PDA

View Full Version : Worst act of terrorism in the past 100 years?



PeedeeShaolin
3rd March 04, 12:26 PM
Since terrorism seems to be the word for our decade I just thought I'd ask what everyone thought was the single worst act of terrorism in the past 100 years? There have been ALOT too. Everyone's going to give me shiit about mine but I'll start anyway(this isnt just to start a shiitstorm either):

U.S. attacks Nicaragua

In the 80's the United States massively attacked Nicaragua. Tens of thousands of people were killed in the assault. The country was destroyed to the point that many people believe it will never recover.

After the attack, the U.S. followed up with an intense economic war that a small country like Nicaragua could never sustain.

Nicaragua went before the World Court which found the United States guilty of "international terrorism" and ordered the U.S. to pay reperations. The U.S. responded by immediately upscaling the attack to include "soft targets" including hospitols, water purification plants etc.

Nicaragua then went before the UN security council which considered a resolution calling on all states to observe international law.

The U.S. alone vetoed the resolution.

This act of terrorism resulted in the U.S. being the only country condemned for international terrorismby the world court and the only country to veto a resolution calling on all states to observe international law.

The Wastrel
3rd March 04, 12:33 PM
The "Final Solution".

shironinja
3rd March 04, 12:44 PM
I vote for this one... because it didn't just target military but any man, woman, or child in the area.

I visited last year and saw the Peace Museum.. one section has a stone step removed from a bank where you can see the white patch where someone's son or daughter melted into the fucking stone.

Hiroshima Bombing

- On August 6th 1945, the Enola Gay, a USA bomber, dropped a bomb called "Little Boy" on Hiroshima. For extracts from the plane's flight log - click here
- 80,000 people were killed instantly
- Out of the city’s 55 hospitals, only 3 were usable after the blast.
- 90% of all doctors and nurses in Hiroshima were killed or injured
- Radiation claimed many more lives after the bomb was dropped.
- 48,000 out of 76,000 buildings were destroyed.
- The initial heat blast was 900 times hotter than the sun.
- Bodies were vapourised underneath the bomb blast.
- By 1950, 200,000 people had died as a result of the bomb.
- Between 1950 and 1980, a further 97,000 people died from cancers associated with the radiation caused by "Little Boy".

Also (On August 9th 1945, the bomber "Bockspur" dropped "Fat Man" on Nagasaki. Once again, the final number of deaths was over 200,000. )

source: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/hiroshima.htm

Vargas
3rd March 04, 12:44 PM
A tie between the Reign of Josef Stalin and The Great Leap Foward/Cultural Revolution. As far as I can tell, both Joe and Mao killed more civilians than Adolf. Course, it was their own civilians, so no one gave a shit. . .

Kein Haar
3rd March 04, 12:46 PM
I'd go with Pol Pot. That was what...? 20% of the entire population he offed?

Ronin
3rd March 04, 12:47 PM
Maybe we need to define "terrorism" and "terrorist act".

Vargas
3rd March 04, 12:48 PM
And shiro, the second B-29 was 'Bock's Car', as in a train's boxcar. And the conventional firebombing of Tokyo was way worse than Nagasaki and Hiroshima, it just took longer. Yeah, I saw the memorial at the U.N. for both cities. Funny, didn't see a memorial for Nanking or Korea. I wonder why. . .

punchingdummy
3rd March 04, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by shironinja
I vote for this one... because it didn't just target military but any man, woman, or child in the area.

I visited last year and saw the Peace Museum.. one section has a stone step removed from a bank where you can see the white patch where someone's son or daughter melted into the fucking stone.

Hiroshima Bombing

- On August 6th 1945, the Enola Gay, a USA bomber, dropped a bomb called "Little Boy" on Hiroshima. For extracts from the plane's flight log - click here
- 80,000 people were killed instantly
- Out of the city’s 55 hospitals, only 3 were usable after the blast.
- 90% of all doctors and nurses in Hiroshima were killed or injured
- Radiation claimed many more lives after the bomb was dropped.
- 48,000 out of 76,000 buildings were destroyed.
- The initial heat blast was 900 times hotter than the sun.
- Bodies were vapourised underneath the bomb blast.
- By 1950, 200,000 people had died as a result of the bomb.
- Between 1950 and 1980, a further 97,000 people died from cancers associated with the radiation caused by "Little Boy".

Also (On August 9th 1945, the bomber "Bockspur" dropped "Fat Man" on Nagasaki. Once again, the final number of deaths was over 200,000. )

source: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/hiroshima.htm

We shouldn't confuse declared state warfare with terrorism. Yes, civilians and soft targets were destroyed. But hundreds of thousands were killed with "dumb" bombs as well. Every civilian death sucks, but that is the reality of war...and to your point on a previous thread...one of the reasons why war is a shitty solution to most problems.

PeedeeShaolin
3rd March 04, 12:53 PM
Hiroshima was bad but it WAS during a time of war so I wouldnt consider it a terrorist act by the Untied States. There was no law prohibiting beating the shiit out of anither country TOO much during war. I know theres strong evidence that the attack was unessecary and just a display of power but it still took place in a time of declared war on another state.

Ronin
3rd March 04, 12:57 PM
If the purpose of a terrorst act is to instill fear, then many things are NOT terrorist acts, atrocities, sure, but a terroist act per se, no.
The "final solution" was an attempt at extermination, but I don't think it was a terrorsit act per se.
Yes it instill terror on the Jews, but terror was not the goal.
Or am I off here on my definition of "terrorist act" ?

The Wastrel
3rd March 04, 12:57 PM
Any case in which legitimate peace offerings would have been respected is hard to characterize as terrorism. I struggled Vargas, with giving the same answer, but the body count of the C.R. doesn't even approach the Holocaust. The Great Leap Forward far surpasses any state-sponsored body count in the 20th century, but it was arguably unintentional. Which is...almost funny.

shironinja
3rd March 04, 12:57 PM
Maybe, PeedeeShaolin (and partly why I chose something controversal...:) )

...

yet...

If Iraqi suicide bombers had decided to blow up a dirty nuke or set off an a-bomb in a US city while the US was busy razing Iraq ... THAT would be labelled an act of TERRORISM.

Interesting how the double standard is.

The Wastrel
3rd March 04, 12:57 PM
Terror is not the goal of terrorism. That's just stupid.

PeedeeShaolin
3rd March 04, 12:59 PM
Maybe we should put the holocaust in the category of ethnic cleansing and genocide and 9/11, the Oklahoma city bombings, suicide bombings, the Tokyo subway ordeal etc in the definition of terrorism.

Ronin
3rd March 04, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by The Wastrel
Terror is not the goal of terrorism. That's just stupid.

How so?

PeedeeShaolin
3rd March 04, 01:00 PM
You have to ask that Ronin?

PeedeeShaolin
3rd March 04, 01:01 PM
To believe that people like Bin Laden just fly planes into buildings to give people the willies in a little strange.

shironinja
3rd March 04, 01:01 PM
The term itself IS pretty broad...

ter·ror·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

source: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorism

"Unlawful"... hahah... by the winner's laws of course.

The Wastrel
3rd March 04, 01:03 PM
Why not just make REALLY SCARY movies?

Ronin
3rd March 04, 01:04 PM
Maybe its cause its "hump day", maybe its cause I haven't had lunch, maybe it was being dropped on my head yesterday in judo, but can someone explaine to me how TERRORisim is NOT about instilling fear/intimidation/terror ??

The Wastrel
3rd March 04, 01:04 PM
Ronin, it's like saying "the purpose of war is to kill people".

PeedeeShaolin
3rd March 04, 01:05 PM
Terrorists have a goal or gripe they are trying to draw attention to and eventually solve. They may be completely off about their cause and be in the wrong but they dont do the things they do just to frighten people.

Ronin
3rd March 04, 01:06 PM
Oh, I see, sorry, I was going by the literal sense, I get what you guy are doing.
Fucking canadiens.

Ronin
3rd March 04, 01:07 PM
So, is it fair to say that todays terrorists maybe tomorrows freedom fighters and vice-versa ?

The Wastrel
3rd March 04, 01:08 PM
The "terror" is just a means to an end.

PeedeeShaolin
3rd March 04, 01:09 PM
I think that if you use violence to achieve your means then gaining admiration will always be hard, unless you have a massive media to back you up and provide sufficient propoganda.

Ghandi would have been considered a terrorist also.

Osiris
3rd March 04, 01:11 PM
"So, is it fair to say that todays terrorists maybe tomorrows freedom fighters and vice-versa ?"

If they win, theyre freedom fighters. If they lose, theyre terrorists. At the moment theyre all terrorist.

Ronin
3rd March 04, 01:11 PM
Ghandi was looked at as a terrorist by the English, that's for sure.

shironinja
3rd March 04, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by PeedeeShaolin
I think that if you use violence to achieve your means then gaining admiration will always be hard, unless you have a massive media to back you up and provide sufficient propoganda. Phew! Good thing there's nobody like THAT around today!

...

Vargas
3rd March 04, 01:12 PM
Yeah, I've had the 'Terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology' arguement with a few folks here and there. As far as I can tell, terrorism tends to backfire more than it succeeds. The countries that have been targets of concentrated terror campaigns (Sri Lanka, Peru, Japan, the U.K., Israel, etc...) don't seem to be too shook up to me, but maybe I'm just missing something. . .

punchingdummy
3rd March 04, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by ronin69
So, is it fair to say that todays terrorists maybe tomorrows freedom fighters and vice-versa ?

Unfortunately, the answer is probably yes. Terrorism is the next generation of warfare.

Ronin
3rd March 04, 01:14 PM
In the broad sense of the word then, the worst act would be by sheer numbers? or aftermath?

The Wastrel
3rd March 04, 01:16 PM
"Terror" tactics without the real power to back it up are just a last-ditch effort, and so will tend to be associated with overall failure.

Of course...the Bolsheviks come to mind.

Ronin
3rd March 04, 01:19 PM
While not at the scale of the "final solution" the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans was a despicable act of terrorism.

Phoenix
3rd March 04, 07:17 PM
Kill one - terrify a thousand.

FingerorMoon?
3rd March 04, 08:00 PM
I'm confused by the difference between 'war' and 'terrorism'.
Is war officially defined as when one country/group formally declares its intentions to the other country/group ?

Or is war defined as countries where as terrorists are groups that do not necessarily share the view of the controlling government of that country ?

Shuma-Gorath
3rd March 04, 08:21 PM
I'm going to say 9-11, not because of the lives lost, but how the Bush administration ignored all signs that it was going to happen, dismantled plans to destroy the terrorist cells capable of carrying it out, then used the tragedy to create the Patriot Act and start carrying out the modern version of a crusade; one carried out for political reasons instead of religion. This is, however, offset by the destruction of Saddam, Qusay, Uday and the Taliban.


All of that crap is minor in comparison to how the actual attack set Islam back about a hundred years.

fragbot
3rd March 04, 08:46 PM
I think it's a grey area, but I also think reasonable people can make distinctions (or read Ralph Peters).

First, I'd say that, in common usage, terrorism involves non-state actors*. Thus, al qaeda is terrorist while, say, Burma isn't. Furthermore, I'd also posit that not all non-state actors are terrorists. Thus, you can have freedom_fighters/rebels who aren't terrorists. From a comfortable chair, I'd say it's a matter of tactics and targets.

To use a specific and current example:

1) Would I consider a Palestinian organization only targetting Israeli military personnel terrorist? Probably not.
2) If they targeted random civilians, yeah.
3) If they target both. It's not quite as clear then. If the civilian targetting seems random and wanton, probably. If it's clear targets weren't randomly chosen, I'd say probably not.

As an aside, does anyone know of a single instance where a terrorist group has achieved its political aims? Off the top of my head:

1) baader meinhof -- nope
2) (P)IRA -- nope
3) the myriad of Palestinian organizations -- nope
4) Abu Nidal -- nope
5) November 17th -- nope
6) Al Qaeda -- not exactly sure what their stated goal is. . .we're moving soldiers out of Saudi Arabia, but they're probably disappointed we just moved them a few klicks.
7) Abu Sayyaf -- nope. These get honorable mention for stupidity. . .the PI is over 90% Catholic.
8) Red Brigades -- nope
9) the Japanese Red Army -- nope

I debated listing some of the goofball organizations we had here in the 60s, but they're laughable.

*NOTE: this is not to say some states don't support terrorism. While an interesting discussion on its own, it's different than actually *being* one.

Ippatsu182
3rd March 04, 08:50 PM
I think the biggest difference between war and terrorism is that war is between two official governments (e.g. U.S.A. vs. Iraq), while terrorism is usually between some official government and some rebel group (e.g. U.S.A. vs. Al Queda).

I know there are other factors, but I guess they can be rather subjective (e.g. the attacking of citizens instead of soldiers).

Stick
3rd March 04, 09:53 PM
A note about Hiroshima and Nagasaki (I am not excusing US actions, but this a point I feel I must make); total casualties for the two atomic bombs were to the tune of approx 220,000 IIRC. Now compare that to the 280,000 that the Japanese army killed in Nanjing (nanking, the king part is actually an error in romanization), not only killed but gang raped, tortured, beaten, beheaded, machine gunned into ditches and off of bridges, and- my personal favorite- used as props in various photograpsh by Japanese soldiers as mommentos of their glorious victory.

That the atom bombs get so much more attention is only natural, theey're a terribly powerful weapon I hope we never use again. However, it is rather unsettling when college level Japanese citizens can extol the terrors of Nagasaki and Hiroshima and yet look totally puzzled when I mention Nanjing.

Had to say that.

BTW: Love the idea of the "Great Leap Forward" (Backwards?) as a terrorist act. Mao was a plague upon China, but I don't think he meant to kill 20 million people with that program so perhaps it should be qualified as the 20th century's greatest FUBAR rather than the 20th century's greatest act of terrorism.

Hmmmm, as for what I think qualifies as the greatest act of terrorism.

Damn, that's difficult.

I'll go with the assassination of Arch-duke Ferdinand.

DJeter1234
3rd March 04, 10:31 PM
"Of course...the Bolsheviks come to mind."

is a coup really an act of terrorism? I mean, they did overthrough a legitamate government, but they did so throgu normal warfare.

"If Iraqi suicide bombers had decided to blow up a dirty nuke or set off an a-bomb in a US city while the US was busy razing Iraq ... THAT would be labelled an act of TERRORISM."

yeah, that's why we called kamikaze terroristm ... o wait

and finally because i can:

"Jesus was a terrorist
Enemy of the state
That's what the Romans labeled him
So he was put to death

He died for his beliefs
What's changed today?

Today bible-thumping cannibals
Reap money from his name
Buy cable networks & power
With old ladies' checks

If Jesus saw Pat Robertson
What do you think he'd say?
Tax free then re-write our laws
And sick 'em on you
Women don't control their bodies
TV preachers do

Censor everything from bathing suits
To science books
From the schoolroom to the bedroom
They want our thoughts - or else

They treat us like the Romans
Used to treat the Christians
Even some church-going folks are scared

Modern catacombs of fear
Built with money, power, and threats
Rock 'n Roll is labeled porn
Sell a record, you're under arrest

Instead of fighting AIDS
They try to stop us having sex
They brag that they won't quit
Till they take dominion over our lives

Is freedom of speech such a terrorist act
Is spiritual peace such a satanic threat
Believe what you want
But we'll fight to keep
Our heads from being cemented in your sand"

Stick
3rd March 04, 10:45 PM
nice one jeter. Yours or a really obvious quote that everyone knows but me?

Phoenix
3rd March 04, 10:47 PM
I think cases like Columbine and Taber, Alberta qualify as pretty terrible cases of domestic terrorism.

A terrorist act doesn't necessarily have to have a political agenda - although alot of times, it does.

Mong
4th March 04, 12:15 AM
Terrorism = advertisement with an attitude.

I'ld also go with the assassination of Arch-duke Ferdinand except that WWI was a situation ready to happen - that was just the trigger. If it was not some deranged serb it would have been something else.

The "Final Solution"? Nasty but to be frank it terrorized only the people it targeted. Eventually it revolted a whole lot more but its immediate effect (as in terrorizing) was quite minimal.

I have the feeling that 911 will go down in history as much bigger than it looks now - and it looks pretty big. Basically if Bush baby had pounded the Taliban and Bin Laden et al. things would have been containable but no he went on the make things far worse. We are getting another bi-polar world - exactly what those particular terrorists wanted.

RockTiger
4th March 04, 03:55 AM
Originally posted by Mong
Terrorism = advertisement with an attitude.

I'ld also go with the assassination of Arch-duke Ferdinand except that WWI was a situation ready to happen - that was just the trigger. If it was not some deranged serb it would have been something else.

The "Final Solution"? Nasty but to be frank it terrorized only the people it targeted. Eventually it revolted a whole lot more but its immediate effect (as in terrorizing) was quite minimal.

I have the feeling that 911 will go down in history as much bigger than it looks now - and it looks pretty big. Basically if Bush baby had pounded the Taliban and Bin Laden et al. things would have been containable but no he went on the make things far worse. We are getting another bi-polar world - exactly what those particular terrorists wanted.

This is what you wrote. Tell me man... does it look like you come off as a moron or is it just me?

Mong
4th March 04, 04:15 AM
Originally posted by RockTiger
This is what you wrote. Tell me man... does it look like you come off as a moron or is it just me? Nope - its just you that comes across as a moron.

So tell me what part do you disagree with and why?

Stick
4th March 04, 05:44 AM
Originally posted by Mong
Terrorism = advertisement with an attitude.

Now that's just an adorable over simplification.

Advertisement with attitude involves body painting professional cheerleaders, not suicide bombing a cafe.



I'ld also go with the assassination of Arch-duke Ferdinand except that WWI was a situation ready to happen - that was just the trigger. If it was not some deranged serb it would have been something else.

This I'll agree with you on this. The world was a powder keg as the 20th century began.



The "Final Solution"? Nasty but to be frank it terrorized only the people it targeted. Eventually it revolted a whole lot more but its immediate effect (as in terrorizing) was quite minimal.

It terrorized me when I visited the camps and that was a good 50 years after the last person had died in them.

To say that it was minimal is ridiculous; need I quote the death toll?



I have the feeling that 911 will go down in history as much bigger than it looks now - and it looks pretty big. Basically if Bush baby had pounded the Taliban and Bin Laden et al. things would have been containable but no he went on the make things far worse. We are getting another bi-polar world - exactly what those particular terrorists wanted.

You alluded to a trigger before with regards to WWI and the arch-duke, I contest that the world was already bi-polar (the US as the remaining super power.... and then everyone else). If it had not been the twin towers it would've been the release of anthrax at an NFL game, the pocket nuke in Seatle, or the outbreak of some here-to-for unknown biological weapon in the heart land.

In that sense, yes 9/11 will probably be very important to historians.

As for Bush fucking things up- granted, he's an idiot whom I despise-, chances are no one would've come outof post 9/11 looking like a good president (accept maybe FDR).

Anywho.

On the holocaust tidbit, I'd have to agree with rocktiger; you sound like a moron.

Mong
4th March 04, 06:20 AM
Originally posted by Dai-Tenshi
Now that's just an adorable over simplification.

As it was meant to be - I think what defines terrorism is not so much dead bodies but the need to bring attention to a cause. War and genocide produce huge amounts of bodies but you don't get the phone call claiming responsibility.





It terrorized me when I visited the camps and that was a good 50 years after the last person had died in them.

To say that it was minimal is ridiculous; need I quote the death toll?

Absolutely no need. I also think it was one of history's greatest atrocities. Mass murder is one thing - but this was so systematic the mind boggles.

But if you read what I said I was talking about the immediate effect as an act of terror; which if you will bear with me I'll explain.

The single gunshot, the assasination of one man, arguably caused WWI which resulted in conditions which gave rise to totalitarism and through that WWII, the Final Solution, the Cold War, etc. Major major effect.

If you take the "Final Solution" in isolation the general population of Germany wasn't terrorized (it was effectively kept secret), no wars or shifts of government policy resulted until the end of the war, when Western Allied nations belatedly felt guilty for their inaction. I think the only lasting effect (beside the obvious death of 6 million human beings) was the creation of the State of Israel. One could argue that it might have still been created without the Holocaust but I would probably disagree with that.

The thread was about the worst act of terror - on both body count and terror effect it really far from the worst. And yes I would use the word minimal with respect to the overall IMMEDIATE effect.





You alluded to a trigger before with regards to WWI and the arch-duke, I contest that the world was already bi-polar (the US as the remaining super power.... and then everyone else). If it had not been the twin towers it would've been the release of anthrax at an NFL game, the pocket nuke in Seatle, or the outbreak of some here-to-for unknown biological weapon in the heart land.

In that sense, yes 9/11 will probably be very important to historians.

As for Bush fucking things up- granted, he's an idiot whom I despise-, chances are no one would've come outof post 9/11 looking like a good president (accept maybe FDR).

Bi-polar suggests two powers.


Anywho.

On the holocaust tidbit, I'd have to agree with rocktiger; you sound like a moron.
I voiced an opinion - how anal are we supposed to be about Political Correctness. Nowhere did I suggest the Holocaust did not happen, that it was a good thing, but really as an act, at the time, it was a whimper. The "Final Solution" as you probably know came after the camps started filling up. A huge number of people were not dragged from their beds but showed up at collecttion points with suitcases in hand. That does not detract from the horror within the camp but the effect on the population at large, including the target population (for a time) was ... well they all considered themselves good Germans.

coolmove
4th March 04, 06:49 AM
Salvador Allende, Chile, another 11-9

died defending the "Palacio de la moneda"

you all know who was behind that one

coolmove
4th March 04, 06:50 AM
When you kill one it is a tragedy, when you kill ten million it is a statistic
- Joseph Stalin

so the morale is: do what you please, right or wrong, but do it BIG TIME

coolmove
4th March 04, 06:51 AM
http://www.nodo50.org/allende/logo1.jpg

coolmove
4th March 04, 06:57 AM
i know it's been said (and i agree) its not really terrorism but...


The Enola Gay exhibition at the National Air and Space Museum closed on May 18, 1998. Images and highlights from that exhibition, including QTVR movies of the nose and cockpit, are still available online.

can someone in the forum please explain to me HOW THE FUCK is it possible to be proud to have that exhibited?

coolmove
4th March 04, 06:58 AM
http://www.nasm.si.edu/galleries/GAL103/SI95-4624.t.gif

"oh look mom, the nice shiny airplane, why is it here? tell me mom, tell me?"

"errr"

Ronin
4th March 04, 07:38 AM
Originally posted by DJeter1234
"Of course...the Bolsheviks come to mind."

is a coup really an act of terrorism? I mean, they did overthrough a legitamate government, but they did so throgu normal warfare.

"If Iraqi suicide bombers had decided to blow up a dirty nuke or set off an a-bomb in a US city while the US was busy razing Iraq ... THAT would be labelled an act of TERRORISM."

yeah, that's why we called kamikaze terroristm ... o wait

and finally because i can:

"Jesus was a terrorist
Enemy of the state
That's what the Romans labeled him
So he was put to death

He died for his beliefs
What's changed today?

Today bible-thumping cannibals
Reap money from his name
Buy cable networks & power
With old ladies' checks

If Jesus saw Pat Robertson
What do you think he'd say?
Tax free then re-write our laws
And sick 'em on you
Women don't control their bodies
TV preachers do

Censor everything from bathing suits
To science books
From the schoolroom to the bedroom
They want our thoughts - or else

They treat us like the Romans
Used to treat the Christians
Even some church-going folks are scared

Modern catacombs of fear
Built with money, power, and threats
Rock 'n Roll is labeled porn
Sell a record, you're under arrest

Instead of fighting AIDS
They try to stop us having sex
They brag that they won't quit
Till they take dominion over our lives

Is freedom of speech such a terrorist act
Is spiritual peace such a satanic threat
Believe what you want
But we'll fight to keep
Our heads from being cemented in your sand"

The above shows the danger of taking a word and defining it OUTSIDE its literal sense.

CanuckMA
4th March 04, 09:20 AM
Best definition of terrorism I've heard was: The delibarate targetting of non-combatant, while not engaged in a declared war, for the purpose of political or financial gain.

And as much as I hate to say this, as a child of survivors, the Holocaust was not terrorism. Sick, demented, worst genocide ever YES, but not terrorism.

DJeter1234
4th March 04, 01:41 PM
its a dead kennedys song, not my personal opinion

Mong
4th March 04, 09:19 PM
Originally posted by CanuckMA
... the Holocaust .... Sick, demented, worst genocide ever

Agreed. I don't care how far back you go in history - nothing even comes close.

MrMcFu
5th March 04, 07:18 AM
Fire bombing of Dresden anyone? Sure it was during a war, but it was clearly unecessary.

Ronin
5th March 04, 07:25 AM
I don't want to get into something that will give out the wrong impression but, how many jews were killed during holocaust ?
I here conflicting numbers, not that numbers matter that much, some say 3 million some say 6 million.

Stick
5th March 04, 11:17 AM
only ever heard the 6 million figure

MrMcFu
6th March 04, 03:44 AM
I think the official numbers were 6 million. Why does everyone forget the 13 million killed during Stalin's pograms?

I think we are starting the to play the "who suffered more" game.

Kein Haar
6th March 04, 07:10 AM
Salvador Allende, Chile, another 11-9

died defending the "Palacio de la moneda"

you all know who was behind that one

Yeah!!!11

pssst...hey...somebody. What the hell is he talking about?

CanuckMA
6th March 04, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by MrMcFu
I think the official numbers were 6 million. Why does everyone forget the 13 million killed during Stalin's pograms?

I think we are starting the to play the "who suffered more" game.

It's not a 'who suffered more game'. All other genocides, Russia, Cambodia, China, Rwanda, Bosnia, were part of a civil war. Doesn't make them any less senseless.

The Holocaust stands alone in the fact that the Jews posed no treats to Hitler's power base, were systematicaly gathered from all over Europe and that an entire infrastructure was built for the express purpose of exterminating a people. It also still stands alone in being the only genocide still being denied by some.

Ronin, the lesser figures usually bandied about come from the newest form of deniers. They will admit that the camps existed and the 'some' Jews were killed and then quote much lower figures, usually with some rational on how it would be physically impossible to kill 6 million.

MrMcFu
6th March 04, 12:41 PM
That doesn't make it worse than anything other one.


The Holocaust stands alone in the fact that the Jews posed no treats to Hitler's power base, were systematicaly gathered from all over Europe and that an entire infrastructure was built for the express purpose of exterminating a people. It also still stands alone in being the only genocide still being denied by some.

I call bullshit on some of this. Other genocides are being denied all the time. Look at the Balkans, look at the Ibu genocide in Nigeria. Look at slavery in the US!!!! You have individuals or groups claiming these things never happened or minimize it ALL THE TIME.

There was always a percieved threat, which is why these things take place. Hitler acted like he percieved the Jews as a threat (okay he was using them as a scapegoat, but whatever).

This was not special, but another series of long running examples of people killing each other. Sure, you can pick out certain characteristics that may or may not make it unique, but please spare the whole, "speicalness" side of it.

Phoenix
6th March 04, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by MrMcFu
I think the official numbers were 6 million. Why does everyone forget the 13 million killed during Stalin's pograms?

I think we are starting the to play the "who suffered more" game.


Actually, MrMcFu, it was more like 30 million, but who's counting?

MrMcFu
6th March 04, 12:55 PM
Yes, you are right- I looked it up and that is probably closer to the actual number. I have seen it as high as 100 Million as well.

Phoenix
6th March 04, 01:03 PM
Yeah. I think the bulk of them were ethnic Ukranians and Polish.

CanuckMA
7th March 04, 12:05 AM
Originally posted by MrMcFu
That doesn't make it worse than anything other one.



I call bullshit on some of this. Other genocides are being denied all the time. Look at the Balkans, look at the Ibu genocide in Nigeria. Look at slavery in the US!!!! You have individuals or groups claiming these things never happened or minimize it ALL THE TIME.

Denied by other than the perpetrators or groups related to them?


There was always a percieved threat, which is why these things take place. Hitler acted like he percieved the Jews as a threat (okay he was using them as a scapegoat, but whatever).

This was not special, but another series of long running examples of people killing each other. Sure, you can pick out certain characteristics that may or may not make it unique, but please spare the whole, "speicalness" side of it.

There has never been another example of infrastructure being built for the sole purpose of eliminating a specific group of people, and of the gathering of that people outside of the perpetrator's notional borders. Remember, there are records of Hitler diverting trains away from the front in order to finish the 'final solution' at the end of the war. It is indeed special.

The Wastrel
7th March 04, 12:09 AM
The "Final Solution"? Nasty but to be frank it terrorized only the people it targeted.

Hilarious.

And the assasination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand did not "cause" WWI.

MrMcFu
7th March 04, 12:17 AM
Denied by other than the perpetrators or groups related to them?

I don't see why this matters. There will always be people who doubt the occurence of any particular historical event.


There has never been another example of infrastructure being built for the sole purpose of eliminating a specific group of people, and of the gathering of that people outside of the perpetrator's notional borders. Remember, there are records of Hitler diverting trains away from the front in order to finish the 'final solution' at the end of the war. It is indeed special.

Okay, you win. Every genocide is a snowflake. Seriously though, you are trying to quantify human suffering by putting this on another level. In so doing, this starts the "Who suffered more" game. As I said before, you can pick out unique characteristics of each one.

The Wastrel
7th March 04, 12:18 AM
The Tutsi/Hutu thing was a genuine case of state-sponsored terrorism, and is comparable to the Holocaust in terms of organization and explicit, deliberate agenda. But maybe not in numbers (?).

Mong
7th March 04, 04:45 AM
Originally posted by The Wastrel
Hilarious.

And the assasination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand did not "cause" WWI.

In the same post that you quoted I said


I'ld also go with the assassination of Arch-duke Ferdinand except that WWI was a situation ready to happen - that was just the trigger. If it was not some deranged serb it would have been something else.

Notice the except in the sentence. It means that I don't think the assasination made one bit of difference - so we agree. It is seen as a trigger, the straw that broke the camels back, call it what you will.

And just curious about the hilarious, at the time, besides the victims who did it terrorize. The general population of Germany was pretty complacent about what they were told was going on. The "Final Solution" as I mentioned before was even kept secret from them.

The six million figure for the Holocaust is the one I'm happy to quote but its really just a pretty good guess. The Germans were absolutely anal about keeping records but lots were destroyed. The numbers come from guesses of pre-war Jewish populations (again a lot of records were destroyed) and more accurate versions of who were left. I've heard credible numbers from 4.5 million to 8 but can't for the life of me figure what difference it makes - its one massive number. Rwanda was what 1 million? Again a massive number - (significantly less than the Holocaust) but still massive. Rwanda is different in that a much larger chunk of the population was caught up in the actual killing. Armenia was a genocide or ethnic cleansing - can someone tell me what the difference is?

The Wastrel
7th March 04, 10:49 AM
Ethnic cleansing doesn't necessarily involve organized genocide. It is removing people from a location. It includes genocide, but not necessarily.


And just curious about the hilarious, at the time, besides the victims who did it terrorize. The general population of Germany was pretty complacent about what they were told was going on. The "Final Solution" as I mentioned before was even kept secret from them.

And the hilarity is compounded. Think about it.

Osiris
7th March 04, 11:02 AM
"besides the victims who did it terrorize."

Umm...

Raven
7th March 04, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by Mong

And just curious about the hilarious, at the time, besides the victims who did it terrorize. The general population of Germany was pretty complacent about what they were told was going on. The "Final Solution" as I mentioned before was even kept secret from them.



Bullshit.

Soldiers came home and talked. Even the allies had an idea of what was going on, maybe not to the extent.

Raven
7th March 04, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by CanuckMA

There has never been another example of infrastructure being built for the sole purpose of eliminating a specific group of people, and of the gathering of that people outside of the perpetrator's notional borders.

I guess the witchhunts/inquisition doesn't coutnt....

You could be called to Rome regardless of where you lived, and you had no what act you had commited, only that it was a form of herasey.

CanuckMA
7th March 04, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by Shadowofravenwolf
I guess the witchhunts/inquisition doesn't coutnt....

You could be called to Rome regardless of where you lived, and you had no what act you had commited, only that it was a form of herasey.

And those rounded up how many entire communities?

Killed half of the worldwide population of which groups?

Mong
7th March 04, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by The Wastrel
Ethnic cleansing doesn't necessarily involve organized genocide. It is removing people from a location. It includes genocide, but not necessarily.

I'll go with that - thinking about it Stalin was famous for moving entire ethnic groups across the country. People died because of it but it wasn't genocidal in intent.


And the hilarity is compounded. Think about it.
So I'm being thick. Still not laughing.


Originally posted by Shadowofravenwolf
Soldiers came home and talked. Even the allies had an idea of what was going on, maybe not to the extent.

Well yes, and near the end even potential victims themselves had a pretty good idea about what lay in wait. The soldiers and the allies and the people they told were not terrorized, the people in the Warsaw Getto I am sure were.

I think the argument resolves around how narrow or broad your definition of terrorism is. Mine is pretty narrow.

Let me try one more time.

Krystalnacht was a clear example of state induced terror. It was meant to instill fear in a particular population.

The Final Solution was not because its intent was not to strike or increase fear - its purpose was far more sinister.

The Wastrel
7th March 04, 07:33 PM
That last quote isn't from me.

Mong
7th March 04, 07:35 PM
Sorry - I knew that - I had intended to replace your name with the person who did make the quote.

Editing it now.

The_Ghost
8th March 04, 12:33 AM
1) Joseph Stalins mass murders
2) Concentration Camps
3) US attack on Nicragua

The last one is big because the world condemned us and we still did it (no shocker there).

The Wastrel
8th March 04, 02:09 AM
Okay, I talked to a friend of mine who is a Russia/Soviet specialist. He confirmed that the Bolsheviks did indeed use real, inarguably terroristic tactics. And they did succeed. So it would appear they are one glaring example.

Kein Haar
8th March 04, 02:49 AM
It's not a 'who suffered more game'.

Yes it is, and you win. Now stfu.

As for second or third place...

Poles have been the brunt of cruel jokes for decades. Even an episode of Gimme A Break dealt with the trials and tribulations of a Polish American trying to make his way in the world. There was a joke regarding the injury of a leaf-raking pole and how it happened, but I dare not repeat it.

Sure... they are white, relatively non-descript both socially and physically. And true...the only *overt* beef we might have had with any of them is their last names and Andrew Golota, but STILL....

I call it a "caucasian middle passage". Another apt description would be "holocaust of humor".

Osiris
8th March 04, 03:09 AM
WTF?

Raven
8th March 04, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by Mong
I'll go with that - thinking about it Stalin was famous for moving entire ethnic groups across the country. People died because of it but it wasn't genocidal in intent.

So I'm being thick. Still not laughing.



Well yes, and near the end even potential victims themselves had a pretty good idea about what lay in wait. The soldiers and the allies and the people they told were not terrorized, the people in the Warsaw Getto I am sure were.

The Final Solution was not because its intent was not to strike or increase fear - its purpose was far more sinister.

I think they knew LONG before "the end." There are accounts of Jews being forced to cremate the bodies, and remove the bodies from the gas chambers. It would take a brain surgeon to figure that out.

Raven
8th March 04, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by CanuckMA
And those rounded up how many entire communities?

Killed half of the worldwide population of which groups?

I don't think they had the means to Germans did. But the still tortured and killed a fuckload of people. Mainly women.

CanuckMA
8th March 04, 07:17 PM
Originally posted by Shadowofravenwolf
I don't think they had the means to Germans did. But the still tortured and killed a fuckload of people. Mainly women.

In it's 350 years history, the Inquisition killed between 3,000 and 5,000 people. During that same period, there were 150,000 documented witch burning in Europe.

Raven
8th March 04, 07:34 PM
Originally posted by CanuckMA
In it's 350 years history, the Inquisition killed between 3,000 and 5,000 people. During that same period, there were 150,000 documented witch burning in Europe.

Source? I have never heard numbers before, and what region were these taken from?

Those numbers as still significant, considering they did not have the modern methods the Nazi's used.