Proposition: The US action of dropping atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an act of terrorism. I really hate the thought that it was, but I find it difficult to construct a rational argument that it was not. Try to hold off on the flag-waving and chest-thumping until you finish reading, please. If you define terrorism as the use of offensive tactics in a war or conflict that target civilians with the intent of raising fear among a broader civilian population as a means of coercion, then I can find no way of refuting the above proposition. Webster's online dictionary defines terrorism as: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion, but I find that definition as so broad that it could incorporate practically any offensive military tactic, and therefore not representative of the meaning of the word as used in the current context. Another definition I found on an FBI site says: "Terrorism is defined as violent or criminal acts against a civilian population for the purpose of coercion, and promoting a political cause or agenda." Cite But that doesn't seem to help any. The events of 9/11 have stirred much discussions about terrorism and terrorists. In the words of our President, we are at "war against terrorism", and that sounds a bit hypocritical. Perhaps this is a case of the "ends justifying the means"? And if so, must we conclude that our conflict with Al Queda is strictly ideological, and not based on their tactics (as a "war on terrorism" suggests)? Or is this simply the case where the winner writes the rules and "spins" the history books? I know that the U.S. has perpetuated numerous other acts that some may consider "terrorism", but I think the Hiroshima example is powerful because it was "official" and "overt", and I hope the thread doesn't bog down in discussions of other covert US actions. All opinions are welcomed. I think the relatively unbiased opinions of non-Americans may be of particular interest, so if you are not an American citizen, please point that out. FYI, you may find this OpEd piece interesting, as it discusses some of the same issues. Peace.
Hi goofyfish, I'm not a U.S citizen, so I'll offer you my opinion. On one hand, yes I do consider it an act of terrorism, perhaps the worst the world has ever seen in terms of devastation and mass destruction (not to mention the long term health/environmental effects). I'm a strict anti-nukes kinda girl, so perhaps I'm a little biased- I don't think any country can EVER justify the use of nuclear weapons. I think that Hiroshima/Nagasaki was one of the most horrific acts ever commited in human history. On the other hand, they were at war with each other. It seems that the usual ideals of humanism and accountability seem to disappear out the window when there's a war on. Actually, I find many more things in Americas history to be more disturbing than Hiroshima. On the topic of nukes and America, I'm really pissed off at what George W has recently said- that he will consider using nukes on countries which have weapons of mass destruction.....ahhh, excuse me Georgie-boy, I think a nuke counts as a weapon of mass destruction (and besides that, does America really want another Hiroshima in its history?) It's interesting that you bring this up, I refuse to say "war against terrorism", I simply say war against Afghanistan, because without the sugar-coating, that's what it is. Being a pacifist, I see all wars as an act of terrorism, so I find the phrase "war against terrorism" to be oxymoronic. goofyfish, I admire you for taking the time to examine the bigger picture, especially since at this moment in time you risk being called un-American and un-patriotic (and fair enough, you Americans need to stick together and believe in your country at the moment). Io
Hiroshima, Pearl Harbour. In my opinion, these are both acts of war, not terrorist acts. An open and highly active emnity between the majority of the protagonists in both of those cases was in full effect. Generally, terrorist attacks are more along the lines of the IRA bombings of London or September 11. Parts of a much one sided sporadic offensive by one party.
What of the <A HREF="http://www.eppc.org/publications/xq/ASP/pubsID.123/qx/pubs_viewdetail.htm">firebombing of Dresden</A>?
Interesting to consider against Hiroshima. Yet again though, this was 'committed' during active wartime. It's important not to forget to differentiate.
So its the peice of paper that makes it ok WRONG there was no paper before peal habor but this action (while increadably stupid because lacking that i probably would be speaking japanise) was a MILTARY TARGET. Horosihma, Negasaky and Dresden (which i hadn't herd anything about till now) were NOT. They were no more justifyable than the 11/9 boming. Incedently my Grandfather went into Japan after the war as something like a peace keeper and died as a result of radiation posioning (so i AM slightly biased)
Golden rule: He who has the gold makes the rule... New rule: He who has the big stick makes the rule.... Future rule: He who has the knowledge makes the rule... (ref: Powershift: Alvin Toffler)
Porfiry ... Don't forget the Spring of '45 fire-bombing of Tokyo that killed 145,000 old men, women and children ... Mostly civilians! Take care Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
There may have been technically no declared state of war between the U.S and Japan, but the US had cautioned Japan and both countries were very much aware of an ensuing state of war. Because the Japanese began pre-emptive operations doesn't make the attack terrorist. Consider these points for comparison: Trained military personnel, Effectively structured government approving the operations, Very definite goals, and more to the point with reference to this thread, Hiroshima was a 'desperate' attempt to bring an ennd to war. None of these are atributes of terrorist operations. Peace.
Can't you people SEE. To them they ARE at war and they feel that this war is their ONLY option. This dose NOT exscuse what they did but it DOSE put it on a par with Horesima (and Negasaky that even if 1 bomb could be justifyed 2 CAN'T). Please everyone why is it ok for a country but not a PEOPLE. I mean arn't countrys made up of PEOPLE. The US is at war but this wont be a nice war because one side is ANGRY (the US) and the other side is Desperate. Nither side will stop untill there is no-one left to fight because BOTH sides hate the other to much.
]one side was actively geared for war. It strikes me that before 9/11 the US didn't consider themselves at war with Afghanistan or any major faction thereof. The attacks 9/11 were hardly military in nature. More paramilitary. Terrorism: a paramilitary operation. The UK mainland is in no way at war with Eire or Northern Ireland. The IRA may consider themselves at war with us but their activities are deffinitly terrorist.
I, and others, would disagree with this view. I addressed this in a different thread. For your review. Peace.
Im not going to argue that 11/9 wasn't an act of Terror but everyone keeps bringing up the USS Cole. Isn't that ship a Navel vessel which would make it a MILARTY target and i think that Embasys are consided Milarty targets as well (might be wrong about that but i don't think i am)
To my mind, a relevant question in this argument of semantics is: can a State commit terrorism? Acts by Osama bin Laden's organisation, or the old IRA, could be distinguished from the Hiroshima bombing on the basis that they were not acts perpetrated by a recognised state. They were therefore not lawful under the laws of any state. The bombing of Hiroshima was fully sanctioned by the laws of the United States.
That (I think) is what I've been trying to say in a nutshell. Of course a state can't. as soon as an aggression is executed by a state it becomes an act of war.
What about Liba, Iraq, Iran and Pakistan (let alone the talaban) who are ALL being acused of BEING terrorists.
