Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (25018)	4/13/2002 11:23:43 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The intent in each of those cases was to terrorize civilian populations as way to force a surrender. I would argue with this assertion. Sherman did not engage in rape and wholescale slaughter (the usual terror methods in war), rather he sought to destroy the economic base that supported the Southern war effort. In the case of Hiroshoma and Nagasaki, the terror of the civilian population was not the point as they had no say in matters. Rather it was to convince the leadership that not only were they going to lose (they knew that already), but if they didn't surrender, there would be nothing left. Bringing cases of full-scale war into the discussion confuses the picture imo since terror is a traditional component of warfare. This doesn't mean that terrorism has no meaning, just that the term usually doesn't make sense in the context of two economies waging modern total war. There are still many methods for obtaining political ends short of full scale war: politics, persuasion, civil disobedience, extortion, riots, guerilla war, terrorism, etc. It is when a group chooses terrorism out of this list of methods, especially when they had other options and could have chosen other methods, that they can clearly be called terrorists. What is the Red Tent?