+95 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?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Interesting concept, but I would not agree.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Interesting reply. But I would say it was pointless.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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

by Anonymous 12 years ago

the while basis of this sight? Smoking comeback there.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Sight? o_O

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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."

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I guess it comes down to opinion.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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...

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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....

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Everyone is entitled to their opinion

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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.".

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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!)

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Duck and cover. It's that easy!

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

"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.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Ok

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Facts debunked! Argument lost! Next move?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I'm throwin in the white flag ref

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

http://ctrlv.in/43694

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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

by Anonymous 12 years ago

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

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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...

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 11 years ago