[Tailz]

Then I disagree with you. I gave 2 examples, and I think they both show valid use of intentional killing of civilians. If America didn't drop those bombs on Japan the war would have dragged for decades with millions in causalities. I have no doubt about it.

The dropping of the atom bomb upon Japan was the continuation of the bombing campaign, that both the Axis Pact states and the Allied states all engaged in - and thus should be seen in such a light.

But even given the case of the atomic bombs, after the Second World War the mentality towards such bombing campaigns that target civilians (directly or indirectly) changed, and thus the WWII Bomber Command crews did not gain a a separate campaign medal for the area bombing campign. Plus with the development of the Geneva Conventions, the targeting, directly or indirectly of civilians is now considered a war crime and a crime against humanity.

As to the issue of the atomic bombing being the factor that forced Japan to the surrender table, this is also a false assumption. Although popular history tells us that the Japanese surrendered because of the threat posed by the atomic bombs, the Japanese high command theorised correctly that the Allies only had two atomic bombs, and that it would be months (if not years) before the Allies could manufacture more, thus the atomic bombs were seen as less of a threat than the current fire-bombing of Japanese cities. Instead the Japanese were contacting the Russians in order to request that the Russians negotiate on the behalf of Japan, the "conditional" surrender of Japan with the Western Allies. It was at this moment that the Red Army invaded Japanese occupied China in force and rolled back the Japanese presence there. Japan now had no other option than total destruction at the hands of the Red Army and the Western Allies, or the demanded "unconditional" surrender of the Japanese home islands. Even then, the Japanese high command had to fight off an internal insurrection aimed at preventing the broadcast of the Emperors surrender message.

Your position is too idealistic. When the world will be a a more peaceful and organized place with a system of policing and real international courts, then we might totally ban terrorism. Until then, it is a valid tool, and if you don't use it, someone else will use it against you and you'll gonna suffer or die.

My opinion may be idealistic, yet it is that idealism that the bulk of the worlds people are turning towards on this subject matter. Thus why the Geneva Conventions are so widely supported.

It is curious to see your support of terrorism, considering your stance towards Palestinian terrorism. Hight of hypocrisy some would say... I know I do.

The act of creating mass civilian casualties, from bombing or otherwise, has never turned public opinion in the direction of the power that carries out the act - thus why the bombing of German cities only galvanised support for the Nazis, and the British stood firm in support of Churchill against German bombing of British cities. As for today's idealistic views on the bombing of the past...

"...ever since the deliberate mass bombing of civilians in the second world war, and as a direct response to it, the international community has outlawed the practice. It first tried to do so in the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, but the UK and the US would not agree, since to do so would have been an admission of guilt for their systematic "area bombing" of German and Japanese civilians." - British philosopher A. C. Grayling.

"The Nazi Holocaust was among the most evil genocides in history. But the Allies’ firebombing of Dresden and nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were also war crimes... We are all capable of evil and must be restrained by law from committing it." - Dr. Gregory H. Stanton, international lawyer and president of Genocide Watch.

[Azale]

"They sought the dismantling of white rule in their respective societies, which in turn led to a decline in power, security, and quality of life for the resident white populations.

Most people who post threads like this actually oppose Mandela (or King) for that reason, but aren't willing to come out and say it and thus turn to distractions."

I would argue that the white power structures were unnatural and bottled up pressures (demographic, political, social) of all kind that were not allowed a release under apartheid's repression. The subsequent problems faced under the ANC were something that should have been expected, but could have been mostly avoided if the Afrikaners had not be so violently oppressive and if their policies had not been so traumatic on the majority of the population for so many decades.

The same is true for Zimbabwe, but less obvious since Mugabe's kleptocracy has somehow legitimized the longterm idiotic policies of the Nationalists. If it wasnt for apartheid, there would have been no need for a man like Mugabe to seize power.

So yea, it's their own damn fault.

[eugenekop]

It is curious to see your support of terrorism, considering your stance towards Palestinian terrorism. Hight of hypocrisy some would say... I know I do.

Terrorism can be necessary when no other solutions are available. I can even sympathize with Palestinians over the first Intifada, but after the peace talks started they should have stopped it, yet they continued massively terrorizing Israel for 2 more decades. This is inexcusable.

[Okonkwo]

[Mod Note: Let's keep the Palestinians and Israelis out of the Africa forum. Thank you.]

[sarahmay]

The man did not change the NATION.... The NAtion wanted it changed..... He is a great man and he was a great leader, but he did not do it on his own.... he alone did not win the Nobel Peace prize, he won it with DeKlerk ......together..... the country was behind him..... we Afrikans believe in UBUNTU .... look it up, educate and enlighten yourselves ....