a different history

[ish mailian]

We agree that the term, for countless reason, not the least of which is
that it has recently taken on right wing connotations, is become a
meaningless one.

Also, I think that contrasting the US atomic bombings of Japan is more
constructive than  comparing it with other bombings. How were these
bombings so different from all others?



On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Mike Weaver <mike.weaver at zen.co.uk> wrote:

> >Terrorism in its broadest sense is the use of violence in the pursuit of
> political aims.
>
> I'm sorry but that is the right wing definition which is being used to
> justify the demonisation of any political violence not sanctioned by those
> who control the state. It is so broad as to be meaningless.
>
> I think before it was so appropriated it was used to describe acts of
> (usually) political violence which aimed to install terror in the minds of
> the civilian populations.
>
> The purpose of the redefinition has been to destroy, in the minds of
> unpoliticised people, any distinction between 'freedom fighters' and
> 'terrorists'. Just another tool of control.
>
>
>
> Ish Mailian <ishmailian at gmail.com> wrote :
>
> > Terrorism in its broadest sense is the use of violence in the pursuit of
> political aims. So, much as we bristle at the use of the loaded term, that
> carries, especially in the U.S. post 11 September,  to describe the
> bombings of Japan, it is, broadly accurate. In fact, it seems a term that
> those who support the US bombings might employ because it places emphasis
> on the political aims, that is, to force Japan to surrender and negotiate
> an end of war. That said, it's still rather counter productive to use
> the term, or  to engage in easy, up on the high horse history, to conflate
> the bombings, thus diminishing them, making of the victims, and the all of
> the lessons we have and continue to take from them, silent slaughtered
> sheep. The facts are known and reasonable, moral people disagree about the
> decision to use the weapons, and, for those who condemn or condone the
> decision to use the weapons, still further disagreement exists about the
> targets selected. Two facts that should be considered when taking a
> position on the targets, irrespective of one's position on the use of
> the bombs, is that the decision makers wanted targets that had not been
> under significant  previous bombing attacks. It appalling, from our high
> horses of easy history, to reads that the decision makers wanted to target
> cities that would burn, but this strategy was employed with conventional
> bombs as well. The targeting of  factories, working class neighborhoods,
> was the norm not the exception in WWII, a noted exception, of course,
> London.
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20150810/b3176550/attachment.html>