i was watching a documentary about an old japanese film maker. the documentary started with footage (that i hadn't seen before) of charred bodies, dead where they lay in hiroshima right after the bombing. these bodies weren't charred so much as they were almost ash, there were limbs missing, they had probabaly just fallen off as they burned, you've all seen what happens when you overcook meat in the microwave.
it was just quite similar to Sarah Conner's dream in Terminator 2.
anyway, while looking at the charred remains of the civilian bodies. it occured to me:
the Hiroshima bombing was an act of terrorism.
because it purposely targetted a huge amount of civilians, for a political motive.
and here's what's interesting: it worked!
japan surrendered rather than loose more cities.
this is somewhat different to the "never give in to terrorists' demands" dogma that is being spouted currently.
what say you?
historical terrorism
Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250
-
HaAGen DaZS
- DBB Benefactor
- Posts: 2695
- Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: Sextland
-
CDN_Merlin
- DBB_Master
- Posts: 9781
- Joined: Thu Nov 05, 1998 12:01 pm
- Location: Capital Of Canada
-
Flabby Chick
- DBB Fleet Admiral
- Posts: 2367
- Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: Israel
-
Will Robinson
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 10135
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am
So now you know why we want to stop the other terrorists so badly, so we don't end up on the wrong end of something that devastating.
I've always acknowledged that one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist.
We are trying to get the world to play by our definitions instead of those of some fatwa launching, jihad loving, islamikazi creating, mullah.
Personally I like eating with either hand, letting girls wear bikini's, eating pork chops, having jewish friends, dancing to rock and roll, not going to church when I don't want to....etc. etc.
I've always acknowledged that one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist.
We are trying to get the world to play by our definitions instead of those of some fatwa launching, jihad loving, islamikazi creating, mullah.
Personally I like eating with either hand, letting girls wear bikini's, eating pork chops, having jewish friends, dancing to rock and roll, not going to church when I don't want to....etc. etc.
Interesting question. I found myself not really being able to answer so I looked up the definition of terrorism to have some sort of framework with which to answer.
1. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
2. The act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; a mode of government by terror or intimidation.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
3. The systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments.
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University
The first definition does not apply. The use of the bomb itself wasnâ??t unlawful because we were in a declared war. The Geneva Convention had not occurred yet so the intentional targeting of civilians wasnâ??t unlawful.
The second definition doesnâ??t apply because we were not using the bomb as a tool of governance over the Japanese.
The third definition does apply because we clearly used it to intimidate and coerce a government.
So, based upon these definitions I have to say that dropping the bomb on Japan was an act of terrorism.
However, based on the third definition war itself is a terrorist act. So where does that leave us? Probably right were we started; the winner gets to write the rules.
1. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
2. The act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; a mode of government by terror or intimidation.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
3. The systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments.
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University
The first definition does not apply. The use of the bomb itself wasnâ??t unlawful because we were in a declared war. The Geneva Convention had not occurred yet so the intentional targeting of civilians wasnâ??t unlawful.
The second definition doesnâ??t apply because we were not using the bomb as a tool of governance over the Japanese.
The third definition does apply because we clearly used it to intimidate and coerce a government.
So, based upon these definitions I have to say that dropping the bomb on Japan was an act of terrorism.
However, based on the third definition war itself is a terrorist act. So where does that leave us? Probably right were we started; the winner gets to write the rules.
Re: historical terrorism
So was the American revolution. What's your point?roid wrote:the Hiroshima bombing was an act of terrorism.
-
Flabby Chick
- DBB Fleet Admiral
- Posts: 2367
- Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: Israel
It stopped the war against Japan. And saved countless Japanese and allied lives. By using them it brought about the meaning of a deterrent, which has worked, and now we're in the process of getting rid of them. (long process, i agree).Vader wrote:The Japs were trying to surrender before Hiroshima. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were politically motivated, yes, but they were actually directed at the USSR as a "Oh look, weve got NUKES that work and you dont! PHEAR US, STALIN!!!" Or something.
I'm glad the US used Nukes, it's one of the best things they've done and maybe it'll be one of the things that contributes to saving mankind.....in hind sight.
FC
-
Krom
- DBB Database Master
- Posts: 16138
- Joined: Sun Nov 29, 1998 3:01 am
- Location: Camping the energy center. BTW, did you know you can have up to 100 characters in this location box?
- Contact:
We would have won the war without them, but it would have been longer and bloodier. The Japanese were prepared to fight to the last man woman and child. The nukes broke them because it showed that we could wipe them out quickly with almost no casualties, they would die for nothing. Had we invaded Japan we would have lost more troops, we would have killed more Japanese.
Itâ??s like the frog in a pot trick, drop a frog into a pot of boiling water and it jumps out. Put the frog into a pot of cold water and bring it to a boil = cooked frog.
Itâ??s like the frog in a pot trick, drop a frog into a pot of boiling water and it jumps out. Put the frog into a pot of cold water and bring it to a boil = cooked frog.
point was to show that most countries don't have the right to act all high and mighty when denouncing other countrys' acts of terrorism.bash wrote:So was the genocide of the Australian Aborigines. I concur with Tetrad, what's your point?
it's to encourage all to mentally cut through the stupid 30second sound bites we are all forced to hear.
terrorism isn't the devil it's currently being labeled as.
and to point out one reason that the world laughs at america (and it's "monkey see monkey do" supporters, incl australia) and rolls it's eyes at it's pitiful and blatantly hypocritical propeganda rhetoric attempts.
i would suggest to israel to not spout american anti-terrorism rhetoric when defending itself from worldwide scrutiny. it does nothing but WEAKEN their position.
basically: "earth, cut the crap"
Don't be a hater, roid. Your point was fairly obvious, actually, just a thinly veiled attempt to bash America. Pot calling the kettle black, as you're so fond of saying. Praise be to Allah that not all Aussies share your negativity.
* * *
Stand Firm
Australia's government is committed to finish the job in Iraq.
By John Howard
CANBERRA, Australia--In the shock that followed the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S. the world united to condemn terrorism. When 88 Australians were among the dead in the bombing atrocity committed in Bali in October 2002, there was, amid the grief and anger, an overwhelming unity in our resolve to stand against terror.
Yet in the wake of the indiscriminate slaughter of almost 200 commuters in Madrid, global commentary seems as much focused on the political implications for Western governments as on the perpetrators.
It will be doubly tragic if mass murder is rewarded with even the perception that our resolve has weakened. At the very least the victims--those killed and injured--deserve an absolute assurance that this outrage will make all of us more determined to stand together against terror. Now is not the time for us to be diverted from this global mission.
Words are weapons in the information age and there is a need for vigilance to ensure we are not signaling weakness in the face of this ongoing threat. There can be no excusing the inexcusable. The messages we send, whether as leaders of governments or leaders of opinion, must be that we will stay the course and finish the job.
One of the front lines in this unconventional war is Iraq where terrorists seek to destroy the freedom offered by the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Whether you agree with the decision to invade Iraq or not, there is no denying that there is a job to be done to ensure that the Iraqi people have a future.
Currently Australia is one of 35 countries that have troops deployed in Iraq. The work they are doing is vital and practical. They are helping to secure essential services for the people of Iraq and to train the new Iraqi police force and army. For the most part, the Iraqi people understand and appreciate the role these foreign forces are playing. It is not surprising that an Oxford Research International Poll commissioned by the BBC found that only 15% of Iraqis want the coalition forces to leave.
Of course, they do not want them to stay indefinitely, and none of the governments that have contributed to the coalition want their troops there any longer than is necessary. But right now we do not know when the essential job being done by coalition forces in Iraq will be finished. Talk of an early withdrawal, or arbitrary deadlines, undermines their role and gives comfort to those who seek to thwart the creation of a free and democratic Iraq.
It sends precisely the wrong message at a time when we need to be underlining our resolve to stay until the job is done. It sends the wrong signal to the people of Iraq and to terrorist groups operating in Iraq at a time when we need to demonstrate maximum unity.
One of the freedoms we want for the people of Iraq is the political freedom we enjoy in Western democracies. It is the same freedom that ensures a healthy and robust debate on issues of national security and foreign policy in Australia, the U.S., the U.K. and throughout Europe.
But that freedom will never be delivered in Iraq if groups like al Qaeda have their way. Their mission is to overthrow moderate Muslim governments and replace them with repressive, Taliban-style regimes. In Iraq they seek to choke off freedom before it can take hold.
I recall, as though it was yesterday, being in Washington on Sept. 11, 2001. I remember the sense of outrage and disbelief. But most of all I recall the immediate and resolute determination to stand together against this global threat.
The threat remains.
The need for unity in the face of that threat is as important now as it was then.
Mr. Howard is prime minister of Australia.
* * *
Stand Firm
Australia's government is committed to finish the job in Iraq.
By John Howard
CANBERRA, Australia--In the shock that followed the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S. the world united to condemn terrorism. When 88 Australians were among the dead in the bombing atrocity committed in Bali in October 2002, there was, amid the grief and anger, an overwhelming unity in our resolve to stand against terror.
Yet in the wake of the indiscriminate slaughter of almost 200 commuters in Madrid, global commentary seems as much focused on the political implications for Western governments as on the perpetrators.
It will be doubly tragic if mass murder is rewarded with even the perception that our resolve has weakened. At the very least the victims--those killed and injured--deserve an absolute assurance that this outrage will make all of us more determined to stand together against terror. Now is not the time for us to be diverted from this global mission.
Words are weapons in the information age and there is a need for vigilance to ensure we are not signaling weakness in the face of this ongoing threat. There can be no excusing the inexcusable. The messages we send, whether as leaders of governments or leaders of opinion, must be that we will stay the course and finish the job.
One of the front lines in this unconventional war is Iraq where terrorists seek to destroy the freedom offered by the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Whether you agree with the decision to invade Iraq or not, there is no denying that there is a job to be done to ensure that the Iraqi people have a future.
Currently Australia is one of 35 countries that have troops deployed in Iraq. The work they are doing is vital and practical. They are helping to secure essential services for the people of Iraq and to train the new Iraqi police force and army. For the most part, the Iraqi people understand and appreciate the role these foreign forces are playing. It is not surprising that an Oxford Research International Poll commissioned by the BBC found that only 15% of Iraqis want the coalition forces to leave.
Of course, they do not want them to stay indefinitely, and none of the governments that have contributed to the coalition want their troops there any longer than is necessary. But right now we do not know when the essential job being done by coalition forces in Iraq will be finished. Talk of an early withdrawal, or arbitrary deadlines, undermines their role and gives comfort to those who seek to thwart the creation of a free and democratic Iraq.
It sends precisely the wrong message at a time when we need to be underlining our resolve to stay until the job is done. It sends the wrong signal to the people of Iraq and to terrorist groups operating in Iraq at a time when we need to demonstrate maximum unity.
One of the freedoms we want for the people of Iraq is the political freedom we enjoy in Western democracies. It is the same freedom that ensures a healthy and robust debate on issues of national security and foreign policy in Australia, the U.S., the U.K. and throughout Europe.
But that freedom will never be delivered in Iraq if groups like al Qaeda have their way. Their mission is to overthrow moderate Muslim governments and replace them with repressive, Taliban-style regimes. In Iraq they seek to choke off freedom before it can take hold.
I recall, as though it was yesterday, being in Washington on Sept. 11, 2001. I remember the sense of outrage and disbelief. But most of all I recall the immediate and resolute determination to stand together against this global threat.
The threat remains.
The need for unity in the face of that threat is as important now as it was then.
Mr. Howard is prime minister of Australia.
i'm not being a hater, you are american, i don't hate you. i made it a point in my last post to group australia with america in "countries the world is laughing at". i am critical of my own country's government just as i am of yours.bash wrote:Don't be a hater, roid. Your point was fairly obvious, actually, just a thinly veiled attempt to bash America. Pot calling the kettle black, as you're so fond of saying. Praise be to Allah that not all Aussies share your negativity.
* * *
Stand Firm
Australia's government is committed to finish the job in Iraq.
By John Howard
...
Mr. Howard is prime minister of Australia.
most aussies do share my "negativity", and DON'T agree with John Howard on these subjects. (you may have been told otherwise by your media, it wouldn't surprise me) you always gotta remember that nation's governments don't always speak for the people, i accept this for america, and i likewise expect you to accept it of other nations.
i don't call John Howard's opinion impartial editorial, representative of the people
. he's hardly "most aussies".please don't write off all critism as "america bashing". that's preschool rules, and arn't we past that by now?
i accept that there may have been attempted genocides of the aboriginal population in Tazmania, but otherwise i'm pretty sure in the rest of OZ it was just typical horrible colonisation, integration, and a complete disrespect for aboriginal culture. we as a cultural nation are paying for it now, and trying our hardest to make things right again.
no denial.
i am very grr @ denial.
-
Will Robinson
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 10135
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am
Yes, actually it is.roid wrote:...terrorism isn't the devil it's currently being labeled as.
You need to pick your team of terrorists and be proud to defend them!
We in the western world don't terrorize people for their thoughts and beliefs. You have to actually do some physical harm to us before we stop defending your right to be stupid and kill you for it.
[Nub] Dedman wrote:The Geneva Convention had not occurred yet so the intentional targeting of civilians wasnâ??t unlawful.
hmm, i hadn't thought of that before. is this good enough reason to not bring the perpetrators to justice? i'd like to see whoever ordered the atom bomb strike be tried before the international court.
but legally, this may be a loophole in that there was technically "no law to brake" at the time.
i'm not sure what would happen in this case, i really see it as a question of justice.
interesting, very interesting, definitely food for thought.
are you being sarcastic? i'm real sorry, but, i'm not sure howto take it. i raised a rather "hard to accept" question/statement in the start of this thread, so i'm careful not to jump the gun in my understandings of the incomming replys.Will Robinson wrote: You need to pick your team of terrorists and be proud to defend them!
Will has a point. We don't attack other countries because they're Arab or Muslim or because they have different beliefs. We attack other countries because they have oil (KIDDING)
No, we don't just bomb people because we disagree with their beliefs. We will retaliate when attacked, and you can't compare a case when we're at war to a case when we're not. You're right, history is filled with double standards. The governments have been the biggest terrorists to their own people. Just look at US history; we've beaten, lynched, wrongly imprisoned, enslaved, segregated and stolen the land of our own people.
No, we don't just bomb people because we disagree with their beliefs. We will retaliate when attacked, and you can't compare a case when we're at war to a case when we're not. You're right, history is filled with double standards. The governments have been the biggest terrorists to their own people. Just look at US history; we've beaten, lynched, wrongly imprisoned, enslaved, segregated and stolen the land of our own people.
-
Will Robinson
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 10135
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am
Not sarcasm, just blunt honesty.
I accept the premise the U.S. is a terrorist state in the eyes of some entities.
So I simply think that looking at the world that way, that if everyone is a terrorist, you must judge them based on their cause, not their tactics.
We may use force just like bin Laddin or Hammas but why we use it is what separates us from them in my eyes. So, I choose the western societies as the ones with the just cause...they are my terrorists of choice and I'm proud to say I hope we win and the enemy crumbles at our feet.
I accept the premise the U.S. is a terrorist state in the eyes of some entities.
So I simply think that looking at the world that way, that if everyone is a terrorist, you must judge them based on their cause, not their tactics.
We may use force just like bin Laddin or Hammas but why we use it is what separates us from them in my eyes. So, I choose the western societies as the ones with the just cause...they are my terrorists of choice and I'm proud to say I hope we win and the enemy crumbles at our feet.
Beo if you believe that hiroshima was justified because it was a war. then all other terrorist attacks throughout history (incl recent ones) are also justified. because every terrorist will say they are at war (just coz CNN doesn't think it's important doesn't mean there isn't a war going on).
this is kindof the point of the current grilling of intelligence communitys: they wouldn't accept it as a war, so weren't prepared for an attack (WTC attack).
i prettymuch agree with what Will says in his last post. 'cept for the need to have a war with winners and loosers (being somewhat of a pacifist myself, i prefer love, flowers and cheeze platters for all in a scrumptious peaceful little party to settle the differences). but it's a small point.
wow
this is kindof the point of the current grilling of intelligence communitys: they wouldn't accept it as a war, so weren't prepared for an attack (WTC attack).
i prettymuch agree with what Will says in his last post. 'cept for the need to have a war with winners and loosers (being somewhat of a pacifist myself, i prefer love, flowers and cheeze platters for all in a scrumptious peaceful little party to settle the differences). but it's a small point.
wow
-
Lothar
- DBB Ghost Admin
- Posts: 12133
- Joined: Thu Nov 05, 1998 12:01 pm
- Location: I'm so glad to be home
- Contact:
Ahh, good old Reuters... engaging in an equivocation fallacy.one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter
Some freedom fighters are also terrorists, and some are not. Some terrorists are freedom fighers, and some are not. They are not equivalent; rather, they're independent -- one describes tactics and one describes causes (see below.)
A terrorist is a person who attacks civilians, specifically for the purpose of influencing a particular government (someone who attacks civilians just for kicks is a psycho, but not a terrorist.)
A freedom fighter is a person who is trying to earn the freedom of one group from a government that doesn't give them the rights the percieve they should have.
Some terrorists are also freedom fighters -- but some terrorists are simply terrorists, and some freedom fighters are not terrorists. We can judge both the cause and the tactics... One man's terrorist may be every man's terrorist and nobody's freedom fighter, or he may be both a terrorist and a freedom fighter.
Judge them based on both. One can use terrorist tactics or non-terrorist tactics either for a legitimate or illegitimate cause. Limiting our judgement only to causes ignores the reality of the tactics we employ.if everyone is a terrorist, you must judge them based on their cause, not their tactics.
For example, a Palestinian shooting at the Israeli military (without using little kids as shields) is a freedom fighter but not a terrorist; I disagree with his cause but not his tactics. A Palestinian blowing up a bus stop full of civilians is a terrorist; he's a complete loser who deserves no sympathy. The reality of the situation involves *both* the cause *and* the tactics, and ignoring either one of them is folly.
Is it possible to believe that some terrorism is justified and some terrorism is not? For example, one might argue that Hiroshima was justified because, while it was terrorism, it was carefully calculated to minimize overall casualties in the war by ending it quickly (at the cost of several civilian casualties short-term.) The same person might argue that the WTC bombing wasn't justified because it was designed to maximize overall casualties, rather than to minimize them.if you believe that hiroshima was justified because it was a war. then all other terrorist attacks throughout history (incl recent ones) are also justified.
Now, I don't particularly care whether or not Hiroshima was justified (so don't waste your time responding to the above paragraph) -- it's not as though my country, or yours, is innocent of wrongdoing in history. But what I do care about is what our countries are doing right now, and whether or not that is justified. Regardless of how we label things ("war" or "terrorism", "freedom fighter" or "terrorist") and regardless of how well our labels actually describe the situation or how many distinctions they blur, the ever-important questions still remain: is our cause just? Are our tactics justified? Can we act in a way that is more justified? These questions can't be answered by semantics or clever one-line responses, and it's sad that so many have resorted to that.
-
index_html
- DBB Captain
- Posts: 571
- Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2002 2:01 am
It's sort of a funny brand of terrorism when you drop leaflets like the following before you attack (from the Harry S. Truman library):
-------------------------------
ATTENTION JAPANESE PEOPLE. EVACUATE YOUR CITIES.
Because your military leaders have rejected the thirteen part surrender declaration, two momentous events have occurred in the last few days.
The Soviet Union, because of this rejection on the part of the military has notified your Ambassador Sato that it has declared war on your nation. Thus, all powerful countries of the world are now at war with you.
Also, because of your leaders' refusal to accept the surrender declaration that would enable Japan to honorably end this useless war, we have employed our atomic bomb.
A single one of our newly developed atomic bombs is actually the equivalent in explosive power to what 2000 of our giant B-29s could have carried on a single mission. Radio Tokyo has told you that with the first use of this weapon of total destruction, Hiroshima was virtually destroyed.
Before we use this bomb again and again to destroy every resource of the military by which they are prolonging this useless war, petition the emperor now to end the war. Our president has outlined for you the thirteen consequences of an honorable surrender. We urge that you accept these consequences and begin the work of building a new, better, and peace-loving Japan.
Act at once or we shall resolutely employ this bomb and all our other superior weapons to promptly and forcefully end the war.
EVACUATE YOUR CITIES.
--------------------------------------
PBS Link
Out of the 30 million civilians killed during WWII, less than 1% were killed by atomic bombs. The Japanese killed at least 7.5 million Chinese civilians (I've read it could be as high as 15 million), and more than both atomic bombs during the "Rape of Nanking" alone (300,000 Chinese killed). This is a good article on the event, which seems to be an atrocity that isn't often mentioned.
I don't know if the amount of carnage the Japanese did necessarily justifies a nuclear response, but I would think their initiation of such massive devastation and their intransigent brutality in expanding their empire played a factor in how the U.S. responded. Perhaps the Japanese were going to surrender anyways, but it's interesting that they didn't do so after the first atomic bomb was dropped and were warned that more would follow. I think it's hard for us today to comprehend the suicidal committment the Japanese had to Emperor Hirohito, who they regarded as a god according to Shinto belief.
-------------------------------
ATTENTION JAPANESE PEOPLE. EVACUATE YOUR CITIES.
Because your military leaders have rejected the thirteen part surrender declaration, two momentous events have occurred in the last few days.
The Soviet Union, because of this rejection on the part of the military has notified your Ambassador Sato that it has declared war on your nation. Thus, all powerful countries of the world are now at war with you.
Also, because of your leaders' refusal to accept the surrender declaration that would enable Japan to honorably end this useless war, we have employed our atomic bomb.
A single one of our newly developed atomic bombs is actually the equivalent in explosive power to what 2000 of our giant B-29s could have carried on a single mission. Radio Tokyo has told you that with the first use of this weapon of total destruction, Hiroshima was virtually destroyed.
Before we use this bomb again and again to destroy every resource of the military by which they are prolonging this useless war, petition the emperor now to end the war. Our president has outlined for you the thirteen consequences of an honorable surrender. We urge that you accept these consequences and begin the work of building a new, better, and peace-loving Japan.
Act at once or we shall resolutely employ this bomb and all our other superior weapons to promptly and forcefully end the war.
EVACUATE YOUR CITIES.
--------------------------------------
PBS Link
Out of the 30 million civilians killed during WWII, less than 1% were killed by atomic bombs. The Japanese killed at least 7.5 million Chinese civilians (I've read it could be as high as 15 million), and more than both atomic bombs during the "Rape of Nanking" alone (300,000 Chinese killed). This is a good article on the event, which seems to be an atrocity that isn't often mentioned.
I don't know if the amount of carnage the Japanese did necessarily justifies a nuclear response, but I would think their initiation of such massive devastation and their intransigent brutality in expanding their empire played a factor in how the U.S. responded. Perhaps the Japanese were going to surrender anyways, but it's interesting that they didn't do so after the first atomic bomb was dropped and were warned that more would follow. I think it's hard for us today to comprehend the suicidal committment the Japanese had to Emperor Hirohito, who they regarded as a god according to Shinto belief.
-
Testiculese
- DBB Material Defender
- Posts: 4689
- Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2001 3:01 am
I remember that. Japan used WW2 as an excuse to slaughter people in China. China lost almost as many, or more, than Russia.
Speaking of terrorism, anyone remember the firebombing of (one or several) Japanese cities before dawn? This was some time before the 2 A-Bombs were dropped. The US roasted about 800,000 civilians in their beds with napalm, with no little leaflets precipitating the massacre.
Speaking of terrorism, anyone remember the firebombing of (one or several) Japanese cities before dawn? This was some time before the 2 A-Bombs were dropped. The US roasted about 800,000 civilians in their beds with napalm, with no little leaflets precipitating the massacre.
For the record, there were 3 geneva conventions prior to the start of hostilities in world war II.
Also, the B-29 raids were causing more casualties than the A-bombs did. There is a lot of evidence to indicate that the Japanese were only weeks away from surrender when we dropped the A-bombs.
It is somewhat hypocritical for us to appeal to morality regarding attacks on civilians considering that without smart bombs we would definitely target civilians to this day. in fact, all the terrorist attacks in the world combined probably would not amount to the casualites caused in just one USA B-29 raid, say that on Tokyo of January 9-10 of 1945, which killed some 200,000 people.
Smart bomb technology means that we no longer need to target civilians. but don't forget that we developed smart bombs to be more lethal, not to spare civilian lives. without smart bombs, civilians would be as fair game to us as is a noob with keyboard icon during a ctf game.
Targeting civilians is immoral whoever pulls the trigger. the real nature of the hypocrisy is that we caused civilian deaths with shocking profligacy, all the while proclaiming it was a moral thing. the real horror of the A-bomb is not so much it's lethality, but that it was apparently unnecessary since the Japanese surrender was imminent (See Hoyt's Japan's War).
Also, the B-29 raids were causing more casualties than the A-bombs did. There is a lot of evidence to indicate that the Japanese were only weeks away from surrender when we dropped the A-bombs.
It is somewhat hypocritical for us to appeal to morality regarding attacks on civilians considering that without smart bombs we would definitely target civilians to this day. in fact, all the terrorist attacks in the world combined probably would not amount to the casualites caused in just one USA B-29 raid, say that on Tokyo of January 9-10 of 1945, which killed some 200,000 people.
Smart bomb technology means that we no longer need to target civilians. but don't forget that we developed smart bombs to be more lethal, not to spare civilian lives. without smart bombs, civilians would be as fair game to us as is a noob with keyboard icon during a ctf game.
Targeting civilians is immoral whoever pulls the trigger. the real nature of the hypocrisy is that we caused civilian deaths with shocking profligacy, all the while proclaiming it was a moral thing. the real horror of the A-bomb is not so much it's lethality, but that it was apparently unnecessary since the Japanese surrender was imminent (See Hoyt's Japan's War).
