So wait was Hiroshina and nagasaki terrorism?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for mayceV
mayceV

4633

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 20

User Lists: 0

#1 mayceV
Member since 2008 • 4633 Posts

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?

Avatar image for Pirate700
Pirate700

46465

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 Pirate700
Member since 2008 • 46465 Posts

No since we were at war with them. :|

Avatar image for mayceV
mayceV

4633

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 20

User Lists: 0

#3 mayceV
Member since 2008 • 4633 Posts

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

Avatar image for Pirate700
Pirate700

46465

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 Pirate700
Member since 2008 • 46465 Posts

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

/facedesk Brush up on your history kid.

Avatar image for mayceV
mayceV

4633

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 20

User Lists: 0

#5 mayceV
Member since 2008 • 4633 Posts
lol, what makes the word of a president an excuse to annihilate 200k people?
Avatar image for MorningJuturna
MorningJuturna

33

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 MorningJuturna
Member since 2011 • 33 Posts
lol, what makes the word of a president an excuse to annihilate 200k people? mayceV
Nothing. But with Osama, the political, cultural, and social reasons for him being a terrorist go beyond the scope of a global second World War. Fact is, Osama "declared" war on us, sure. But we in no way, were fighting a full fledged ground war with him, and he doesn't represent an entire country. He represents a terrorist group. There is a big difference.
Avatar image for mayceV
mayceV

4633

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 20

User Lists: 0

#7 mayceV
Member since 2008 • 4633 Posts

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

/facedesk Brush up on your history kid.

Also, if you're saying that a country's government declared the war, then what about Hamas? they have controll of Gaza and were actually elected into power. All shabab controls land in Somalia, the Taliban ran Afghanistan at one point. so your point isn't really strong.

Avatar image for mrmusicman247
mrmusicman247

17601

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 mrmusicman247
Member since 2008 • 17601 Posts
I'm pretty sure it was retaliation.
Avatar image for Engrish_Major
Engrish_Major

17373

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 Engrish_Major
Member since 2007 • 17373 Posts
It was terrorism in the fact that we weren't attacking legitimate military targets (you could say the same thing about the carpet bombing of German cities). The purpose was psychological more than strategic.
Avatar image for Wasdie
Wasdie

53622

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 23

User Lists: 0

#10 Wasdie  Moderator
Member since 2003 • 53622 Posts

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.

Avatar image for mayceV
mayceV

4633

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 20

User Lists: 0

#11 mayceV
Member since 2008 • 4633 Posts
I'm pretty sure it was retaliation.mrmusicman247
...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.
Avatar image for DrPickle
DrPickle

370

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#12 DrPickle
Member since 2011 • 370 Posts

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

Avatar image for surrealnumber5
surrealnumber5

23044

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#13 surrealnumber5
Member since 2008 • 23044 Posts

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.

Avatar image for deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51

57548

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#14 deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
Member since 2004 • 57548 Posts

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.

Avatar image for Wasdie
Wasdie

53622

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 23

User Lists: 0

#15 Wasdie  Moderator
Member since 2003 • 53622 Posts

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

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

Avatar image for Engrish_Major
Engrish_Major

17373

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#16 Engrish_Major
Member since 2007 • 17373 Posts

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
Pearl Harbor was an actual military target.
Avatar image for mrmusicman247
mrmusicman247

17601

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#17 mrmusicman247
Member since 2008 • 17601 Posts
[QUOTE="mrmusicman247"]I'm pretty sure it was retaliation.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.

I know I'm horrible at history but I know for a fact we were at war and that they bombed Pearl Harbor. So it wasn't a retaliation on Japan attacking the US?
Avatar image for MorningJuturna
MorningJuturna

33

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#18 MorningJuturna
Member since 2011 • 33 Posts
[QUOTE="mrmusicman247"]I'm pretty sure it was retaliation.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.

I'm not trying to be mean, but you really don't grasp World War II, nor do you understand what "systematic slaughter" is. A nuke is not systematic at all.
Avatar image for MorningJuturna
MorningJuturna

33

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#19 MorningJuturna
Member since 2011 • 33 Posts
For the record, Pearl Harbor wasn't terrorism. The United States had allied with nations who were against Japan, and Pearl Harbor is a MILITARY OUTPOST. Was it a surprise? Yes. But we had declared war (at this point) with Japans enemies.
Avatar image for DrPickle
DrPickle

370

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#20 DrPickle
Member since 2011 • 370 Posts

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

Avatar image for mayceV
mayceV

4633

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 20

User Lists: 0

#21 mayceV
Member since 2008 • 4633 Posts

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
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)?
Avatar image for surrealnumber5
surrealnumber5

23044

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#22 surrealnumber5
Member since 2008 • 23044 Posts

[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

Pearl Harbor was an actual military target.

and the intent was to hurt america so bad that we would lose stomach for war and role over, also as previously noted there was no war declaration at the time of the attacks. thenukes were used to end the war before it got worse, not to "scare" people, intent matters in action.

Avatar image for mayceV
mayceV

4633

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 20

User Lists: 0

#23 mayceV
Member since 2008 • 4633 Posts
[QUOTE="mayceV"][QUOTE="mrmusicman247"]I'm pretty sure it was retaliation.mrmusicman247
...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.

I know I'm horrible at history but I know for a fact we were at war and that they bombed Pearl Harbor. So it wasn't a retaliation on Japan attacking the US?

actually the retaliation to PH was declaration of formal war. The US was allied with the Allies but it was full military action.
Avatar image for MorningJuturna
MorningJuturna

33

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#24 MorningJuturna
Member since 2011 • 33 Posts
Again, not to be rude, but you clearly don't understand what you're talking about. Thousands upon thousands of US (and other countries such as Russian) soldiers would have died on the islands of Japan due to a mainland invasion. :/ Either way, lives would have been lost. And people like you (who don't understand history and have distorted facts on World Events) would have cried too.
Avatar image for deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51

57548

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#25 deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
Member since 2004 • 57548 Posts

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.

Avatar image for punkpunker
punkpunker

3383

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#26 punkpunker
Member since 2006 • 3383 Posts

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

Avatar image for Engrish_Major
Engrish_Major

17373

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#27 Engrish_Major
Member since 2007 • 17373 Posts

[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

Pearl Harbor was an actual military target.

and the intent was to hurt america so bad that we would lose stomach for war and role over, also as previously noted there was no war declaration at the time of the attacks. thenukes were used to end the war before it got worse, not to "scare" people, intent matters in action.

The intent of Pearl Harbor was to cripple our military presence in their sphere of operations. The purpose of the atomic bombs was to coerce the Japanese government to surrender. There was little to no strategic, military target where we dropped the bombs. That's the difference. The atomic bombings fit into many definitions of terrorism (as there is no one single definition). You can hardly fit Pearl Harbor into any of them, as even after the Geneva Conventions, it still is a legitimate target. The atomic bombings would not have been allowed under the Geneva Conventions.
Avatar image for mayceV
mayceV

4633

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 20

User Lists: 0

#28 mayceV
Member since 2008 • 4633 Posts
[QUOTE="mayceV"][QUOTE="mrmusicman247"]I'm pretty sure it was retaliation.MorningJuturna
...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.

I'm not trying to be mean, but you really don't grasp World War II, nor do you understand what "systematic slaughter" is. A nuke is not systematic at all.

ok, maybe not systematic sorry there.
Avatar image for deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51

57548

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#29 deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
Member since 2004 • 57548 Posts
[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
I'm not trying to be mean, but you really don't grasp World War II, nor do you understand what "systematic slaughter" is. A nuke is not systematic at all.

ok, maybe not systematic sorry there.

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.
Avatar image for Engrish_Major
Engrish_Major

17373

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#30 Engrish_Major
Member since 2007 • 17373 Posts
[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.

No, I equated carpet bombing to the atomic bombing.I don't know who would say that one is OK but not the other.
Avatar image for mayceV
mayceV

4633

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 20

User Lists: 0

#31 mayceV
Member since 2008 • 4633 Posts
[QUOTE="MorningJuturna"]Again, not to be rude, but you clearly don't understand what you're talking about. Thousands upon thousands of US (and other countries such as Russian) soldiers would have died on the islands of Japan due to a mainland invasion. :/ Either way, lives would have been lost. And people like you (who don't understand history and have distorted facts on World Events) would have cried too.

alright, invasion on ground is a stupid Idea. knew I would get flamed for it. However The nukes weren't a military action in the same sense as taking a military target. There wasn't any significance to the two cities other than pure pressure to end the war in Japan. had they attacked a more military oriented objective it would be the same as Pearl Harbor other many battles of WWII.
Avatar image for Wasdie
Wasdie

53622

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 23

User Lists: 0

#32 Wasdie  Moderator
Member since 2003 • 53622 Posts

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.

Avatar image for Harisemo
Harisemo

4133

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#33 Harisemo
Member since 2010 • 4133 Posts

it was terrorism on state scale

Avatar image for deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51

57548

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#34 deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
Member since 2004 • 57548 Posts
[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
No, I equated carpet bombing to the atomic bombing.I don't know who would say that one is OK but not the other.

I wasnt referring to you. But my point is that by omission, most people are justifying the conventional bombing of non-military targets. People almost exclusively focus on the atomic bombings and ignore every other bad aspect of the war. I don't see how one is worse than the other.
Avatar image for Wasdie
Wasdie

53622

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 23

User Lists: 0

#35 Wasdie  Moderator
Member since 2003 • 53622 Posts

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.

Avatar image for surrealnumber5
surrealnumber5

23044

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#36 surrealnumber5
Member since 2008 • 23044 Posts

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

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

and the intent was to hurt america so bad that we would lose stomach for war and role over, also as previously noted there was no war declaration at the time of the attacks. thenukes were used to end the war before it got worse, not to "scare" people, intent matters in action.

The intent of Pearl Harbor was to cripple our military presence in their sphere of operations. The purpose of the atomic bombs was to coerce the Japanese government to surrender. There was little to no strategic, military target where we dropped the bombs. That's the difference. The atomic bombings fit into many definitions of terrorism (as there is no one single definition). You can hardly fit Pearl Harbor into any of them, as even after the Geneva Conventions, it still is a legitimate target. The atomic bombings would not have been allowed under the Geneva Conventions.

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.

Avatar image for mayceV
mayceV

4633

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 20

User Lists: 0

#37 mayceV
Member since 2008 • 4633 Posts
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.
Avatar image for Harisemo
Harisemo

4133

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#38 Harisemo
Member since 2010 • 4133 Posts

[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.

Avatar image for PunkAntiHero
PunkAntiHero

628

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#39 PunkAntiHero
Member since 2011 • 628 Posts
How could it be terrorism when we were at war with Japan?
Avatar image for deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51

57548

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#40 deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
Member since 2004 • 57548 Posts
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 think the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were unfortunate. I think all of ww2 was unfortunate and wished that people would find some other way to resolve things than killing each other. But I dont think you can justify bad actions against someone by saying they've committed bad actions as well. Sure, the japanese army committed many atrocious acts in China, but that still doesnt mean that the bombs were justified on that account.
Avatar image for Wasdie
Wasdie

53622

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 23

User Lists: 0

#41 Wasdie  Moderator
Member since 2003 • 53622 Posts

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.

Avatar image for deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51

57548

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#42 deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
Member since 2004 • 57548 Posts
[QUOTE="Harisemo"]

[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.

I'm going to hold you to that definition.
Avatar image for Engrish_Major
Engrish_Major

17373

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#43 Engrish_Major
Member since 2007 • 17373 Posts

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
Yes, everyone did it. That doesn't make it not terrorism. The bombings of civilian targets were often billed (even by the aggressor) as being psychological in purpose, in order to turn the population against the actions of their governments. They are not legitimate military targets.
Avatar image for mayceV
mayceV

4633

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 20

User Lists: 0

#44 mayceV
Member since 2008 • 4633 Posts
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?
Avatar image for mayceV
mayceV

4633

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 20

User Lists: 0

#45 mayceV
Member since 2008 • 4633 Posts

[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.

What I mean by terrorism, is: the use of organized force against non military targets to pressure a government or people in charge to further your agenda.
Avatar image for mayceV
mayceV

4633

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 20

User Lists: 0

#46 mayceV
Member since 2008 • 4633 Posts
Topic edited for Wasdie :)
Avatar image for DrPickle
DrPickle

370

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#47 DrPickle
Member since 2011 • 370 Posts

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

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

Avatar image for deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51

57548

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#48 deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
Member since 2004 • 57548 Posts
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
People tend to focus on things that affect them.
Avatar image for mayceV
mayceV

4633

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 20

User Lists: 0

#49 mayceV
Member since 2008 • 4633 Posts
[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
People tend to focus on things that affect them.

eh, I guessed as much, everyone is always a little selfish. Some more than others. But what do you think about the other two points?
Avatar image for mayceV
mayceV

4633

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 20

User Lists: 0

#50 mayceV
Member since 2008 • 4633 Posts
[QUOTE="DrPickle"]

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

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

What is good terrorism then?