Was Hiroshima an act of terrorism?

[USFREEDOM911]

That's a good question. It's one thing to sit out on the deck and engage in a bit of moral preening with your coffee and smart phone; and quite another to face the prospect of sending your sons or nephews off to die in the South Pacific or Japan or wherever. They called it a 'world war' for a reason.

No doubt, people just wanted to end the damn thing. It's unfortunate what happened at Hiroshima. But so was Pearl Harbor. Japan could have prevented Hiroshima by not attacking us in the first place.

It's kind of a bunny trail, supposing Japan didn't strike first it's possible the US would have stayed out of it and Europe would fallen to the Reich. Funny how things work out.

These little second-guessing ventures are interesting but it's all academic.

There's also a good chance that a large part of China would now be under rule by Japan and the old Japanese social structure would still be in place.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Moronic troll.

AWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW, did I shake your belief tree and this is all you can come up with.

May I suggest you take one of these, every day, for the next 30 days.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Limited wars of self-defence are not illegal- but such ' self-defense ' must not constitute aggression in itself. That means that ' pre-emptive ' strikes are off the table, Polly. That will knock you off your perch, no doubt.

So you agree that in the situation being discussed, Japan's behavior was "off the table" and the war that the US waged was not illegal.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

So, that means a country has to wait until it is attacked, even though the attack is imminent? Isn't that a recipe to get wiped off the map if the other country has nukes?

Or allowed enough time to build up an immense invading force to overwhelm the defensives.
Kind of like the world allowed Germany to do, with the countries they invaded, prior to WWII being declared.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

You won't have to worry about it, will you, if either the US or the Russians detect an incoming.
Otherwise your assumption is correct, yes. It is illegal to initaite war- and that includes aggression under the guise of pre-emption.

So if I've punched you in the face in the past, I'm telling you that I'm going to punch you in the face again, and I'm drawing my arm back to punch you in the face, you have no right to defend yourself.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Again - the discussion has veered from the original question.

Dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was an act of terror. It was meant to inspire terror.

All I'm hearing from anyone is that terrorism is okay, as long as it brings about the desired end result. Actually, all I'm hearing from anyone is that ANYTHING is okay, as long as the results are achieved.

The arguments that are being set forth here for dropping the bomb could be used for anything: any chemical weapon or WMD; torture; abandoning all Geneva convention protocols; deliberately targeting civilians; even mass rape campaigns, which some cultures use in warfare. There is no discussion on here about the actual means; just the results.

And if we accept those things, how again is America different from those we criticize and condemn? What exactly do we stand for the world?

How in the world are you allowed to drive a car, when all you can see are shades of black and white.

Were rocks and clubs acts of terrorism?
What about spears?
Bows and arrows?
Crossbows?
Catapults?
Rifles and pistols?
Mortars?
Cannons?
Tanks?
Airplanes and bombs?
Machine guns?
Mines?
Longboats?
Aircraft carriers?
Submarines?
etc?

I only ask; because at times in history, one side had them prior to the other side and it gave them a distinct advantage over the other side.

The purpose of fighting aggression, is to make the aggressor want to stop; because of the cost of lives, money, land, etc.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I don't think we should be defined by Hiroshima. I'm talking about what we're willing to accept.

You tell me: If you grow up in Japan, and watch Americans vaporize women & children in 2 of your cities...how do you feel about them when they're helping you rebuild? Are they then the good guys for doing so? Are you grateful for the exceptionalism they're displaying?

If that's the only part of the equation that they're going to consider, then of course they're going to consider the US as the bad guys; but refusing to accept the other parts, makes them a fool.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

The thread is about our actions.

A lot of what the Japanese did in WWII was terrorism. They committed horrible atrocities. What, then, is your point? We should mirror the actions of terrorists to beat them? That we don't stand for anything, and will go as low as the worst in the world set the bar?

You certainly have your candidate in Trump.

You seem to have glossed over my question of what do you think should have happened, to end the war with Japan?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

So you would be okay if we assembled a massive invasion of Japan and hundreds of thousands of civilians died as a result? Using your (no one else's) definition of terrorism, anytime civilians died, it was terrorism. You can't just make up meanings.

More then that; because at the end of WWII there were an estimated 7 million Japanese living in Japan and their culture, at the time, would have compelled them to do as instructed and that would have meant men, women, and children, of all ages, either dying in suicide charges against an "invading army" or just plain committing suicide.

Such an invasion would have very well meant the end of the Japanese, as a culture and country.

 

[Legion Troll]

It seems contradictory, but in reality many lives, both Japanese and American, were saved.

Prove it.

I'll understand if you can't.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Thing1:
You seem to be avoiding my question in post #200 and yet, you were able to make at least 10 responses past my question; so I decided to bring the question to the top, just for your convenience.

You know that you're playing the part of an excellent after the fact armchair General, so why don't you explain what you FEEL should have happened to end a war that had dragged on for around 6 years and had already resulted in a lost of an estimated 48 MILLION people (approximately 21 million civilians and 27 million military personnel).

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

Thing1:
You seem to be avoiding my question in post #200 and yet, you were able to make at least 10 responses past my question; so I decided to bring the question to the top, just for your convenience.

You know that you're playing the part of an excellent after the fact armchair General, so why don't you explain what you FEEL should have happened to end a war that had dragged on for around 6 years and had already resulted in a lost of an estimated 48 MILLION people (approximately 21 million civilians and 27 million military personnel).

It's kind of a useless question. I'm not a military strategist, and I'm not going to pretend to be one. You shouldn't pretend to be one either.

The whole idea of this thread is whether we should have standards of conduct as a nation, or not. As you have basically stated, you feel that the ends justify the means. And as I have stated, you could apply that to any behavior, no matter how despicable.

I don't think we should ever intentionally target civilians. Is your argument that we should, if it achieves our goals more rapidly or efficiently?

 

[Seahawk]

War has learned and evolved throughout the history, these days war is conducted through military campaigns, which includes: armed conflict, intelligence, troop movement, propaganda, aircraft, bombs and missiles.

Terrorism, on the other hand, has been described as the threat of violence, or other harmful act committed for political or ideological goals. The main goals of terrorists are to spread fear among the world population and get global attention for their actions in order to accomplish their goals.

The most common terrorist tactics include; car bombing, aircraft hijacking and suicide attacks. Almost every country and organization have different definitions for terrorism, therefore, it is still impossible to give an official one. Up to now, the United Nations has not accepted, nor given definition for terrorism.

If we compare these two, we can see that both of them have violence as their main subject, also: armed conflict, bombs and missiles, propaganda and intelligence. War has aircraft and troop deployment, while terrorism has believers and people willing for sacrifice.

What makes them different is that war requires mass organization, governments, countries and thousands of volunteers and military personnel, while terrorism can be performed with just one or two individuals. Maybe the biggest difference is that terrorism sometimes does not choose the targets, and as a result, most times, innocent people get hurt and die. War, on the other hand knows its targets, but in war innocent people also dies. Just in war, victims are euphemistically called "Collateral Damage".

http://www.dominicantoday.com/dr/op...-and-War-Parallels-Differences-and-Sufferings

I guess Thing doesn't want to discuss this, he just wants to dig in and pretend that because he says so, that it was terrorism. Basically hand over ears syndrome.

 

[Seahawk]

It's kind of a useless question. I'm not a military strategist, and I'm not going to pretend to be one. You shouldn't pretend to be one either.

The whole idea of this thread is whether we should have standards of conduct as a nation, or not. As you have basically stated, you feel that the ends justify the means. And as I have stated, you could apply that to any behavior, no matter how despicable.

I don't think we should ever intentionally target civilians. Is your argument that we should, if it achieves our goals more rapidly or efficiently?

Your whole point of the thread was to change the meaning of terrorism. Every bombing over all the cities in WWII is terrorism with your definition.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

I guess Thing doesn't want to discuss this, he just wants to dig in and pretend that because he says so, that it was terrorism. Basically hand over ears syndrome.

"Dominican Today" has the definitive description of terrorism, eh?

That article talks about civilians as collateral damage. They were not that w/ Hiroshima; they were the targets.

Your entire point basically ends there.

 

[Darth Omar]

It's kind of a useless question. I'm not a military strategist, and I'm not going to pretend to be one. You shouldn't pretend to be one either.

The whole idea of this thread is whether we should have standards of conduct as a nation, or not. As you have basically stated, you feel that the ends justify the means. And as I have stated, you could apply that to any behavior, no matter how despicable.

I don't think we should ever intentionally target civilians. Is your argument that we should, if it achieves our goals more rapidly or efficiently?

Now wait a minute lol. The sucky alternatives had everything to do with why we nuked Hiroshima. It's not like they woke up one morning and said 'let's nuke those Japanese bastards'.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

Your whole point of the thread was to change the meaning of terrorism. Every bombing over all the cities in WWII is terrorism with your definition.

What is "my definition"?

Again, the gist is that Hiroshima specifically targeted civilians. I don't know why you keep trying to equate that to bombings of military targets that resulted in civilian casualties.

It's weird.

 

[Seahawk]

"Dominican Today" has the definitive description of terrorism, eh?

That article talks about civilians as collateral damage. They were not that w/ Hiroshima; they were the targets.

Your entire point basically ends there.

But your opinion is definitive? lol. You can't cite a single source to substantiate your opinion. Many cities were targeted in WWII, yet you're only claiming Hiroshima is terrorism. You make zero sense.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

Now wait a minute lol. The sucky alternatives had everything to do with why we nuked Hiroshima. It's not like they woke up one morning and said 'let's nuke those Japanese bastards'.

Who cares what the reasons where? You're drawing meaningless distinctions.

We're either a country that targets civilians, or not. We're either a country that tortures, or not. We're either a country that uses chemical weapons and WMD's, or not.

It's not - we don't use WMD's, except when....

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

But your opinion is definitive? lol. You can't cite a single source to substantiate your opinion. Many cities were targeted in WWII, yet you're only claiming Hiroshima is terrorism. You make zero sense.

Should we specifically target civilians in a time of war, or not?