentagon in November 2001.
I said, “Are we still going to invade Iraq?” “Yes, Sir,” he said, “but it’s worse than that.” I said, “How do you mean?” He held up this piece of paper. He said, “I just got this memo today or yesterday from the office of the Secretary of Defense upstairs. It’s a, it’s a five-year plan. We’re going to take down seven countries in five years. We’re going to start with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, then Libya, Somalia, Sudan, we’re going to come back and get Iran in five years. I said, “Is that classified, that paper?” He said, “Yes Sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me, because I want to be able to talk about it."
The world is full of normal caring human beings who are neither pacifists nor charlatans.xxxx wrote:I am an unrepentant pacifist, and in no no need of fancy footwork, as that is the work of charlatans, not normal caring human beings.
Give me a reason why one mother's child should be legitimallly killed and i will entertain 'necessary' evils
Well perhaps not full.
But nevertheless many (I think most) people are not pacifists and they’re not all psychopathic fruitloops. It’s not that they’re keen on violence and killing but that they consider such things defensible given the right context. People tend to base their moral decisions with an assessment of effects and outcomes, whether real or imagined . They evaluate differing courses of action, the likely effects and the relative merits. And it is important to remember that inaction bears moral consequences as well as action.
It’s rarely expressed so nakedly but yes, many, many people would accept that killing “one mother's child” can be legitimate, although to get them to admit it you may have to rephrase the question. Or rather it’s not that such a killing being right or legitimate in itself but that it’s better or more legitimate than the other available options. Sometimes violence is necessary simply because the alternatives are worse.
Ultimately morality is practical. It's not about what you think, what you feel, or your intentions. It’s about what you do or don’t do and the real life consequences. For myself I think the rush to violence is depressingly swift but that there are circumstances where pacifism is indefensible.
That’s not to say pacifism is without merit and there have certainly been circumstances when passive resistance and peaceful protest have achieved much. But at the end of the day a pacifist is in real trouble if someone really wants to kill them. Or someone else for that matter.
"Fear of killing rather than fear of being killed was the most common cause of battle failure," he wrote. Critics have since raised questions about the reliability of Gen. Marshall's data, but the premise of the report -- that many soldiers balked at pulling the trigger -- has been widely accepted.
I choose to state my pacifism rather strongly because I fear the consequences of violence being 'normalised' which I believe is unnatural to all but the psychopath. The wonderful thing about being a sentient human being is that you can usually find agreement without conflict.
You're quite right, most people do the best they can. Look at vichy france, what percentage joined the resistance? How many just went along?
I choose to state my pacifism rather strongly because I fear the consequences of violence being 'normalised' which I believe is unnatural to all but the psychopath. The wonderful thing about being a sentient human being is that you can usually find agreement without conflict.
You're quite right, most people do the best they can. Look at vichy france, what percentage joined the resistance? How many just went along?
I'd like to ask xxxx and seanie the same 2 questions.
1. Would you have ordered the bombing of the gas chambers at Auschwitz if you knew it would kill innocents in the process?
2. Would you administer a vaccine which killed one person in (say)10,000,000 if the alternative was thousands of deaths?
It's purely out of interest. I'm not trying to push this or that agenda.
1. Would you have ordered the bombing of the gas chambers at Auschwitz if you knew it would kill innocents in the process?
2. Would you administer a vaccine which killed one person in (say)10,000,000 if the alternative was thousands of deaths?
It's purely out of interest. I'm not trying to push this or that agenda.
Well the allied forces didn't so I defer to their judgementDadaist wrote:I'd like to ask xxxx and seanie the same 2 questions.
1. Would you have ordered the bombing of the gas chambers at Auschwitz if you knew it would kill innocents in the process?
I could only tell you after I had the opportunity, but probably yes2. Would you administer a vaccine which killed one person in (say)10,000,000 if the alternative was thousands of deaths?
-
Nelson Hatstand
- Posts: 359
- Joined: 25 Nov 2006, 11:14
- Location: Marlborough Street
1. Possibly. It would come down to a judgement of whether the potential lives saved outweighed those potentially lost and also a practical question as to whether it would make much difference or even have other negative consequennces.Dadaist wrote:I'd like to ask xxxx and seanie the same 2 questions.
1. Would you have ordered the bombing of the gas chambers at Auschwitz if you knew it would kill innocents in the process?
2. Would you administer a vaccine which killed one person in (say)10,000,000 if the alternative was thousands of deaths?
It's purely out of interest. I'm not trying to push this or that agenda.
2. Absolutely.
Last edited by seanie on 06 Jul 2007, 17:13, edited 1 time in total.
I’ve thought of an admittedly controversial example where many people can find the killing of children morally defensible. It’s also handy because it was, by a straightforward definition of the term, terrorism.
Let me preface this by saying that many of you won’t agree with what I’m about to say but don’t get hung up on that for now. It’s a demonstration of the kind of reasoning that I’m personally amenable to and that many would find acceptable. First off it may be worthwhile contrasting the example I have in mind with another instance.
I regard the bombing of Dresden as an indefensible and shameful war crime.
On the other hand I regard the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as justifiable.
How do I come to such very different conclusions about events that have much in common? After all both involved the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians, including many mothers and their children?
Well from my understanding of events (and for the purposes of demonstrating a method of reasoning that’s all that matters for now) the bombing of Dresden served no purpose. It had no discernable effect on shortening the war or reducing casualties and the only rational explanation for it, apart from perhaps a desire to slaughter as many German civilians as possible, would appear to be as an example to the rapidly advancing Red Army.
"You may have a fearsome army, but look what the RAF can do."
Dresden was senseless slaughter. If it wasn’t entirely pointless it was pretty damned close. Hundreds of thousand of people were killed for no particular reason.
In contrast, horrific though it was, bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki had its benefits. It stopped the war in its tracks. Ending the war at that point was almost certainly good news for the rest of the Japanese civilian population facing starvation and an invasion would’ve incurred staggering casualties. Had the war continued far more lives would’ve been lost on both sides.
Possibly.
There’s an inescapable degree of speculation in such matters, about what other courses of action were available, and what their outcomes would’ve been. Few situations are absolutely clearcut and there’s considerable debate to this day about the circumstances surrounding the dropping of the A-bombs.
But from my, admittedly imperfect, knowledge of events I think the prospect of huge casualties had the war continued means that dropping the A-bombs, if not necessarily right, was certainly the lesser of two evils. Not dropping the bombs would have been more immoral.
That’s not a view I used to hold nor is it one that I’m entirely comfortable with but if you ask whether the bombings were justified I’d say yes.
And if you asked me whether they were terrorism I’d also say yes.
Neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki were really military targets. The intention was not to impair Japan's military capacity. The intention was to destroy the will to fight. To install such terror about the consequences of continuing that the Japanese high command would capitulate.
It was a ruthless act of terror mass terror inflicted on a civilian population to achieve a particular goal and I’m reasonably comfortable with it in moral terms. Now, leaving aside the details of this particular case, that type of reasoning puts me in some unpleasant company since it’s the same type of reasoning that justifies all kinds of unpleasantness. But it’s a type of reasoning that most people accept.
For most people the morality of an action is, to a large extent, determined by its consequences not its intent. To insist upon a moral position without regard to consequences is not something that most people would regard as moral at all. And if you do take a cost/benefit approach circumstances may compell you to adopt some fairly unpleasant positions.
Let me preface this by saying that many of you won’t agree with what I’m about to say but don’t get hung up on that for now. It’s a demonstration of the kind of reasoning that I’m personally amenable to and that many would find acceptable. First off it may be worthwhile contrasting the example I have in mind with another instance.
I regard the bombing of Dresden as an indefensible and shameful war crime.
On the other hand I regard the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as justifiable.
How do I come to such very different conclusions about events that have much in common? After all both involved the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians, including many mothers and their children?
Well from my understanding of events (and for the purposes of demonstrating a method of reasoning that’s all that matters for now) the bombing of Dresden served no purpose. It had no discernable effect on shortening the war or reducing casualties and the only rational explanation for it, apart from perhaps a desire to slaughter as many German civilians as possible, would appear to be as an example to the rapidly advancing Red Army.
"You may have a fearsome army, but look what the RAF can do."
Dresden was senseless slaughter. If it wasn’t entirely pointless it was pretty damned close. Hundreds of thousand of people were killed for no particular reason.
In contrast, horrific though it was, bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki had its benefits. It stopped the war in its tracks. Ending the war at that point was almost certainly good news for the rest of the Japanese civilian population facing starvation and an invasion would’ve incurred staggering casualties. Had the war continued far more lives would’ve been lost on both sides.
Possibly.
There’s an inescapable degree of speculation in such matters, about what other courses of action were available, and what their outcomes would’ve been. Few situations are absolutely clearcut and there’s considerable debate to this day about the circumstances surrounding the dropping of the A-bombs.
But from my, admittedly imperfect, knowledge of events I think the prospect of huge casualties had the war continued means that dropping the A-bombs, if not necessarily right, was certainly the lesser of two evils. Not dropping the bombs would have been more immoral.
That’s not a view I used to hold nor is it one that I’m entirely comfortable with but if you ask whether the bombings were justified I’d say yes.
And if you asked me whether they were terrorism I’d also say yes.
Neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki were really military targets. The intention was not to impair Japan's military capacity. The intention was to destroy the will to fight. To install such terror about the consequences of continuing that the Japanese high command would capitulate.
It was a ruthless act of terror mass terror inflicted on a civilian population to achieve a particular goal and I’m reasonably comfortable with it in moral terms. Now, leaving aside the details of this particular case, that type of reasoning puts me in some unpleasant company since it’s the same type of reasoning that justifies all kinds of unpleasantness. But it’s a type of reasoning that most people accept.
For most people the morality of an action is, to a large extent, determined by its consequences not its intent. To insist upon a moral position without regard to consequences is not something that most people would regard as moral at all. And if you do take a cost/benefit approach circumstances may compell you to adopt some fairly unpleasant positions.