Martin Sheen proud of uncle's IRA past

[IAN 2411]

Yes, they were atrocities. They were also acts of terrorism.

They were acts of war carried out not for defensive purposes but a show of strength, [God help us]. I know the British were involved in all three of those atrocities that I mentioned, but they were no better than the atrocities and inhumane killing of the Jews. There was the shock and awe tactics in Iraq at the beginning, another example of an atrocity, because there was no justification to that either. Once again this was carried out by the same two countries that are now leading the fight against terrorism. What is good for the goose is obviously not good for the gander.

How many people are still afraid to fly? How many people get worked up by the very sight of a dark skinned man with a beard on a plane? If no one is terrified, why are so many people being inconvenienced by the TSA and Homeland Security?

Or those who are afraid of something bad that might happen to them personally.

How many people won't go outside their garden for a fear of something bad taking place? How many people are afraid to drive or be driven on the road in case they are in an accident? How many people are afraid of cruises because of the fear of drowning? There is no substance in that quote because it is a real minority and can be classed alongside others.

They were all intended to get the surviving civilian populations to force their governments to end the war. In the case of Dresden, the area of the city which was bombed had virtually no military value, and so IMO had no military justification. Nagasaki and Hiroshima, on the other hand, were valid military targets, filled with war industry and military units. The fact that they also sufficed to bring the Japanese government to surrender, thereby potentially saving far more lives than they took, may provide some justification for them. That does not make them any less horrific, nor does it deny that they were ultimately acts of terrorism. Just that, as far as the Allied nations were concerned, they were "good" acts of terrorism.

There is no such thing as a good act of terrorism. You are generalising terrorism to suit your argument, to make atrocities in any mans eyes look clean. If Nagasaki and Hiroshima, was holding, and/or were producing these weapons then why did the Americans not bomb the shipping? They had the ability to do so or they could not have dropped the bombs that they did...and why “two” if it was an act of terrorism? Surely one would have been enough?

Be well IAN 2411