Definitions I find talk about slaughter of large number of individuals by attackers who suffer relatively minor losses.
Other definitions talk about indiscriminate mass killings on up to genocide, which seems a bit steep.
But you have a point.
-cb
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Max Sawicky
> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 4:53 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: RE: The case against conspiracy
>
>
> Around here I have to stipulate that I see the U.S.
> role in WWII as a great contribution to humanity.
>
> That aside, to me massacre connotes an attack by one
> force on another where the strengths of the two are
> grossly disproportionate, and the stronger side
> elects to exploit its advantage by attempting to
> murder their opposition wholesale. There is also
> the connotation that the extent of force used has
> a gratuitous dimension. This doesn't
> sound like Pearl Harbor, where the Japanese effort,
> whatever you think of their motivation, was directed
> against a large, heavily armed opposition, and
> where their intent was not the destruction of life
> per se but of naval ships. There were huge numbers
> of casualties in various Civil War battles, but most
> people wouldn't call them massacres.
>
> mbs
>
>
> > > 2. An unsuccessful (the main target, the aircraft carriers,
> > > having been sent safely to sea beforehand) attack on a
> > > major military base can scarcely rank as any sort of
"massacre"
>
> > Few military historians consider the attack a minor event, it
> > seriously hurt the U.S. Navy, and it cost the lives of 2,300
> > people--a massacre by most reasonable standards.
>