So wait was Hiroshina and nagasaki terrorism?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for surrealnumber5
surrealnumber5

23044

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#51 surrealnumber5
Member since 2008 • 23044 Posts

lol @ wasdie trying to tell people who have been brainwashed for years to hate everything about america, that america had to make a radical decision because the population was brainwashed, to do whatever the emperor wanted and in this case, to hate america.

Avatar image for Harisemo
Harisemo

4133

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#52 Harisemo
Member since 2010 • 4133 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.

mayceV

What is good terrorism then?

terrorism by USA

Avatar image for LaytonsCat
LaytonsCat

3652

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#53 LaytonsCat
Member since 2010 • 3652 Posts

War trumps terrorism so by definition it wasn't. Plus a nuke had to be used by someone to prove its legitmacy

Avatar image for mayceV
mayceV

4633

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 20

User Lists: 0

#54 mayceV
Member since 2008 • 4633 Posts

lol @ wasdie trying to tell people who have been brainwashed for years to hate everything about america, that america had to make a radical decision because the population was brainwashed, to do whatever the emperor wanted and in this case, to hate america.

surrealnumber5

if you're refering to me I'm a Palestinian American:)

Avatar image for mayceV
mayceV

4633

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 20

User Lists: 0

#55 mayceV
Member since 2008 • 4633 Posts

War trumps terrorism so by definition it wasn't. Plus a nuke had to be used by someone to prove its legitmacy

LaytonsCat
because, killing people is the only way to make any weapon legitimate? so is the Hydrogen bomb legitimate?
Avatar image for DrPickle
DrPickle

370

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#56 DrPickle
Member since 2011 • 370 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.

mayceV

What is good terrorism then?

Terrorism that serve to deter further conflict.

Avatar image for mayceV
mayceV

4633

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 20

User Lists: 0

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

[QUOTE="mayceV"][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?

Terrorism that serve to deter further conflict.

eh, so you'd commit a genocide of 500,000 people to stop a war destined to kill 8 million? So, would you tell that to the 500,000 people or would someone else? I think all terrorism is wrong, no matter what. All terrorism can be avoided. terrorism is a way to cut corners at the expense of civilian lives.
Avatar image for Wasdie
Wasdie

53622

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 23

User Lists: 0

#58 Wasdie  Moderator
Member since 2003 • 53622 Posts

lol @ wasdie trying to tell people who have been brainwashed for years to hate everything about america, that america had to make a radical decision because the population was brainwashed, to do whatever the emperor wanted and in this case, to hate america.

surrealnumber5

The Japanese people weren't brainwashed to hate America, just be ultra loyal to the emperor. They were already fighting and dying for the Emperor long before they attacked the USA.

Avatar image for deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51

57548

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

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

[QUOTE="mayceV"][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?

Terrorism that serve to deter further conflict.

That's how a lot of people justify current terrorism. That it's for some "noble" goal. I dont think you ever can justify it.
Avatar image for deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51

57548

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

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

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

lol @ wasdie trying to tell people who have been brainwashed for years to hate everything about america, that america had to make a radical decision because the population was brainwashed, to do whatever the emperor wanted and in this case, to hate america.

The Japanese people weren't brainwashed to hate America, just be ultra loyal to the emperor. They were already fighting and dying for the Emperor long before they attacked the USA.

I dont know if they were ultra-loyal to the emperor as much as being ultra-nationalist or loyal to their homeland. Regardless, the only way the war in the pacific was going to end was with the unconditional surrender of Japan. The only way that was going to happen was with a massive invasion of mainland Japan as planned. Japan was beaten but they certainly were not going to give an unconditional surrender. You can make the argument - pro or con - about a conditional surrender, but given the events of Germay after ww1, you can understand why the allies were hesistant about that.
Avatar image for DrPickle
DrPickle

370

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#61 DrPickle
Member since 2011 • 370 Posts

[QUOTE="DrPickle"]

[QUOTE="mayceV"] What is good terrorism then? mayceV

Terrorism that serve to deter further conflict.

eh, so you'd commit a genocide of 500,000 people to stop a war destined to kill 8 million? So, would you tell that to the 500,000 people or would someone else? I think all terrorism is wrong, no matter what. All terrorism can be avoided. terrorism is a way to cut corners at the expense of civilian lives.

Yeah, i'd sure as hell kill 500,000 people WHO ARE TRYING TO KILL ME and stop destined future conflict between their entire 10 Million population with my entire 10 Million population!

Therefore I have terrorized the 500,000 people toSTOP TRYING TO KILL ME and to stop fighting. By doing that I have saved generations of my people and of greater casualties of their people. Any country capable of such an option would most definitely use it. Why the **** would I lose my people's lives for my enemies lives?

Avatar image for surrealnumber5
surrealnumber5

23044

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#62 surrealnumber5
Member since 2008 • 23044 Posts

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

lol @ wasdie trying to tell people who have been brainwashed for years to hate everything about america, that america had to make a radical decision because the population was brainwashed, to do whatever the emperor wanted and in this case, to hate america.

Wasdie

The Japanese people weren't brainwashed to hate America, just be ultra loyal to the emperor. They were already fighting and dying for the Emperor long before they attacked the USA.

did you miss the "...to do whatever the emperor wanted and in this case..." part of my post?

Avatar image for DrPickle
DrPickle

370

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#63 DrPickle
Member since 2011 • 370 Posts

[QUOTE="DrPickle"]

[QUOTE="mayceV"] What is good terrorism then? sonicare

Terrorism that serve to deter further conflict.

That's how a lot of people justify current terrorism. That it's for some "noble" goal. I dont think you ever can justify it.

Current terrorism is not to deter conflicts, since its mainly minority terrorism against majority which makes no difference regarldess of why the minority refer to terrorism ( could be to inflict damage, simply for the heck to terrorize, political goal, resistance movements w/e )

Avatar image for GazaAli
GazaAli

25216

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#65 GazaAli
Member since 2007 • 25216 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.Engrish_Major
/thread, No need for +5 pages of replies.
Avatar image for wis3boi
wis3boi

32507

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#66 wis3boi
Member since 2005 • 32507 Posts
[QUOTE="mayceV"][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?

the two nukes dropped on Japan to end a war early that otherwise would have killed millions in a land invasion
Avatar image for topsemag55
topsemag55

19063

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

#67 topsemag55
Member since 2007 • 19063 Posts

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

mayceV
One of the best reads on this is the Wiki article on President Harry S. Truman. He said he did the right thing, and he would decide the same if it had to be.
Avatar image for Serraph105
Serraph105

36096

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#68 Serraph105
Member since 2007 • 36096 Posts

they did attack us first. Also we gave them three days notice which was a chance for them to surrender.

Avatar image for deactivated-6127ced9bcba0
deactivated-6127ced9bcba0

31700

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#69 deactivated-6127ced9bcba0
Member since 2006 • 31700 Posts

Last time I checked we were at war. We didn't bomb Japan without provocation.

Not to mention Japan's entire population was contributing to the war effort, so it's impossible to distinguish military targets.

Avatar image for mayceV
mayceV

4633

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 20

User Lists: 0

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

[QUOTE="mayceV"][QUOTE="DrPickle"]

Terrorism that serve to deter further conflict.

eh, so you'd commit a genocide of 500,000 people to stop a war destined to kill 8 million? So, would you tell that to the 500,000 people or would someone else? I think all terrorism is wrong, no matter what. All terrorism can be avoided. terrorism is a way to cut corners at the expense of civilian lives.

Yeah, i'd sure as hell kill 500,000 people WHO ARE TRYING TO KILL ME and stop destined future conflict between their entire 10 Million population with my entire 10 Million population!

Therefore I have terrorized the 500,000 people toSTOP TRYING TO KILL ME and to stop fighting. By doing that I have saved generations of my people and of greater casualties of their people. Any country capable of such an option would most definitely use it. Why the **** would I lose my people's lives for my enemies lives?

What if that group of 500,000 people were innocent women and children? Terror is never Justified. Never. I'd rather watch my own country die before I lower myself to a genocidal monster. You say that you would allow 500,000 innocent people die at your hands than allow your own people to try saving themselves in a war? Any human willing to kill anyone because he's a diffrent people and thus worth less than his own people's lives is a supremesist. What makes your own people better than other people? Say anything other they aren't, and that is racism. Every human has the same value as another. You cannot put another person above another. Meaning a Homless man's life is equal to the president's life. When people stop the idea that thier people is better than another we'd be able to live without racism. What you have in your mind is the core issue of racism. You think that your people are better than another. Can I ask, why?
Avatar image for mrbojangles25
mrbojangles25

60943

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#71 mrbojangles25
Member since 2005 • 60943 Posts

Hiroshima and N agasaki were military targets, contrary to popular belief. The entire cities were moblized and devoted to the war effort.

The atomic bombs dropped during WWII were a lot of things, but they were most definitely not terrorism.

Avatar image for Sunsha
Sunsha

20662

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#72 Sunsha
Member since 2005 • 20662 Posts
I'm pretty sure it was retaliation.mrmusicman247
Sort of...but they attacked a base of armed forces. We did something unnecessary and over the top. I believe even some of the higher ups at the time advised the president against the bombing. Japan would have surrendered without it.
Avatar image for SaintLeonidas
SaintLeonidas

26735

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#73 SaintLeonidas
Member since 2006 • 26735 Posts

Are you comparing something like the seemingly unprovoked attack, on innocent civilians, during a time of "peace" by a well know terrorist cell to the bombing of two cities, with connection to the war effort of a country we had been at full scale war with for years, started after they attacked us first, as an attempt to stop a full scale invasion that would have resulted in the death of many more Japanese civilians and military personal on both sides? So if China bombed California, and we nuked them in an attempt to stop the war it would be a terrorist attack? I can understand making the connection that to instill a sense of fear/terror can be said for both, but the situations surrounding the bombings in WWII and what we perceive as terrorist attacks today are COMPLETELY different. Just because on the surface the objective might seem the same, does not mean that the causes or intended outcomes are anything alike.

Avatar image for ad1x2
ad1x2

8430

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#74 ad1x2
Member since 2005 • 8430 Posts

The bombings were a long time ago, my grandmother was barely out of diapers when it happened. I don't think the term terrorism even existed back then but a bunch of kids are coming out saying we're terrorists because we bombed Japan. It wasn't terrorism, it was war. It's easy to say what *should* have happened when it won't affect you personally but it's a different story when your decision could result in the deaths of millions of men under your command, something nobody on this board can claim.

20-year old men of today are whining and complaining now about how evil the US was for bombing Japan but I doubt the 20-year old men of 1945 in the military who were preparing to invade Japan and possibly fight to their deaths were complaining back then. Nor were their wives who were relieved their husbands (who may be the grandfathers of some of the posters here) were coming back home instead of dying in a land invasion that was estimated to kill millions.

I feel bad that innocent people died in the bombing but it was a legitimate target. It also showed us the aftereffects of the bombs, which is probably a big reason we haven't used them since. Considering that this is Gamespot, I 'd assume some of you are glad we ended the war the way we did. If we invaded Russia would have invaded the North and the US would have invaded the South. For all we know Japan could have ended up split up like Korea did. Which would have probably affected your precious videogames and anime.

Avatar image for UniverseIX
UniverseIX

989

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#75 UniverseIX
Member since 2011 • 989 Posts

. I don't think the term terrorism even existed back then ad1x2
It did, and even if it didn't, it doesn't mean the inception of new words can't be applied to past events.

In response to the thread, it most certaintly was terrorism. The point was to terrify the enemy so they'd stop fighting. And it worked or so they say. Of course what most people refer to a s terrorism now is orchestrated by crippled countries or groups that have limited means to fight so instead of fighting with nukes, they suicide bomb, and hijack airplanes and crash them into buildings.

Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#76 deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts

The bombings were a long time ago, my grandmother was barely out of diapers when it happened. I don't think the term terrorism even existed back then but a bunch of kids are coming out saying we're terrorists because we bombed Japan. It wasn't terrorism, it was war. It's easy to say what *should* have happened when it won't affect you personally but it's a different story when your decision could result in the deaths of millions of men under your command, something nobody on this board can claim.

20-year old men of today are whining and complaining now about how evil the US was for bombing Japan but I doubt the 20-year old men of 1945 in the military who were preparing to invade Japan and possibly fight to their deaths were complaining back then. Nor were their wives who were relieved their husbands (who may be the grandfathers of some of the posters here) were coming back home instead of dying in a land invasion that was estimated to kill millions.

I feel bad that innocent people died in the bombing but it was a legitimate target. It also showed us the aftereffects of the bombs, which is probably a big reason we haven't used them since. Considering that this is Gamespot, I 'd assume some of you are glad we ended the war the way we did. If we invaded Russia would have invaded the North and the US would have invaded the South. For all we know Japan could have ended up split up like Korea did. Which would have probably affected your precious videogames and anime.

ad1x2

Except there was no need to invade Japan.. Their airforce and navy were ruined when the US navy were at their shores.. All they had to do is blockade long enough and they would have crumbled.. This is going beyond the point at hand.. No the bombings may have been many things but a act of terrorism not all.

Avatar image for Shadow_Fighter
Shadow_Fighter

223

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#77 Shadow_Fighter
Member since 2006 • 223 Posts

Just figured I would mention that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both military targets.

Hiroshima at the time of he bombing had a few military camp including the head quarters of the 5th Division and 2nd General Army headquarters which commanded the defences of southern Japan. Was also a supply and logistics base, communication center, storage and assembly area for troops.

As for Nagasaki is was a large sea port nd had alot of industry that produced ammo, ships, and varies military equipment. While alot of the industry was damaged before droping the atomic bomb on Nagasakithe port was mostly untouched.

Seems like both cities had alot of militay significace and honostly think about it, you got 2 bombs that cost alot moey and time to produce, do you honostly think they would be used on cities that had little to no military significance. People really need to do research on military matters before going off on rants.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#78 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180302 Posts
Was Pearl Harbor?
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#79 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180302 Posts

Hiroshima and N agasaki were military targets, contrary to popular belief. The entire cities were moblized and devoted to the war effort.

The atomic bombs dropped during WWII were a lot of things, but they were most definitely not terrorism.

mrbojangles25
Exactly that.....and they were warned about the attack as well.
Avatar image for Diviniuz
Diviniuz

6460

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 73

User Lists: 0

#80 Diviniuz
Member since 2009 • 6460 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.

wait what? this statement is wrong
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#81 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180302 Posts
[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]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.GazaAli
/thread, No need for +5 pages of replies.

That's wrong. Both cities were military targets...
Avatar image for Engrish_Major
Engrish_Major

17373

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#82 Engrish_Major
Member since 2007 • 17373 Posts
[QUOTE="GazaAli"][QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]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.LJS9502_basic
/thread, No need for +5 pages of replies.

That's wrong. Both cities were military targets...

If you were to apply the Geneva Conventions retroactively (as they were not present during WW2), as we are using the term "terrorism" retroactively, then they would not be legitimage targets, as the civilian deaths far outweigh the military significance.
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#83 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180302 Posts
[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="GazaAli"] /thread, No need for +5 pages of replies.

That's wrong. Both cities were military targets...

If you were to apply the Geneva Conventions retroactively (as they were not present during WW2), as we are using the term "terrorism" retroactively, then they would not be legitimage targets, as the civilian deaths far outweigh the military significance.

It's not today.....and both cities were hit because of military importance. Though in the case of Japan all citizens were expected to fight anyway.....so they would still under that ideology be a legitimate target.
Avatar image for UniverseIX
UniverseIX

989

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#84 UniverseIX
Member since 2011 • 989 Posts

Just figured I would mention that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both military targets.

Hiroshima at the time of he bombing had a few military camp including the head quarters of the 5th Division and 2nd General Army headquarters which commanded the defences of southern Japan. Was also a supply and logistics base, communication center, storage and assembly area for troops.

As for Nagasaki is was a large sea port nd had alot of industry that produced ammo, ships, and varies military equipment. While alot of the industry was damaged before droping the atomic bomb on Nagasakithe port was mostly untouched.

Seems like both cities had alot of militay significace and honostly think about it, you got 2 bombs that cost alot moey and time to produce, do you honostly think they would be used on cities that had little to no military significance. People really need to do research on military matters before going off on rants.

Shadow_Fighter
This type of thinking makes no sense to me. What is or is not a military target has nothing to do with what is terrorism or is not terrorism. Supported military actions by a majority of people in a population can still be acts of terrorism. Acts of terrorism are even necessary, but because people want to separate themselves from their enemies they say no, what we do is not terror. It is above terror because it's a military target. Let's own the truth here. Terror works. Pretending to be righteous is sickening.
Avatar image for Engrish_Major
Engrish_Major

17373

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#85 Engrish_Major
Member since 2007 • 17373 Posts
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] It's not today.....and both cities were hit because of military importance. Though in the case of Japan all citizens were expected to fight anyway.....so they would still under that ideology be a legitimate target.

No, they were still civilians at that time. We are trying to use a term retroactively (terrorism) to see if it was. So, I'm using the opposite term (as anything that does not follow the Geneva Conventions is generally considered terrorism). And the definition of legitimate military targets does not include the destruction of entire cities.
Avatar image for ZumaJones07
ZumaJones07

16457

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#86 ZumaJones07
Member since 2005 • 16457 Posts
You're looking at it all wrong, the US can never be the terrorists in any equation. We're awesome.
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#87 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180302 Posts

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] It's not today.....and both cities were hit because of military importance. Though in the case of Japan all citizens were expected to fight anyway.....so they would still under that ideology be a legitimate target.Engrish_Major
No, they were still civilians at that time. We are trying to use a term retroactively (terrorism) to see if it was. So, I'm using the opposite term (as anything that does not follow the Geneva Conventions is generally considered terrorism). And the definition oflegitimate military targets does not include the destruction of entire cities.

Now you've missed the point. First....it wasn't against any international law at the time and retroactively attempting to make it so isn't correct. Second both cities had a high value in regard to military importance. They were not mere civilian populations. Third.....as I stated civilians were told to fight back against invading forces. Meaning at that point that they've been told (and accepted) the job of fighting back....they were no longer civilians. Fourth.....it depends as well on what definition one is willing to give to terrorism. Fifth....when Pearl Harbor was attacked the US was not a combatant in the war. If anything Pearl Harbor could be seen as an act of terrorism. Lastly the definition you linked gives leeway as to what necessitates a legitimate military target. Considering the casualties that have been estimated to be the result of continued war would have been higher....than using your definition...it was a legitimate military target. Now /thread.

Avatar image for Engrish_Major
Engrish_Major

17373

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#88 Engrish_Major
Member since 2007 • 17373 Posts

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] It's not today.....and both cities were hit because of military importance. Though in the case of Japan all citizens were expected to fight anyway.....so they would still under that ideology be a legitimate target.LJS9502_basic

No, they were still civilians at that time. We are trying to use a term retroactively (terrorism) to see if it was. So, I'm using the opposite term (as anything that does not follow the Geneva Conventions is generally considered terrorism). And the definition oflegitimate military targets does not include the destruction of entire cities.

Now you've missed the point. First....it wasn't against any international law at the time and retroactively attempting to make it so isn't correct. Second both cities had a high value in regard to military importance. They were not mere civilian populations. Third.....as I stated civilians were told to fight back against invading forces. Meaning at that point that they've been told (and accepted) the job of fighting back....they were no longer civilians. Fourth.....it depends as well on what definition one is willing to give to terrorism. Fifth....when Pearl Harbor was attacked the US was not a combatant in the war. If anything Pearl Harbor could be seen as an act of terrorism.

Only actual military targets were attacked during Pearl Harbor. If you can't see the difference between that and attacking civilians en masse, then I don't know what to say to you. And if our military were to be destroyed, and someone invaded NYC, do you not think that the residents of NYC would fight back? That doesn't mean that they are not civilians at this point in time. The same applies to the residents of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#89 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180302 Posts

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"] No, they were still civilians at that time. We are trying to use a term retroactively (terrorism) to see if it was. So, I'm using the opposite term (as anything that does not follow the Geneva Conventions is generally considered terrorism). And the definition oflegitimate military targets does not include the destruction of entire cities.Engrish_Major

Now you've missed the point. First....it wasn't against any international law at the time and retroactively attempting to make it so isn't correct. Second both cities had a high value in regard to military importance. They were not mere civilian populations. Third.....as I stated civilians were told to fight back against invading forces. Meaning at that point that they've been told (and accepted) the job of fighting back....they were no longer civilians. Fourth.....it depends as well on what definition one is willing to give to terrorism. Fifth....when Pearl Harbor was attacked the US was not a combatant in the war. If anything Pearl Harbor could be seen as an act of terrorism.

Only actual military targets were attacked during Pearl Harbor. If you can't see the difference between that and attacking civilians en masse, then I don't know what to say to you. And if our military were to be destroyed, and someone invaded NYC, do you not think that the residents of NYC would fight back? That doesn't mean that they are not civilians at this point in time. The same applies to the residents of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

We had no military targets for Japan. We were not at war with them.

Nonetheless.....your definition allows for the bombing. In most every category....I've highlighted part that counters your assessment.

Any attack must be justified by military necessity. However, no object may be attacked if damage to civilians and civilian objects would be excessive when compared to that advantage. If there are doubts whether a normally civilian facility is contributing to military action, the object is presumed to be civilian. They may also have protective signs, which may designate it as forbidden to fire on (hospital, monastery/convent, site of cultural or historical importance).

  • Legitimate military targets include: armed forces and persons who take part in the fighting; positions or installations occupied by armed forces as well as objectives that are directly contested in battle; military installations such as barracks, war ministries, munitions or fuel dumps, storage yards for vehicles, airfields, rocket launch ramps, and naval bases.

Estimates are that the advantage to bombing the cities is that it saved more lives than were lost. Notice where it says PERSONS who take part in the fighting....which the civilians of Japan had been told to do by their emperor who they followed faithfully.

Avatar image for Engrish_Major
Engrish_Major

17373

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#90 Engrish_Major
Member since 2007 • 17373 Posts

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Now you've missed the point. First....it wasn't against any international law at the time and retroactively attempting to make it so isn't correct. Second both cities had a high value in regard to military importance. They were not mere civilian populations. Third.....as I stated civilians were told to fight back against invading forces. Meaning at that point that they've been told (and accepted) the job of fighting back....they were no longer civilians. Fourth.....it depends as well on what definition one is willing to give to terrorism. Fifth....when Pearl Harbor was attacked the US was not a combatant in the war. If anything Pearl Harbor could be seen as an act of terrorism.

LJS9502_basic

Only actual military targets were attacked during Pearl Harbor. If you can't see the difference between that and attacking civilians en masse, then I don't know what to say to you. And if our military were to be destroyed, and someone invaded NYC, do you not think that the residents of NYC would fight back? That doesn't mean that they are not civilians at this point in time. The same applies to the residents of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

We had no military targets for Japan. We were not at war with them.

Nonetheless.....your definition allows for the bombing. In most every category....I've highlighted part that counters your assessment.

Any attack must be justified by military necessity. However, no object may be attacked if damage to civilians and civilian objects would be excessive when compared to that advantage. If there are doubts whether a normally civilian facility is contributing to military action, the object is presumed to be civilian. They may also have protective signs, which may designate it as forbidden to fire on (hospital, monastery/convent, site of cultural or historical importance).

  • Legitimate military targets include: armed forces and persons who take part in the fighting; positions or installations occupied by armed forces as well as objectives that are directly contested in battle; military installations such as barracks, war ministries, munitions or fuel dumps, storage yards for vehicles, airfields, rocket launch ramps, and naval bases.

Estimates are that the advantage to bombing the cities is that it saved more lives than were lost. Notice where it says PERSONS who take part in the fighting....which the civilians of Japan had been told to do by their emperor who they followed faithfully.

Okay, now you're just expanding the definition so much as to make it worthless. The citizens of any country would fight back were it invaded. That doesn't mean that entire cities or countries should just be wiped off of the earth. Would you justify a country that we were at war with nuking NYC, because they fear the residents would fight back when the invading forces came marching down the street?
Avatar image for Shadow_Fighter
Shadow_Fighter

223

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#91 Shadow_Fighter
Member since 2006 • 223 Posts

[QUOTE="Shadow_Fighter"]

Just figured I would mention that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both military targets.

Hiroshima at the time of he bombing had a few military camp including the head quarters of the 5th Division and 2nd General Army headquarters which commanded the defences of southern Japan. Was also a supply and logistics base, communication center, storage and assembly area for troops.

As for Nagasaki is was a large sea port nd had alot of industry that produced ammo, ships, and varies military equipment. While alot of the industry was damaged before droping the atomic bomb on Nagasakithe port was mostly untouched.

Seems like both cities had alot of militay significace and honostly think about it, you got 2 bombs that cost alot moey and time to produce, do you honostly think they would be used on cities that had little to no military significance. People really need to do research on military matters before going off on rants.

UniverseIX

This type of thinking makes no sense to me. What is or is not a military target has nothing to do with what is terrorism or is not terrorism. Supported military actions by a majority of people in a population can still be acts of terrorism. Acts of terrorism are even necessary, but because people want to separate themselves from their enemies they say no, what we do is not terror. It is above terror because it's a military target. Let's own the truth here. Terror works. Pretending to be righteous is sickening.

Actualliy if it is a military target has alot to do with what is terrorism. For it to be a terrorist attack you would have to prove that we purposefuly attacked the civilians. You could probably argue that we did but the fact that we warned the Japanese civilians in those cities of the impending bombings in advance it would seem to point to the fact that we where only targeting the military target in the area. The fact that the Japanese civilians didn't leave when they had the chance or that the Japanese government put high value military targets in those cities does not make it a terrorist attack.

I admit that terror works, it if an effective tactic and is used in all wars and no where was I pretending to be righteous, I merely stated that the two cities had military targets in them. Personaly I think the American military has grown to soft since ww2 and that we need to add a bit more terror into our strategies.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#92 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180302 Posts

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"] Only actual military targets were attacked during Pearl Harbor. If you can't see the difference between that and attacking civilians en masse, then I don't know what to say to you. And if our military were to be destroyed, and someone invaded NYC, do you not think that the residents of NYC would fight back? That doesn't mean that they are not civilians at this point in time. The same applies to the residents of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.Engrish_Major

We had no military targets for Japan. We were not at war with them.

Nonetheless.....your definition allows for the bombing. In most every category....I've highlighted part that counters your assessment.

Any attack must be justified by military necessity. However, no object may be attacked if damage to civilians and civilian objects would be excessive when compared to that advantage. If there are doubts whether a normally civilian facility is contributing to military action, the object is presumed to be civilian. They may also have protective signs, which may designate it as forbidden to fire on (hospital, monastery/convent, site of cultural or historical importance).

  • Legitimate military targets include: armed forces and persons who take part in the fighting; positions or installations occupied by armed forces as well as objectives that are directly contested in battle; military installations such as barracks, war ministries, munitions or fuel dumps, storage yards for vehicles, airfields, rocket launch ramps, and naval bases.

Estimates are that the advantage to bombing the cities is that it saved more lives than were lost. Notice where it says PERSONS who take part in the fighting....which the civilians of Japan had been told to do by their emperor who they followed faithfully.

Okay, now you're just expanding the definition so much as to make it worthless. The citizens of any country would fight back were it invaded. That doesn't mean that entire cities or countries should just be wiped off of the earth. Would you justify a country that we were at war with nuking NYC, because they fear the residents would fight back when the invading forces came marching down the street?

I expanded nothing. That is the actual wording from your link. And deciding if a target is legitimate is not as black and white as you stated in regard to civilian deaths.

Avatar image for Engrish_Major
Engrish_Major

17373

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#93 Engrish_Major
Member since 2007 • 17373 Posts

I expanded nothing. That is the actual wording from your link. And deciding if a target is legitimate is not as black and white as you stated in regard to civilian deaths.

LJS9502_basic
Of course you expanded it. Do you honestly think that the Geneva Conventions would allow for us to nuke entire cities off of the map?
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#94 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180302 Posts
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

I expanded nothing. That is the actual wording from your link. And deciding if a target is legitimate is not as black and white as you stated in regard to civilian deaths.

Engrish_Major
Of course you expanded it. Do you honestly think that the Geneva Conventions would allow for us to nuke entire cities off of the map?

You gave the definition of legitimate military target and stated those cities didn't fit. Reading that definition they did fit the definition. Now you are expanding the goal posts. Though one need only decline to sign the Geneva Convention to not be bound by it. It's not the be all and end all of military actions either. Many countries today violate the Geneva Convention in theory but as they are not signatories....it's allowed. So maybe using the GC isn't the way to go.....what with it not being black and white either.
Avatar image for Engrish_Major
Engrish_Major

17373

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#95 Engrish_Major
Member since 2007 • 17373 Posts
[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

I expanded nothing. That is the actual wording from your link. And deciding if a target is legitimate is not as black and white as you stated in regard to civilian deaths.

LJS9502_basic
Of course you expanded it. Do you honestly think that the Geneva Conventions would allow for us to nuke entire cities off of the map?

You gave the definition of legitimate military target and stated those cities didn't fit. Reading that definition they did fit the definition. Now you are expanding the goal posts. Though one need only decline to sign the Geneva Convention to not be bound by it. It's not the be all and end all of military actions either. Many countries today violate the Geneva Convention in theory but as they are not signatories....it's allowed. So maybe using the GC isn't the way to go.....what with it not being black and white either.

No, the population of those cities does not fit the definition. The weapons used did not discriminate between military and civilian targets. Schools full of children and hospitals were obliterated along with any other target. You're the one that is expanding the definition so much as to make it meaningless, so that by your reading it allows for virtually anyone and anything to be targeted.
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#96 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180302 Posts

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Engrish_Major"] Of course you expanded it. Do you honestly think that the Geneva Conventions would allow for us to nuke entire cities off of the map?Engrish_Major
You gave the definition of legitimate military target and stated those cities didn't fit. Reading that definition they did fit the definition. Now you are expanding the goal posts. Though one need only decline to sign the Geneva Convention to not be bound by it. It's not the be all and end all of military actions either. Many countries today violate the Geneva Convention in theory but as they are not signatories....it's allowed. So maybe using the GC isn't the way to go.....what with it not being black and white either.

No, the population of those cities does not fit the definition. The weapons used did not discriminate between military and civilian targets. Schools full of children and hospitals were obliterated along with any other target. You're the one that is expanding the definition so much as to make it meaningless, so that by your reading it allows for virtually anyone and anything to be targeted.

You will never ever find a weapon that discriminates between civilan and military so that point is pretty much worthless. Again I expanded nothing. The rule clearly states "However, no object may be attacked if damage to civilians and civilian objects would be excessive when compared to that advantage." Excessive when compared to the advantage. And we have estimates that higher deaths would have occurred if a conventional war were to be fought in Japan. Therefore, the advantage is higher than the civilian loss. You gave the definition.....I'm reading it right there. There is no black and white definition of civilian losses being disallowed. If an advantage is greater than civilian losses...it's a legitamate military target. Says so right in the Geneva Convention Article 52.

Avatar image for Engrish_Major
Engrish_Major

17373

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#97 Engrish_Major
Member since 2007 • 17373 Posts

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] You gave the definition of legitimate military target and stated those cities didn't fit. Reading that definition they did fit the definition. Now you are expanding the goal posts. Though one need only decline to sign the Geneva Convention to not be bound by it. It's not the be all and end all of military actions either. Many countries today violate the Geneva Convention in theory but as they are not signatories....it's allowed. So maybe using the GC isn't the way to go.....what with it not being black and white either.LJS9502_basic

No, the population of those cities does not fit the definition. The weapons used did not discriminate between military and civilian targets. Schools full of children and hospitals were obliterated along with any other target. You're the one that is expanding the definition so much as to make it meaningless, so that by your reading it allows for virtually anyone and anything to be targeted.

You will never ever find a weapon that discriminates between civilan and military so that point is pretty much worthless. Again I expanded nothing. The rule clearly states "However, no object may be attacked if damage to civilians and civilian objects would be excessive when compared to that advantage." Excessive when compared to the advantage. And we have estimates that higher deaths would have occurred if a conventional war were to be fought in Japan. Therefore, the advantage is higher than the civilian loss. You gave the definition.....I'm reading it right there. There is no black and white definition of civilian losses being disallowed. If an advantage is greater than civilian losses...it's a legitamate military target. Says so right in the Geneva Convention Article 52.

I still disagree with that interpretation. You're basically stating that any and all targets are legitimate. Which nullifies the entire point of the conventions in the first place. So, why not just blow up all schools in the first place? After all, the children may grow up someday and join the opposing military :roll: Anyway, I've got to leave. That's all for me here, as we're just going around in circles.
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#98 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180302 Posts

I still disagree with that interpretation. You're basically stating that any and all targets are legitimate. Which nullifies the entire point of the conventions in the first place. So, why not just blow up all schools in the first place? After all, the children may grow up someday and join the opposing military :roll: Anyway, I've got to leave. That's all for me here, as we're just going around in circles.Engrish_Major
It's clearly stated that way for a reason. If civilian deaths were never to be encouraged there would be no clause allowing for "advantage'. Dude....your link doesn't back up your stance.

Avatar image for branketra
branketra

51726

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 9

#99 branketra
Member since 2006 • 51726 Posts

I think terrorism being bad by definition is the wrong way to look at it. Although it may not look like it, I think if there's a way to win a war without fighting, it's the better choice. That said, I do believe that it was not necessarily an intimidation tactic so much as a...bombing.

Avatar image for pspdseagle
pspdseagle

3307

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#100 pspdseagle
Member since 2007 • 3307 Posts
Of course it was...