CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › The worst terrorsist act ever?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The worst terrorsist act ever?

post #1 of 46
2/8/03 at 7:30pm
Thread Starter 
I don't know if you see me coming, But i have something on my mind since the ordeal with Irak started.

The two Nuclear bombs in Japan.

What is the view of the Americans peoples, not the goverment's view.
Reply
post #2 of 46
2/8/03 at 7:35pm
I'd say that's the most horrific attack on any people, but it wasn't a "terrorist" attack.
Reply
post #3 of 46
2/8/03 at 7:36pm
While one can argue about the morality of using the atom bombs on Japan (and I would take definite issue with Nagasaki as highly excessive; Hiroshima may have been a necessary evil), it was an act of war by one nation on another. No worse than the Dresden firebombing, or the attack on Pearl Harbor (which I don't mean to imply are a-okay acts, but you should get the point).

Try again.
Reply
post #4 of 46
2/8/03 at 7:56pm
The bombs were needed to save the lives of millions of other Japanese civilians who would have died as a result of an invasion. Add those casualties (at least 3 million plus out of a Japanese militia/Army/Navy force of nearly 30 million) to the figure the US had for its own casualties (1 million plus just on Honshu).

If it really were a terrorist act, we would have hit Tokyo and Kyoto (which was a legitimate military target, but we didn't bomb it because of the cultural history there).
Reply
post #5 of 46
2/8/03 at 9:14pm
Fact is, people didn't know too much about nuclear weapons back then. It was just a big bomb that would save a lot of lives. A bit short-sighted, but not even the worst war-time act ever. Not by a long shot.
Reply
post #6 of 46
2/8/03 at 9:15pm
Chavez, why would a state of declared war make something NOT a terrorist act?

By definition, is not a terrorist act any attack on anything designed to cause fear and effect any policy change?
Reply
post #7 of 46
2/8/03 at 11:49pm
Not to mention all of Japan (civilian and military) were ready to fall on their sword at the word of the emperor.

Believe it or not the bombings may very well have stopped that act.
Reply
post #8 of 46
2/9/03 at 1:37am
I have discussed this matter on 2 other occasions on this board. The bottom line for better or worse is that America is the only country to drop nuclear devices and thats left a stain on this nation. I am not proud of it but then again i'm not proud of Truman for creating the CIA either.
Reply
post #9 of 46
2/9/03 at 3:44am
Quote:
Maxwell Demon (devin):
By definition, is not a terrorist act any attack on anything designed to cause fear and effect any policy change?
Under that definition, wouldn't any act of war also be an act of terrorism?
I would add the word "unlawful" to your definition.
Reply
post #10 of 46
2/9/03 at 4:57am
Why?
Reply
post #11 of 46
2/9/03 at 7:36am
Semantics. War is terrorism, but is terrorism war?

PS, the worst atrocity ever: Rape of Nanking.
Reply
post #12 of 46
2/9/03 at 1:51pm
Quote:
Adam Warren:


PS, the worst atrocity ever: Rape of Nanking.
I tend to agree. It could be argued that the Holocaust was one ongoing atrocity, but segmented though as it was, it's hard to categorize it as such.

The Rape of Nanking exceeded the death rate of the Holocaust over a span of a week or so. <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0140277447/qid=1044809409/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/002-3633085-1260849?v=glance&s=books&n=507846" target="_blank">A slightly sensationalist account</a>, but valuable for the stats alone.
Reply
post #13 of 46
2/9/03 at 3:45pm
Rwnada ranks up there.

Some of the things that ccured. Sheesh!

But I'm not sure this could be terrorism or just tribal genocide.
Reply
post #14 of 46
2/9/03 at 5:37pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
posted by jabaadonut:
Japan bombs Pearl Harbor: They are terrorists.
We bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki: We are the terrorists. I think you get my point.
the difference is : Japan attacked the military units (primaly) not the civilians.
Reply
post #15 of 46
2/9/03 at 6:42pm
Quote:
Maxwell Demon (devin)
Chavez, why would a state of declared war make something NOT a terrorist act?

By definition, is not a terrorist act any attack on anything designed to cause fear and effect any policy change?
Huh, there are SEVERAL ways to approach that. I'd say that a formal declaration of war by one nation state upon another somewhat absolves numerous actions from the "terrorism" label. When you get into the nitty-girtty of it, it's definitely not a black and white issue - it's often said that one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist, and that's absolutely true (the founders of the US would be terrorists these days, as would the French Resistance in WWII).

By your definition, as Adam states above, that makes ALL war terrorism, as all attacks in war are designed, at the very least, to effect a policy change (namely, capitulation or cessation of hostilities). But a sanctioned military action does not generally carry the stigma of a "terrorist act" with it. If you wish to call dropping the A-bomb a war crime, I find that more of an apt label (though I don't necessarily agree with it) than an act of terrorism.
Reply
post #16 of 46
2/9/03 at 7:50pm
Japan bombing Pearl Harbor --not a terrorist act.
U.S. Bombing the Japanese homeland --not a terrorist act.
Reply
post #17 of 46
2/9/03 at 8:14pm
In my extremely narrow world view, I don't consider acts done by the military to be terrorism but acts of war. They me horrible, horrible autrocities, or genocide, but not terrorism.

On the other hand, "terrorism" is done by "civilians", in other words outside the bounds of a governments military. Now, I can see countless kinks in this reasoning, because this is truly closer to grey area than black and white.

However, thats what it means to me. I don't think there can be a definitive answer though.
Reply
post #18 of 46
2/9/03 at 8:17pm
Quote:
Jabbadonut In Your Head:
I wish governments and individuals would WAKE THE FUCK UP and realize that all of us are legitimate, all of us are just trying to get through life the best that we can, and that MOST of us just want to be LEFT THE FUCK ALONE to do whatever it is that contributes to our feeling ok about ourselves most of the time.
Not trying to be critical here, but sometimes its not about whether you want to be left the fuck alone or just want to feel Ok.

The government isn't about you feeling OK, its about doing what they think is best for the nation. Although I'm not endorsing some government activity here...
Reply
post #19 of 46
2/9/03 at 8:18pm
Actually, the bomb probably saved more lives than it took. If the infantry went at it, most likely hundreds of thousands would be killed.
(edited for spelling)

Reply
post #20 of 46
2/9/03 at 8:18pm
Quote:
Thus our bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a "good" thing, and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was a "bad" thing.
Both were bad things. One started a war, the other finished it. You tell me.

It simply shows you sometimes have to do something ugly to end an even greater ugliness.

There's no "good" there at all. The good comes from developing new friendships afterward.
Reply
post #21 of 46
2/9/03 at 8:19pm
I think Terrorism is simplified down to the act of spreading terror with such an intention. Pearl Harbor was terrorism because the Japanese wanted to frighten America. The bombs dropped on Japan were terrorism because we wanted to scare the Japanese into surrender. I don't think the civilian factor really has much to do with it, though I can understand that point of view.
Reply
post #22 of 46
2/9/03 at 8:22pm
Here's some help from Dictionary.com:

Quote:
ter·ror·ism - 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.
Reply
post #23 of 46
2/9/03 at 8:28pm
Webster's 4th definition of terror:
Quote:
4. violence committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands &lt;insurrection and revolutionary terror&gt;
The Japanese weren't trying to coerse the United States into granting them anything when they bombed the Pacific Fleet. They simply wanted it out of their way so they could carry on their military campaign. It was a strategic strike. The Japanese knew we'd be coming for them face-to-face.
Reply
post #24 of 46
2/9/03 at 9:12pm
Thread Starter 
The bombs did save a lot more lives, but it was the Americans troops who benefited from them, not the Japanese.It would have taken a lot of man power(dead soldiers) and time to secure all of the islands.

It's the new war! Kill civillians it is easier!

Hitler did it first(on England)
Churchill did it ( on a town in germany, many peoples victims)
USA did it (Nagasaki, Hiroshima)

It is time to stop, Soldier against soldier! Or even better .ALl that i'm saying is give peace a chance(or inspectors)
Reply
post #25 of 46
2/9/03 at 9:35pm
Quote:
DamienThorn

It's the new war! Kill civillians it is easier!

Hitler did it first(on England)
Churchill did it ( on a town in germany, many peoples victims)
USA did it (Nagasaki, Hiroshima)

It is time to stop, Soldier against soldier!
Yeah, that's a nice slogan, but with the weapons (and even a stinger missile would have been considered akin to a WMD about a century or so ago) we have today, as well as the ability and importance of "civilian" targets like power plants, communication facilities, and manufacturing centers, bombing said targets is unfortunately a necessity of modern warfare. The days of armies meeting in the middle of a farmer's field are over.

Reply
post #26 of 46
2/9/03 at 10:35pm
Quote:
DamienThorn:
The bombs did save a lot more lives, but it was the Americans troops who benefited from them, not the Japanese.It would have taken a lot of man power(dead soldiers) and time to secure all of the islands.
That's very true, but you're not understanding the full situation. Had the US not dropped the bomb on Japan, we would have invaded mainland Japan. The way the Japanese are (or were at the time) is that they would fight to the death... all of them. As long as the emperor said so, every civilian on that island would be fighting the Americans, thus ceasing their "civilian"-hood. Dropping the bomb saved American lives and Japanese lives as well. We would have won, but the Japanese would not have stopped fighting until everyone of them was stone-dead. The Japanese frame of mind is that they believed they could win, even if it came down to that.

Then we dropped the bomb. Their frame of mind changed. They knew they couldn't fight nukes. They surrendered, thus saving them and us. The means justifies the end. A terrible means, but the alternative end is far, far more horrible.
Reply
post #27 of 46
2/9/03 at 10:43pm
Quote:
...but it was the Americans troops who benefited from them, not the Japanese.
It was never meant to benefit the Japanese! It was meant to bring a quick and decisive end to a war that was A)Brought to us, and B)Too long in the first place.
Reply
post #28 of 46
2/9/03 at 11:03pm
But it WAS meant to benefit the Japanese as well. We'd encountered Japanese civilians ready to kill themselves during the island hopping campaign -- how many would have been willing to die to turn back an invasion of their homeland? We could have been looking at a Vietnam twenty years early, with horrific loss of life on both sides.
Reply
post #29 of 46
2/9/03 at 11:15pm
I think it's a safe assumption that the welfare of the Japanese wasn't very high on the list of priorities.

Bt yeah, one benefit -for the lack of a better term- is that housewives by the hundreds of thousands wouldn't have had to fight Marines at the behest of the Emperor.
Reply
post #30 of 46
2/9/03 at 11:51pm
Gotta tell you, that sounds more like a fairy tale to me than anything else. The Japanese people were in BAD shape in 45.
Reply
post #31 of 46
2/9/03 at 11:54pm
There were japanese fighting on islands years after the war who were in horrible shape. What's your point?
Reply
post #32 of 46
2/10/03 at 12:05am
Soldiers. Not housewives, which is the story we're fed.
Reply
post #33 of 46
2/10/03 at 12:05pm
Quote:
DamienThorn:
Quote:
posted by jabaadonut:
Japan bombs Pearl Harbor: They are terrorists.
We bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki: We are the terrorists. I think you get my point.
the difference is : Japan attacked the military units (primaly) not the civilians.
Again, if we wanted to hit civilian targets, we would have dropped the bomb over the Ginza district of Tokyo. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not strictly civilian targets. Mitsubishi's big manufacturing plant (they were responsible for a lot of the naval ships in the Japanese fleet) was at Nagasaki, and Hiroshima had assprted other manufacturing plants. They were military targets, but they were relatively unscathed - meeting both requirements of the US military.
Reply
post #34 of 46
2/10/03 at 12:13pm
Quote:
Maxwell Demon (devin):
Gotta tell you, that sounds more like a fairy tale to me than anything else. The Japanese people were in BAD shape in 45.
You bet the Japanese were in bad shape in 45, but just imagine you were the US military then. You had been to Saipan. You saw Japanese civilians jump to their deaths instead of accept the conquering army. You were on Okinawa. You saw civilians fighting with the soldiers in their caves. You dealt with kamikaze pilots blowing themselves up for the honor of the emperor. Showa started it, and Showa ended it. If it weren't for him going on the radio and saying things were over, and the US would occupy the nation, there would have been bloodshed. The Japanese mentality back then (you still see it among the older people - the younger group is very different) was about honor. You honor your nation, you follow the emperor, you honor your family and your ancestors. Looking at what the Japanese would have done from a western view will not give you a correct analysis.

Again, US military estimates were for over 1 million casualties on our side and over 3 million casualties on the Japanese side. Looking at those estimates, and assuming that you believed that would be the case, isn't 200,000 dead a small price to pay?
Reply
post #35 of 46
2/10/03 at 12:16pm
Quote:
Maxwell Demon (devin):
Why?
Because war is sanctioned force, with responsibility easily traced to a specific nation-state or group of nation-states.
It is out in the open, whereas terrorism is hidden, to some extent in secret combinations.
Reply
post #36 of 46
2/10/03 at 12:20pm
In terms of domestic terrorism, and considering terrorists to be those who commit mass murder on civilian populations, men, women and children, for political gain, the Contras and the various South and Central American death squads deserve to be considered some of the most utterly ruthless and brutal terrorists of our time.
Reply
post #37 of 46
2/10/03 at 12:27pm
I think you forgot to mention the Sandanistas there. Far bloodier than the Contras. But they were Soviet backed, so not worth a mention I suppose.

And the two above posts show why Sorro rocks. Good ones.
Reply
post #38 of 46
2/10/03 at 12:30pm
Who were the instigators?
Reply
post #39 of 46
2/10/03 at 12:33pm
huh?
Reply
post #40 of 46
2/10/03 at 7:08pm
Quote:
Englebert:
Who were the instigators?
The Sandinistas.
Reply
post #41 of 46
2/10/03 at 10:52pm
Quote:
Maxwell Demon (devin)
Japanese people were in BAD shape in 45.
Much like the Russians at Stalingrad, eh?
Reply
post #42 of 46
2/10/03 at 11:23pm
Its amazing to me such a staunch liberal like Devin would second guess Truman here. Truman weighed the good and bad and still dropped the nukes. I'm not sure I agree with dropping those nukes but the what happened in the end was amazing. The Japanese loved McArthur and we helped to rebuild Japan and Germany and left them when they were ready to take over.

I'm proud to be a part of a forgiving country like America. I think its very good we are debating these issues because we'll always realize where we went right and where we went wrong.
Reply
post #43 of 46
2/11/03 at 3:02am
I have to say that the idea that japanese housewives and children would fight the American invaders to the death sounds like a fairy tale to me. Especially considering how fast the Japanese accepted the occupation and the notion that the Emperor does not descend from the gods after all.

However, the bombing of Dresden was a far worse act than the nuclear bombs.

At least the nukes were one big impressive blow that served the purpose of bringing an end to the conflict. Dresden was just revenge and its purpose was to terrorise the german civilians. And it was no less destructive.
Reply
post #44 of 46
2/11/03 at 1:30pm
The whole point of the Contras was to draw the Sandinistas into an invasion of Honduras, which would then be an invitation for the US to march through Central America and crush the revolutionary movement in Nicaragua. To this end, they terrorized and murdered thousands of civilians.

Of course, it is in the interests of the US and US elements in Nicaragua to demonize the Sandinistas to the skies. Which is rather curious, given their silence regarding Somoza, the US-backed dictator overthrown by the Sandinistas who turned out to be easily one of the most brutal and bloodthirsty dictators of modern times.
Reply
post #45 of 46
2/11/03 at 9:46pm
Quote:
mastronikolas the butcher:
I have to say that the idea that japanese housewives and children would fight the American invaders to the death sounds like a fairy tale to me. Especially considering how fast the Japanese accepted the occupation and the notion that the Emperor does not descend from the gods after all.
They may not fight the American invaders to the death, but they would certainly commit suicide. Look at Saipan. When the Americans attacked the island, the Japanese lost 29,000 troops to fighting and suicide and another 22,000 civilians commited suicide. That is what the Americans saw, and a mass suicide on the Japanese homeland is the last thing they wanted.

In regards to the Japanese mentality and how the Japanese accepted the surrender, allow me to quote liberally from John Dower's Pulitzer Prize winning book, Embracing Defeat:

In regards to their surrender the emperor broadcast his first ever message directly to the Japanese people "[Emperor Showa] enjoined his subjects to 'endure the unendurable and bear the unbearable'...he then proceeded to offer himself as the embodiment of the nation's suffering, its ultimate victim, transforming the sacrifices of his people into his own agony...For many of his listeners, this was the most moving part of the broadcast. Some confessed to being overcome by a sense of shame and guilt that, in failing to live up to their sovereign's expectations, they had caused him grief."
"it did not seem unreasonable to anticipate that great numbers of Japanese might choose death over the dishonor of defeat. Through the long years of war, fighting men had been forbidden to surrender. There was no greater shame than this, they were told. As the war drew closer home, civilians had also been indoctrinated to fight to the bitter end and die 'like shattered jewels,' as the saying went. In the wake of the emperor's words, however, the number who actually chose the jeweled path was fewer than had been imagined."
Accepting the occupation was as a direct result of Showa's plea, not in spite of him. He was the only person who could have done that, and as a result, occupation went smoothly. It was the result of the occupation that the Emperor was seen as just another human, and Dower goes on to say. Five years of shattering your illusions and having the American General MacArthur wield more power than Showa will do that to you.
Reply
post #46 of 46
2/11/03 at 9:53pm
Quote:
Englebert:
The whole point of the Contras was to draw the Sandinistas into an invasion of Honduras, which would then be an invitation for the US to march through Central America and crush the revolutionary movement in Nicaragua. To this end, they terrorized and murdered thousands of civilians.

Of course, it is in the interests of the US and US elements in Nicaragua to demonize the Sandinistas to the skies. Which is rather curious, given their silence regarding Somoza, the US-backed dictator overthrown by the Sandinistas who turned out to be easily one of the most brutal and bloodthirsty dictators of modern times.
If I recall correctly, the US denounced Somoza back in the 70s, leading to an insurrection in which the Sandinistas ended up gaining control. The US didn't support the Contras until the 80s, after the Sandinistas were already in power. The Sandinistas' 1979 offensive started in Costa Rica and Honduras, invalidating your point, as the US had all the pretext they could have wanted for going into Central America.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › The worst terrorsist act ever?