Suggest A Photo

You disagreed. (Undo) (Show Numbers)

78% agree
22% disagree
Post

Agreed

JackMimanoawesomesocksTrishtotallyawesomegingerCheese_HybridYadayedaHannahAbbotSpearmintMilkmattreynoldsLegalAlieneldoritoyossariannickiskipMarianWildeHey_ThereSonofarifleYourfellowmexicanApple_PieCaptainShroomsChipspokerface111pooper_scooperMaryKateBurnettarmtheangelsKristenslairIdling_Rocket_ShipXhollyXroseXcasperDylanSaysHeepwahMrBreeeezyAllyKatKillFeedtammigoesrawrremember_my_nameEata_BraintheprincesszeejordanhefnerebnationCuban_BxBraveLilDinomc2147HeyJud3x2502manLkunFlyingGuineaPigalidoodle23LalsydnaynayFitzkrieg

Disagreed

lolpastaADSaaronAtheisticMysticManiacMagictwisted_memoriesScottyDJennitaliaWynautDjmorrseeDanielJameshpistheshitSkyShakinBaconrunnerdudeEmptyMelodiesmchristieMiss_Courage_WolfYouveJustBeenTrolledCpt_McMuffinilikefurrywolves4815

Favourited

JokertheprincesszeejillswimsIrish_Wolffbudgerigar42Lexren94ShortyshuffleShunYourfellowmexican
By definition Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion, deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants/civilians. It's used when direct force seems to costly or undesirable and is a cowardly attempt to push the opposing force into submission by killing mass amounts of innocent people. And the most devastating act of terrorism ever done was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. amirite?

Top Comment

Yes.
But!
Terrorism for the sake of war, that is, for the saving of lives during battle, is MUCH more justifiable than terrorism for the sake of religious ideals.

-Ashamed American halfheartedly defending herself

+66 See / Add Replies

FlyingGuineaPig FlyingGuineaPig

Comments

Interesting concept, but I would not agree.

+121 Reply

Miss_Courage_Wolf Miss_Courage_Wolf

In response to “Interesting concept, but I would not agree.

Interesting reply. But I would say it was pointless.

+693 Reply

Anonymous

In response to “Interesting reply. But I would say it was...

So is leaving an opinion without explaining it, the while basis of this sight...

+561 Reply

Anonymous

In response to “So is leaving an opinion without explaining...

the while basis of this sight? Smoking comeback there.

+121 Reply

Anonymous

mk

In response to “Interesting reply. But I would say it was...

I'm sorry you feel that way. I would say that it DOES have a point, but that you are too simple-minded to grasp it. But that's just my opinion.

0 Reply

Miss_Courage_Wolf Miss_Courage_Wolf

In response to “I'm sorry you feel that way. I would say that...

Bahahaha how can I be too simple minded to grasp a comment that has absolutly no qualification. You can have your opinions I dont care. But thats all it is really. An opinion could be stupid, ignorent, insightfull or intelligent. I have no idea b/c you didnt say why that was your opinion. I dont hold much store by people who claim their opinion matters when they cant back it up with reasons.

+66 Reply

Anonymous

In response to “Bahahaha how can I be too simple minded to...

Well, WHY I have the opinion I do, and the POINT my post was trying to make are two entirely different things.

The point I was trying to make was that, no, while I don't agree with the writer, I took the time to think the idea over before automatically clicking "no way" just because it implied my country had committed acts of terrorism.

My reason for disagreeing is that normal acts of terrorism involve individuals or groups and not an established government, and the people who dropped the bombs on Japan were not extremists. Also, the bombing was intended to end the war, not to provoke more conflict.

I assumed you were simple-minded because you claimed not to see the point of my comment, when it in reality it seems you did not know the reasons behind my beliefs. Also, you were rather rude, and from my experience rude people tend to be less intelligent.

-224 Reply

Miss_Courage_Wolf Miss_Courage_Wolf

In response to “Well, WHY I have the opinion I do, and the...

Japan probably would have called the Americans extremists... Just as people of the Al Qaeda probably think 9/11 was justified.

+22 Reply

Anonymous

In response to “Well, WHY I have the opinion I do, and the...

And you don’t think calling someone simple minded is rude? If so according to you: you're less intelligent as well? Look I’m sorry if you’re offended ok.
But you are wrong to say that America can’t be terrorists b/c they are a country. Look at the OP- the US is perfectly capable of being embraced by the above definition. Also you used extremism in your comment to differentiate: again irrelevant. Extremism applies to religious sects but again it doesn’t not necessarily have to be present. You are a perfect example of someone who’s perception had been distorted by common misperceptions perpetuated by media. In light of which 'terrorism' had come to take on an entirely different meaning as the original/ real one. All the while you may think only shady Arabs in turbans with bombs strapped to their chest are capable of terrorism: you my friend are the narrow minded one.

0 Reply

Anonymous

In response to “And you don’t think calling someone...

Yes, it was rude to call you simple-minded. I do my best to avoid saying mean things on the Internet, but when someone picks a fight I'm not one to pretend I don't care. I didn't say they couldn't be terrorists- they probably can. However in that instance I don't think terrorism is an appropriate term. As I said before (maybe it's just me who believes this, but I'm pretty sure this is part of the generally-accepted definition of 'terrorism'), terrorism is used to spark more conflict, instead of end it. The US tried (and succeeded) to end the war in Japan, and the US's actions certainly weren't unprovoked.

0 Reply

Miss_Courage_Wolf Miss_Courage_Wolf

In response to “Yes, it was rude to call you simple-minded. I...

That's an interesting definition luckily for you there is in fact a multiple source definition posted above! You can't get much more convenient than that. I don't see how you can say "Killing a hundred thousand innocent people wasn't terrorism because we didn't want to start a fight with them we wanted to stop a fight by by being so damn terrifying they wouldn't want to retaliate."

+11 Reply

Anonymous

In response to “That's an interesting definition luckily for...

I guess it comes down to opinion.

0 Reply

Miss_Courage_Wolf Miss_Courage_Wolf

In response to “I guess it comes down to opinion.

OMG I JUST WANT TO SCREAM AT YOU! YOU DONT GET TO MAKE UP YOUR OWN DEFINITION IN THE NAME OF 'OPINION'.

ok now thats out of my system...

0 Reply

Anonymous

In response to “OMG I JUST WANT TO SCREAM AT YOU! YOU DONT...

Sorry. I think terrorism is one of those things where everyone has a different definition.

0 Reply

Miss_Courage_Wolf Miss_Courage_Wolf

In response to “Sorry. I think terrorism is one of those...

Nope: terrorism is a word. Look it up. If people have a different interpretation thats fine: but you cant give it a different definition and meaning. Also im calling trucks, scooters now. I dont know why. Just my opinion ya know. The both have wheels so....

0 Reply

Anonymous

In response to “Yes, it was rude to call you simple-minded. I...

ugh i cant be bothered typing a full reply. Definitions are definitions. Opinion doesnt come into how you apply a definition. Look up terrorism or look at the OP. again: you think terrorism isnt an appropriote term because you arent applying the real definition. You are using the one skewed and portrayed in the media.

Also learn some history. when the US bombed them, it was already pretty clear the Allies were going to win. but thats irrelevant. Also provocation is a very murky area. Yea Japan bombed PH but the US's actions were more devastating and ongoing (ie radiaton), as well as the area having more impact on civilians. Im not sure if that makes it right. Also the US was providing arms to Japans enemies so perhaps PH wasnt entirely unprovoked.

So both countries were provoked. And both escalated it exponentially. cant believe i got pushed into an argument about provocation about war...All war acts are devestating and in a sense unprovoked. Jeez.

0 Reply

Anonymous

In response to “ugh i cant be bothered typing a full reply...

Well, I think it's pretty clear that we're never going to agree, so here's the last point I'll make. Terrorism has different meanings to different people, and our definitions apparently don't match up. Yes, war is bad, but as to what constitutes actual terrorism, that has to be judged in a case-by-case basis. Anyway, I thank you for argument, it was intriguing.

0 Reply

Miss_Courage_Wolf Miss_Courage_Wolf

In response to “Well, I think it's pretty clear that we're...

No no no no no no. Truck has only one definition. That definition doesnt change b/c people are stupid and think its something else.

0 Reply

Anonymous

Everyone is entitled to their opinion

0 Reply

John_MacTavish John_MacTavish OP

I have to agree with you. Though I no longer feel that we can be considered "terrorists" by modern beliefs of the word, at the time thats what we would have had to of seemed like the the people of Japan.

+44 Reply

Cheese_Hybrid Cheese_Hybrid

It's not like they weren't warned. They had a choice.

077 Reply

Jennitalia Jennitalia

In response to “It's not like they weren't warned. They had a...

who had a choice? im confused...

+33 Reply

Anonymous

In response to “It's not like they weren't warned. They had a...

The Japanese government had a choice, not the innocent people the bomb was dropped on.

+10111 Reply

Apple_Pie Apple_Pie

In response to “It's not like they weren't warned. They had a...

They had a choice to surrender, but that doesn't mean it's not terrorism.

+121 Reply

CaptainShrooms

What about the part where they attacked Pearl Harbor unprovoked? Or does it not count as a terrorist act because they lost?

+352 Reply

ScottyD

In response to “What about the part where they attacked Pearl...

If your counting on lives lost: Hiroshima is worse. It wasnt entirely unprovoked (im not defending them at all!) ie US supplied weapon to its enemies so attacked pearl harbour which was a military target. terrible yes: but not entirely an isolated incident.

+11 Reply

Anonymous

In response to “What about the part where they attacked Pearl...

The Pearl Harbour Attack was on naval base, and wasn't targeting civilians.

+1616 Reply

Anonymous

In response to “What about the part where they attacked Pearl...

Please refer to the definition above. Pearl harbor was not an act of terrorism it was a strategic military operation. It was devistating and harsh and ultimately bad move due to resulting events but still a military operation. What the U.S. Should have done is bomb somewhere else barely populated with few to no casualties and say "look what will happen if this hits a city, last warning.".

+12131 Reply

John_MacTavish John_MacTavish OP

In response to “Please refer to the definition above. Pearl...

Hiroshima was a military base to, so that was a "military operation", and after the first bomb was dropped they gave another warning which was again ignored. Nagasaki shouldn't have been bombed because it was strongly civilian based, but those bombings ended a world war and saved more lives globally.

+154 Reply

ScottyD

In response to “Hiroshima was a military base to, so that was...

Japan was looking for peace before they were hit. Just wanted to point that out.

-145 Reply

Anonymous

In response to “Japan was looking for peace before they were...

Then blame the leaders for not responding to both messages asking for surrender.

+121 Reply

Anonymous

In response to “Then blame the leaders for not responding to...

Honestly? I don't think people should have bombs dropped on them in general. I don't care who they are, those babies were not part of the planning.

+1414 Reply

Anonymous

In response to “Honestly? I don't think people should have...

That's a whole different debate about the ethics of war. We shouldn't do it but if we don't we get conquered or killed by the people who will. There's no way to stop it or actually win. The best we can do so far is have groups like the United Nations that will hopefully be able to prevent conflict and encourage relations between troubled nations.

+231 Reply

ScottyD

In response to “That's a whole different debate about the...

Because the League of Nations did wonderfully.

+561 Reply

Anonymous

In response to “Because the League of Nations did wonderfully.

I'm not saying they're amazing but it's really all we got. You can't trust people to work things out on their own on such a big scale, which is a sad statement but it is what it is.

0 Reply

ScottyD

In response to “I'm not saying they're amazing but it's...

Hopfully someday it will be better...

0 Reply

Anonymous

In response to “Hiroshima was a military base to, so that was...

When they were targeting places, they were ordered to bomb a military place, but only if they had visual confirmation. It was very coudy over the first target (that I cannot remember the name of, sorry!), so they went to Nagasaki, which was the secondary target. (Well, accoring to the History Channel, anyway!)

0 Reply

Underlander

America is the biggest terrorist country in the world. It has been involved in these "conflicts" incessantly for the past 70 years.

+51271 Reply

dzukac dzukac

Hiroshima wasn't meant to kill innocent people, the americans figured that once the japanese saw a plane flying over head they would all take shelter. However, they were flying much higher than normal bombers, which led the civilians to believe it was a weather or recon plane

-44 Reply

Sonofarifle

In response to “Hiroshima wasn't meant to kill innocent...

Yeah, it's really easy to take shelter from a nuclear bomb.

+21211 Reply

CaptainShrooms

In response to “Yeah, it's really easy to take shelter from a...

Duck and cover. It's that easy!

0 Reply

MaryKateBurnett MaryKateBurnett

In response to “Duck and cover. It's that easy!

And if you don't have cover, use a coat and a doorstep, you'll be totally safe! :)

+33 Reply

Xin_a_tizzleX Xin_a_tizzleX

In response to “And if you don't have cover, use a coat and a...

Ohya! Stock up on coats and we'll totally be ready for a nuclear war xD

+11 Reply

MaryKateBurnett MaryKateBurnett

In response to “Ohya! Stock up on coats and we'll totally be...

And just put a few tables out in streets to duck under in case there's not enough doorsteps :)

0 Reply

Xin_a_tizzleX Xin_a_tizzleX

In response to “And just put a few tables out in streets to...

Hahahahaha you can never have enough tables to hide under d:
We should get a few fold-up chairs to go with those tables xD

0 Reply

MaryKateBurnett MaryKateBurnett

In response to “Hahahahaha you can never have enough tables...

Yeah, and then on the days when there's not a bomb people can use it to have a sit or have their lunch outside :) See? We're even improving on the world :)

0 Reply

Xin_a_tizzleX Xin_a_tizzleX

In response to “Yeah, and then on the days when there's not a...

Hell yeah SPONTANEOUS TEA PARTY

0 Reply

MaryKateBurnett MaryKateBurnett

In response to “Hell yeah SPONTANEOUS TEA PARTY

I'll bring the tea and cups, you bring the cakes :)

0 Reply

Xin_a_tizzleX Xin_a_tizzleX

In response to “I'll bring the tea and cups, you bring the...

Sounds like a plan :D

0 Reply

MaryKateBurnett MaryKateBurnett

In response to “Yeah, it's really easy to take shelter from a...

If you can make it under ground you're pretty safe, the shockwave travels above the ground.

0 Reply

Sonofarifle

In response to “If you can make it under ground you're pretty...

Cool, but how many people would try to hide underground whenever they see a plane? even during war time.

0 Reply

CaptainShrooms

In response to “Cool, but how many people would try to hide...

Im not saying im an expert, this is what i saw on a discovery channel special

0 Reply

Sonofarifle

In response to “Hiroshima wasn't meant to kill innocent...

Please tell me this isn't a serious statement. If the American forces only intended to intimidate the Japanese, they would've either dropped the bomb on an uninhabited space or flown one or more planes overhead without bombing civilians.

0 Reply

a_fetus a_fetus

In response to “Please tell me this isn't a serious...

I didn't say it was to intimidate, they picked hiroshima because it was a port town, and if they destroyed it a sort of blockade would have taken place.

0 Reply

Sonofarifle

In response to “I didn't say it was to intimidate, they...

"Hiroshima wasn't meant to kill innocent people, the americans figured that once the japanese saw a plane flying over head they would all take shelter."

Emphasis on "Hiroshima wasn't meant to kill innocent people." If this is the case, then what did the American forces hope to accomplish by dropping an atomic bomb on the city? I came to the "intimidation" conclusion because I couldn't guess, from your statement, what you thought the intent was behind the bombing.

0 Reply

a_fetus a_fetus

Yeah I gotta disagree...but that's an interesting way of thinking about it. And it's a very well-written post :)

+22 Reply

runnerdude runnerdude

The bombing saved way more lives then it killed and it caused less destruction then if there was a full blown war in Japan

+132 Reply

Davidplante

In response to “The bombing saved way more lives then it...

No... It saved more American lives. At the time the Japanese probably would have preferred war instead of watching thousands of people die instantly and thousands more die slowly and painfully.

+132 Reply

John_MacTavish John_MacTavish OP

In response to “No... It saved more American lives. At the...

I think having small explosions (napalm bombing runs mortars ect) would have destroyed and killed way more people and having all the civilians join the fight because Japan's government told them false information sayingh we will kill everyone and rape everbody would have lead up to way more deaths then the bombs did and we gave them 2 chances to give up and they didnt we even showed them how strong a nuclear bomb was.

-44 Reply

Davidplante

In response to “I think having small explosions (napalm...

Actually its very unlikely that that would have created a higher death toll. And even more unlikely it would have created the long term damage that was done. Also we did not in fact give any kind of showing of the power of our weapon before use.

+33 Reply

John_MacTavish John_MacTavish OP

In response to “Ok

Facts debunked! Argument lost! Next move?

0 Reply

Anonymous

In response to “Facts debunked! Argument lost! Next move?

I'm throwin in the white flag ref

0 Reply

Davidplante

In response to “No... It saved more American lives. At the...

Of course, it saved more American lives. . . Isn't that kinda the definition of war. You look at for your countries' best interests. It's not like we're going allow more of our troops to die to help the enemy out.

0 Reply

YouveJustBeenTrolled

Yes.
But!
Terrorism for the sake of war, that is, for the saving of lives during battle, is MUCH more justifiable than terrorism for the sake of religious ideals.

-Ashamed American halfheartedly defending herself

+66 Reply

FlyingGuineaPig FlyingGuineaPig

In response to “Yes. But! Terrorism for the sake of war, that...

Semantics can always provide a way to half-argue a point but in the end I see it as 2 airplanes into 2 tall buildings in New York vs 2 bombs capable of each destroying New York and killing everyone in it.

+242 Reply

John_MacTavish John_MacTavish OP

In response to “Semantics can always provide a way to...

I see it as an attack fueled by hate vs. an attack fueled by the desire to protect one's own country.

+111 Reply

YouveJustBeenTrolled

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved far more people than it killed.

0 Reply

Cpt_McMuffin Cpt_McMuffin

In response to “The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved...

Unfortunately the ethics of mass slaughter doesn't change the definition of terrorism.

+11 Reply

John_MacTavish John_MacTavish OP

In response to “The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved...

There is no universal definition of terrorism, the one you're using is only one of many, and I have several problems with it. "Systematic use of terror...", generally people will say that the goal of terrorism is to spread fear and terror, not necessarily "use" it in the same sense you're talking about, and the US wasn't trying to spread terror, they were trying to end a war. "Used when direct force seems too costly...", costly? A bombing of that nature isn't exactly economically easy. "Cowardly use of force...", the word cowardly is subjective. What if using weapons that had never been used before and knowing the consequences was an act of bravery?

Anyway, that's all my opinion. You did a good job on this post, it's a very interesting question that has sparked a lot of thought and debate.

0 Reply

Cpt_McMuffin Cpt_McMuffin

In response to “The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved...

I understand and can see why there is an argue for your side in most of your points. But for "Used when direct force is too costly" I think it would be a universal understanding that 2 nuclear bombs would be more cost efficient then a full fledged invasion by US troops for The States, ignoring the terrorism argument. Thank you

0 Reply

John_MacTavish John_MacTavish OP

In response to “The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved...

Yeah, you would be correct on that. However, I highly doubt that the US government chose the bombing over an invasion because it was less costly.

0 Reply

Cpt_McMuffin Cpt_McMuffin

In response to “The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved...

Really? Huh. I think that is exactly why. I think the ENTIRE purpose of dropping the 2 bombs was 35% to save American lives and 65% to save American money. War is expensive so they ended the war

0 Reply

John_MacTavish John_MacTavish OP

In response to “The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved...

You don't think it's likely that they chose the bombing because it was faster and got the message across better than an invasion would have? I was talking about why they dropped the bombs instead of invading, you're talking about why they considered either in the first place (to end the war). As for the reason they wanted to end the war, I would mostly agree with you, a combination of saving lives internationally (not just American), and getting out before they suffered the same fate as England and Germany (both of which were extremely invested in the war and lost a lot of economic power because of it). However, that isn't what I was talking about.

0 Reply

Cpt_McMuffin Cpt_McMuffin

In response to “The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved...

Of course part of it would be the message thry get across. But I think the US looked at both options, invading and bombing, and thought 'Invading will be incredibly expensive, cost many American and Ally lives, and take very long, where as bombing will be infinitely cheaper, cost no American lives, and we can literally send them continuously until we win, but the Japanese are hardcore patriotic soldiers so killing them isn't the way to make them surrender, let's kill hundreds of thousands of civilians, the government won't be able to continue war moral when we are killing children and women and they have no way to stop it.' Strategically? Brilliant. But the ethics of such a move seemed to be over looked.

0 Reply

John_MacTavish John_MacTavish OP

In response to “The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved...

I highly doubt that they thought "let's kill hundreds of thousands of civilians." The Japanese side was probably going to be killing civilians too, and a lot more.

I'm not going to act like I know the American government's exact motives for their choice, considering that I wasn't even around back then, nor have I ever been involved in polotics. But I will say that when people make a choice like that, if one of the upsides was money, there will ALWAYS be people who disagreed accusing them of doing it for the money and being unethical, whether or not the money was their actual motive.

Ethics of such a move? This is war we're talking about, the way I see it it's all unethical anyways so people will just do whatever they can to win. That's not to say that I think that's okay, nor do I approve of killing civilians, but I don't think it's fair to accuse people in that situation of being unethical. As you said, it was strategically brillant, which was very important at that time.

All this crap because I said I thought two atomic bombs weren't cheap. This argument could have been over in four comments...

0 Reply

Cpt_McMuffin Cpt_McMuffin

In response to “The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved...

I guess well agree to disagree then, thank you for an intelligent well written argument that got me thinking again

0 Reply

John_MacTavish John_MacTavish OP

In response to “The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved...

Sounds good to me. You seem like a pretty civilized person compared to most other people on the internet, and it was a very interesting discussion.

+11 Reply

Cpt_McMuffin Cpt_McMuffin

Please login or create an account to make a comment.

Sort comments by: Replies Date Score Loves

Find out your friends' opinions

Amirite is the premier opinion-based social network where people from all around the world discover, debate and discuss today's hottest issues. Share your perspective to the world and interact with like-minded individuals on breaking news, hot topics and controversial issues now!

With that many angles, the discussions on Amirite will open your eyes to a panoramic view of your world that you won't get anywhere else, allowing you to see the big picture and discuss it.

Every opinion matters on Amirite.

Sign up to have your opinion heard!

It only takes a second.
Connect with Facebook, Twitter or Google.

or create an account with your email...

Sign Up Already Have An Account?

Login to your Amirite account...

Login Forgot Your Details? Need An Account?

Enter your email address and we'll email you your account details.

Send Details Back To Login Form

Login using...

Login

Forgotten username or password?
We'll send you your username and a new password.

Email Address

Login

Sign up to have your opinion heard!

Show posts as Grid List

By creating an account you indicate that you have read and agree to abide by our rules.

Create My Account