So wait was Hiroshina and nagasaki terrorism?

I was pondering and wasn't Hiroshima and Nagasaki terrorism?

Terrorism is the use of terror to intimidate a leadership or people.

Hiroshima was to scare Japan into surrendering. So by dictionary terms it was terrorism.

Other definitions is attacking innocent people to push forth an agenda which it literally was (200K civilians in an instant to end a war and topple a regime).

So what do you think?

EDIT: to clarify-

Definition of Terrorism in thread: The Organized use of force against non military targets to pressure a government to further your own agenda.

Topics to think about:

Fighting Terror with terror?

Is terrorism ever Justifyable?

Why are some forms of terrorism more blown up than otheres?

No since we were at war with them. :|

So...Osama bin ladin isn't a terrosit he declared war on the west... hamas delcared war on Isreal, Al Shabab against Somalian governemnt.

So...Osama bin ladin isn't a terrosit he declared war on the west...mayceV

/facedesk Brush up on your history kid.

lol, what makes the word of a president an excuse to annihilate 200k people? mayceV

[QUOTE="mayceV"]So...Osama bin ladin isn't a terrosit he declared war on the west...Pirate700

/facedesk Brush up on your history kid.

It's not terrorism if you've been at an open, conventional war with the country for 4 years prior.

The bombings were an effort to make Japan surrender before a mainland invasion would happen. Of course while a handful of OT members here would come storming in with mostly after the fact articles saying how it was wrong, the world was very happy to end the war without a mainland invasion of Japan. The Russians were preparing an invasions of northern Japan and the USA was preparing an invasion of southern Japan. It would have been nothing short of months of slaughter on the mainland islands like it had been on many of the islands leading up to Japan itself.

The attack was a psychological one to make the people of Japan stop supporting the war effort. For years prior they had been brainswashed into doing the will of their god (the emperor). Even after firebombing their cities they did not want an unconditioinal surrender, the only kind that would ensure that the empire would never rise in power again.

I'm pretty sure it was retaliation.mrmusicman247

It was state terrorism, or war terroism. Call it what you wanna call it but it was terrorism and it worked.

pearl harbor has a much much much better case for terrorism than dropping bombs on the person who bombed you without a declaration of war.

Almost any military action can fall under the classification as terrorism. Pearl Harbor was a terrorist act. Germany's terror bombing against the dutch was terrorist. The allied bombing campaign against the germans was terrorism. The russian campaign against the german countryside was terrorism. Japan's actions in China were terrorism. Etc.

[QUOTE="mrmusicman247"]I'm pretty sure it was retaliation.mayceV

It's clear here you're not seeing the larger picture of WWII.

pearl harbor has a much much much better case for terrorism than dropping bombs on the person who bombed you without a declaration of war.

surrealnumber5

[QUOTE="mrmusicman247"]I'm pretty sure it was retaliation.mayceV

[QUOTE="mrmusicman247"]I'm pretty sure it was retaliation.mayceV

Almost any military action can fall under the classification as terrorism. Pearl Harbor was a terrorist act. Germany's terror bombing against the dutch was terrorist. The allied bombing campaign against the germans was terrorism. The russian campaign against the german countryside was terrorism. Japan's actions in China were terrorism. Etc.

sonicare

Yeah, if you beat your smaller brother to never touch your xbox, thats terrorism

It's not terrorism if you've been at an open, conventional war with the country for 4 years prior.

The bombings were an effort to make Japan surrender before a mainland invasion would happen. Of course while a handful of OT members here would come storming in with mostly after the fact articles saying how it was wrong, the world was very happy to end the war without a mainland invasion of Japan. The Russians were preparing an invasions of northern Japan and the USA was preparing an invasion of southern Japan. It would have been nothing short of months of slaughter on the mainland islands like it had been on many of the islands leading up to Japan itself.

Wasdie

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

pearl harbor has a much much much better case for terrorism than dropping bombs on the person who bombed you without a declaration of war.

Engrish_Major

[QUOTE="mayceV"][QUOTE="mrmusicman247"]I'm pretty sure it was retaliation.mrmusicman247

The problem is that you are taking those bombs out of context ofthe greater war. Something like 100 million people died in WW2, yet the deaths of those 200k people somehow is more unjust to you than the tens of millions of other civilians killed during the war. Almost every faction in WW2 deliberately targetted "non-military" targets or civilian centers throughout the course of the war. That's why war is hell and should be avoided when it can. Bad things happen when people try to kill each other and in the end, there really are no fast rules when it comes to killing.

i dont get it when today, the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is considered terrorism.

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

pearl harbor has a much much much better case for terrorism than dropping bombs on the person who bombed you without a declaration of war.

surrealnumber5

[QUOTE="mayceV"][QUOTE="mrmusicman247"]I'm pretty sure it was retaliation.MorningJuturna

[QUOTE="MorningJuturna"][QUOTE="mayceV"] ...to what? Japan was at war, yeah but what tipped the pot to drop a nuke on them? it wasn't retaliation. It was the systematic slaughter of 200 thousand civilians to end a war quickly. mayceV

Yes it kinda was, Why didn't they go on the ground? that was an option if they didn't want to kill thousnads. However they chose to kill them to finish the war quicker. So you're basically saying If I declare war on a country wait it out then i can nuke'm? It'd be terrorism if I drop a bomb on civlians why is it any diffrent if i did it in a war enviroment? War is between militaries why was the bomb not dropped on a military target rather two massive civilian centers? Its like saying I have the right to drop a nuke on NY if the war was getting exauhsting. It is to deal a Psychological blow to the Japanese telling hey I'm here i killed 200,000 civilians and I'll do it again if you don't meet my demands. 2nd bomb 150,000 annihilated. What if say Hamas or Iran did that to a country it was at war with( say the both magically got nukes)? mayceV

Please do some research on the culture of Japan during the 1930s and 1940s. We didn't invade because of the amount of dead we would cause by invading.

The Japanese people had been brainwashed for years, surrender to them was something worse than death. Dying for the emperor was the highest honor you could achive. To show this devotion, after each battle on the islands leading up to Japan, 99% of the Japanese army would have to be destroyed, they did not surrender. To make it worse, the civilians shared the same mentality. On Okinawa mothers were throwing their babies off of a cliff before jumping off themselves, all so they could avoid surrender. This wasn't an isolated incident, this was common practice by the Japanese.

Taking a further look into Japan you'll see they were training nearly everybody to resist until they were dead. Children at school had dedicated PT and hand-to-hand combat training, cities were fortified pretty heavily with outer defenses, and the beaches of Japan made Fortress Europe look like legos. The conservative exterminate at the time was that no less than 1 million Americans would be killed in the fighting. Considering what they had seen in past battles, the Japanese people would be slaughtered by the hundreds of thousands as dying for their god (the empreor) was more honorable than surrender.

Japan as we know it today would not exist. What is worse is that Russia would have invaded from the North before the USA could secure the mainland. Do some research on how the Russian invasion of Germany went. You'll quickly realize how bad it could have really been in Japan.

You should do some homework before making these claims. You're taking everything out of context to prove a very misguided and silly point.

it was terrorism on state scale

[QUOTE="sonicare"] The firebombing of Dresden was more systematic and caused more civilian deaths. But it wasnt a nuke so those hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths are ok by modern, revisionist logic.Engrish_Major

it was terrorism on state scale

Harisemo

With that logic, so is every single attack on civilians during a time of war.

It's really easy to take stuff out of context.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]Pearl Harbor was an actual military target.Engrish_Major

[QUOTE="Harisemo"]

it was terrorism on state scale

Wasdie

With that logic, so is every single attack on civilians during a time of war.

It's really easy to take stuff out of context.

well if you deliberately attack civilians yes it is terrorism.

I know the mentality of Japan was messed up yet by text book definition Hiroshima was terrorism. the US used terrorism to get japan to surrender. That's what I'm getting at. Japan wouldn't have surrender unless something big happened. US knew that and used a form of terrorism to get it done. Attacking civilians directly to pressure a government to do something is terrorism. Agree or not? Its not the war I'm going at, Japan was a way worse terrorist than anyone else after what they did in Nanjing. However its still terrorism.mayceV

I know the mentality of Japan was messed up yet by text book definition Hiroshima was terrorism. the US used terrorism to get japan to surrender. That's what I'm getting at. Japan wouldn't have surrender unless something big happened. US knew that and used a form of terrorism to get it done. Attacking civilians directly to pressure a government to do something is terrorism. Agree or not? Its not the war I'm going at, Japan was a way worse terrorist than anyone else after what they did in Nanjing. However its still terrorism.mayceV

You can't just use the phrase "terrorism" for everything. The meaning is already way to ambiguous to hold any real definition. At this point you could reduce everything ever used to scare some somebody into an act of terrorism.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="Harisemo"]

it was terrorism on state scale

With that logic, so is every single attack on civilians during a time of war.

It's really easy to take stuff out of context.

well if you deliberately attack civilians yes it is terrorism.

without a declaration of war there are no "legitimate targets", when in total war, such as WW2, there were no illegitimate targets. everyone bombed towns as they turned into forts for armies. im on call now but there was nothing outside of convention of that particular war with respects to the nukes.

surrealnumber5

[QUOTE="mayceV"]I know the mentality of Japan was messed up yet by text book definition Hiroshima was terrorism. the US used terrorism to get japan to surrender. That's what I'm getting at. Japan wouldn't have surrender unless something big happened. US knew that and used a form of terrorism to get it done. Attacking civilians directly to pressure a government to do something is terrorism. Agree or not? Its not the war I'm going at, Japan was a way worse terrorist than anyone else after what they did in Nanjing. However its still terrorism.Wasdie

You can't just use the phrase "terrorism" for everything. The meaning is already way to ambiguous to hold any real definition. At this point you could reduce everything ever used to scare some somebody into an act of terrorism.

I don't understand why everyone is fighting on whats terrorism and whats not.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were good terrorism, to say the least.

never said they were justified. that's the same as saying Hamas is justified in bombing Israeli towns because they are a way to hurt Israel. Both were very wrong in thier doings. the Nukes weren't justified and never will be. If they had dropped them on mr millitary oriented areas it probably would've been more acceptable. However There were a few point I wanted to come across in this thread actually. Fighting terrorism with Terrorism, Can terrorism ever be Justified, and Why are many acts of terrosim that are committed by countries ignored yet Osama bin Ladins killing of less than 25,000 total people blow up way more than say Genocides in Africa and and the such?mayceV

[QUOTE="mayceV"]never said they were justified. that's the same as saying Hamas is justified in bombing Israeli towns because they are a way to hurt Israel. Both were very wrong in thier doings. the Nukes weren't justified and never will be. If they had dropped them on mr millitary oriented areas it probably would've been more acceptable. However There were a few point I wanted to come across in this thread actually. Fighting terrorism with Terrorism, Can terrorism ever be Justified, and Why are many acts of terrosim that are committed by countries ignored yet Osama bin Ladins killing of less than 25,000 total people blow up way more than say Genocides in Africa and and the such?sonicare

I don't understand why everyone is fighting on whats terrorism and whats not.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were good terrorism, to say the least.