So wait was Hiroshina and nagasaki terrorism?

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Yes I think it is probably the biggest terroristic act in the history of mankind.sonicare

I'd imagine the Japaneses when they saw the mushroom clouds were as much terrorized (If not more) as the Americans when they say the WTC fall.

But i've never experienced political 'terrorism', what do I know?

I'd imagine the Japaneses when they saw the mushroom clouds were as much terrorized (If not more) as the Americans when they say the WTC fall.

But i've never experienced political 'terrorism', what do I know?

TehFuneral

OT: like it or not, it was a terrorist act no matter what. The problem here lies with the justification. Which kinda makes you think a little more about modern-day Islamic-terrorism...

When nations fight it's called "war" not "terrorism."

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.MorningJuturna

I agree with this.

EDIT:

Almost any military action can fall under the ****fication 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

Firing a machinegun at three enemy soldiers in a trench is terrorism. You know, because that'll make them terrified.

[QUOTE="TehFuneral"]

I'd imagine the Japaneses when they saw the mushroom clouds were as much terrorized (If not more) as the Americans when they say the WTC fall.

But i've never experienced political 'terrorism', what do I know?

Victorious_Fize

What lies in there? ;O

Terrorism is just the new buzzword for war. I think Terrorism just needs a new press agent to overhaul its image.spazzx625

[QUOTE="MikadoNY"]What other choice would their have been? LOL at the insane amount of s*** people would say just to blame America. I also like how no one replied to the two good posts and just overlooked them in this thread. Guess when you know you lost the argument, ignore that post and argue with someone else.Stavrogin_

But, visit some other forums, French, Russian, Serbian, Italian etc etc, you'll see people defending their countries and blaming others even when it's so goddamn obvious their country is not guilt free.

Stupid patriotism and nationalism brainwashed (almost) everyone... :(

[QUOTE="Treflis"]No, but it did breach the Geneva convention.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]

[QUOTE="MikadoNY"]What other choice would their have been? LOL at the insane amount of s*** people would say just to blame America. I also like how no one replied to the two good posts and just overlooked them in this thread. Guess when you know you lost the argument, ignore that post and argue with someone else.MikadoNY

But, visit some other forums, French, Russian, Serbian, Italian etc etc, you'll see people defending their countries and blaming others even when it's so goddamn obvious their country is not guilt free.

Stupid patriotism and nationalism brainwashed (almost) everyone... :(

[QUOTE="MikadoNY"][QUOTE="Stavrogin_"] I on the other hand, can't believe the lengths some people will go to just to defend the country they are from even when it's blatantly obvious they're wrong. I'm not talking just about Americans, i'm talking about everyone everywhere. Most of the users here are Americans i guess, so that's one reason why people here try so hard to make the US look like the good guys EVERY SINGLE TIME!

But, visit some other forums, French, Russian, Serbian, Italian etc etc, you'll see people defending their countries and blaming others even when it's so goddamn obvious their country is not guilt free.

Stupid patriotism and nationalism brainwashed (almost) everyone... :(

wis3boi

The nukes were originally going to be used on germany...I wonder how that would have turned out

Most people are going to defend their own country. From what I've seen this forum is probably 60/40 American. The reason why Americans defend our country is because every non-American tries to make us seem like the devil...MikadoNY

Ironically, some groups/nations feel America is making them look like devils.

whether it was "Terrorism" or not, still overkill

I consider it in the same kind of absurdity as if some people would consider things like the Holocaust and 9/11 "right things".kuraimen

The Holocaust and 9/11 both failed to accomplish any of their perpetator's goals, and almost certainly worked against them. The nuclear attack in '45 accomplished its perpetator's goals, in quite a dramatic fashion.

[QUOTE="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)? Wasdie

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.

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

[QUOTE="mayceV"][QUOTE="mrmusicman247"]I'm pretty sure it was retaliation.Saturos3091

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]I consider it in the same kind of absurdity as if some people would consider things like the Holocaust and 9/11 "right things".Palantas

The Holocaust and 9/11 both failed to accomplish any of their perpetator's goals, and almost certainly worked against them. The nuclear attack in '45 accomplished its perpetator's goals, in quite a dramatic fashion.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Treflis"]No, but it did breach the Geneva convention.Ace6301

Note what is highligted......and thus it occured AFTER WW2.

Well you could say the taught the world many important lessons. And I think you could argue that 9/11 managed to destabilize the US enough by luring it intop two unwinnable wars which is in part basically what OBL & Co. wanted.kuraimen

Yeah, someone could say that. I wouldn't, because that's ridiculous. The US isn't destabilized. History will tell if the war in Iraq was won (though it probably won't be), and Afghanistan is only "unwinnable" due to the way we fight wars today (meaning we won't take the necessary steps to win, like in 1945). As to what Osama bin Laden wanted, are you telling me he wanted more Western presence in Muslim countries?

Oh, and hey kuraimen, are you doing that thing again where you respond to only half the objections made to your ideas? Did you just forget about your flawed comparison between the nuclear attack on Japan and the Holocaust? Here, I'll remind you:

The Holocaust and 9/11 both failed to accomplish any of their perpetator's goals, and almost certainly worked against them. The nuclear attack in '45 accomplished its perpetator's goals, in quite a dramatic fashion.

I

The Holocaust greatly disrupted Germany's efforts in the East, and wasted immense efforts that could have been spent on the war. It actively worked against their war effort. This is the exact opposite of what the nuclear bombings did. These events are in no way comparable, and I suspect you only included it to get an emotional reaction out of people. Sorry kuraimen, we're not that stupid. Comparisons have to be based on similarity in principles, not similarity in the emotions they create.

I see you're arguing with Ace. kuraimen, your ability to get into arguments in the same thread, with different people who between themselves never agree on anything is quite impressive.

The fact that things turned out better than expected is not a good justification for such an awful act.

kuraimen

Why not?

So I don't buy the excuse that "it saved lives", I think that's a very lame excuse.

kuraimen

Why not?

No it wasn't. Have you ever reada history book?

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Well you could say the taught the world many important lessons. And I think you could argue that 9/11 managed to destabilize the US enough by luring it intop two unwinnable wars which is in part basically what OBL & Co. wanted.Palantas

Yeah, someone could say that. I wouldn't, because that's ridiculous. The US isn't destabilized. History will tell if the war in Iraq was won (though it probably won't be), and Afghanistan is only "unwinnable" due to the way we fight wars today (meaning we won't take the necessary steps to win, like in 1945). As to what Osama bin Laden wanted, are you telling me he wanted more Western presence in Muslim countries?

Oh, and hey kuraimen, are you doing that thing again where you respond to only half the objections made to your ideas? Did you just forget about your flawed comparison between the nuclear attack on Japan and the Holocaust? Here, I'll remind you:

The Holocaust and 9/11 both failed to accomplish any of their perpetator's goals, and almost certainly worked against them. The nuclear attack in '45 accomplished its perpetator's goals, in quite a dramatic fashion.

I

The Holocaust greatly disrupted Germany's efforts in the East, and wasted immense efforts that could have been spent on the war. It actively worked against their war effort. This is the exact opposite of what the nuclear bombings did. These events are in no way comparable, and I suspect you only included it to get an emotional reaction out of people. Sorry kuraimen, we're not that stupid. Comparisons have to be based on similarity in principles, not similarity in the emotions they create.

Well I think the idea that nuking Japan helped "save lives" is equally ridiculous and that's why I would never support or say that.kuraimen

Fine. Since you're offering no defense to your position, are you admitting that your comparison between the nuclear attacks and 9/11 and the Holocaust is flawed?

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Well I think the idea that nuking Japan helped "save lives" is equally ridiculous and that's why I would never support or say that.Palantas

Fine. Since you're offering no defense to your position, are you admitting that your comparison between the nuclear attacks and 9/11 and the Holocaust is flawed?

No it's not flawed, it served to make my point.

kuraimen

I'm sorry, kuraimen, we have to write correct comparisons for them to make a point. If you feel your comparison is not flawed, then I'm sure you'll have no trouble answering the many challenges I raised against it:

[quote="kuraimen"]

Well you could say the taught the world many important lessons. And I think you could argue that 9/11 managed to destabilize the US enough by luring it intop two unwinnable wars which is in part basically what OBL & Co. wanted.I

Yeah, someone could say that. I wouldn't, because that's ridiculous. The US isn't destabilized. History will tell if the war in Iraq was won (though it probably won't be), and Afghanistan is only "unwinnable" due to the way we fight wars today (meaning we won't take the necessary steps to win, like in 1945). As to what Osama bin Laden wanted, are you telling me he wanted more Western presence in Muslim countries?

Oh, and hey kuraimen, are you doing that thing again where you respond to only half the objections made to your ideas? Did you just forget about your flawed comparison between the nuclear attack on Japan and the Holocaust? Here, I'll remind you:

The Holocaust and 9/11 both failed to accomplish any of their perpetator's goals, and almost certainly worked against them. The nuclear attack in '45 accomplished its perpetator's goals, in quite a dramatic fashion.

I

The Holocaust greatly disrupted Germany's efforts in the East, and wasted immense efforts that could have been spent on the war. It actively worked against their war effort. This is the exact opposite of what the nuclear bombings did. These events are in no way comparable, and I suspect you only included it to get an emotional reaction out of people. Sorry kuraimen, we're not that stupid. Comparisons have to be based on similarity in principles, not similarity in the emotions they create.

And explain why you wrote this red herring when I originally wrote the above challenge:

Well I think the idea that nuking Japan helped "save lives" is equally ridiculous and that's why I would never support or say that.kuraimen

I was not challenging the "nukes saved lives" idea in the above post. I was challenging your flawed comparison...obviously.

[quote="kuraimen"]

I'm sorry, kuraimen, we have to write correct comparisons for them to make a point. If you feel your comparison is not flawed, then I'm sure you'll have no trouble answering the many challenges I raised against it:

[quote="I"]

The Holocaust greatly disrupted Germany's efforts in the East, and wasted immense efforts that could have been spent on the war. It actively worked against their war effort. This is the exact opposite of what the nuclear bombings did. These events are in no way comparable, and I suspect you only included it to get an emotional reaction out of people. Sorry kuraimen, we're not that stupid. Comparisons have to be based on similarity in principles, not similarity in the emotions they create.

Palantas

And explain why you wrote this red herring when I originally wrote the above challenge:

Well I think the idea that nuking Japan helped "save lives" is equally ridiculous and that's why I would never support or say that.kuraimen

I was not challenging the "nukes saved lives" idea in the above post. I was challenging your flawed comparison...obviously.

Well the person I was quoting said that you can't compare the Holocaust or 9/11 because it was not the right thing to do like nuking Japan was. I said that some people could actually think that it was the right thing to do by actually making ridiculous justifications like the ones above. You then said that you found those justifications ridiculous, I find justifying nuking Japan as the right thing because someone thinks it saved lives ridiculous.

So the comparison actually helped make my point

So the comparison actually helped make my point

kuraimen

Was your point that it was a flawed comparison?

I think there were and are enough governemnt, army officials and historians that agree that it was not the best thing to do and that it was basically unecessary to end the war so I'll go with them.kuraimen

Not the government, army officials, and historians who agreed it was the best thing to do...and did it, and things turned out well (for the US). Well, I think I'll go with those guys, because their opinions fit better with my preconceived notions.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]I think there were and are enough governemnt, army officials and historians that agree that it was not the best thing to do and that it was basically unecessary to end the war so I'll go with them.Palantas

Not the government, army officials, and historians who agreed it was the best thing to do...and did it, and things turned out well (for the US). Well, I think I'll go with those guys, because their opinions fit better with my preconceived notions.

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

Wasdie

Is that the official number? Like if i look up terrorism the definitions will say, "no act is considered terrorism if the two sides have been at war for no less than four years."

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]I think there were and are enough governemnt, army officials and historians that agree that it was not the best thing to do and that it was basically unecessary to end the war so I'll go with them.kuraimen

Not the government, army officials, and historians who agreed it was the best thing to do...and did it, and things turned out well (for the US). Well, I think I'll go with those guys, because their opinions fit better with my preconceived notions.

Well that's what happens. People go with whom they trust more and with the reasoning that fits more their world view. I trust more the people who were and are against it (many of whom were government and army officials at the time) because I won't be able to ever justify how killing 200 thousand innocent people is the best or right course of action in my mind.kuraimen

You're opposed to all of the strategic air campaigns in World War II, correct?

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

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

GTALoco

Is that the official number? Like if i look up terrorism the definitions will say, "no act is considered terrorism if the two sides have been at war for no less than four years."

Hehe, I like this.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Palantas"]

Not the government, army officials, and historians who agreed it was the best thing to do...and did it, and things turned out well (for the US). Well, I think I'll go with those guys, because their opinions fit better with my preconceived notions.

LJS9502_basic

What?