It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by XphilesPhan
We were attacked without provocation on 9/11 and the same on Dec. 7 1941.
Originally posted by Hellmutt
Don't forget Dresden.
Originally posted by watch_the_rocks
Truth be told, I didn't really think about the thread title. After conducting a lot of research into this, I guess I just concluded that it could be called a terrorist attack.
But no, I am not going to edit the title now. If you disagree with it, then just ignore it and this thread. I did not intend to create a debate about this, but merely a place to show respects to the hundreds and thousands of innocent civilians that were annihilated in those attacks.
And I cannot help but notice the last two posters were too wrapped up in pointing out that it wasn't a terrorist attack to do this.:shk:
Originally posted by stumason
Originally posted by warthog911
plz edit your thread title.This was no terrorist attack butan act of war.Imo it was alright for U.S to nuke japan to end WW2 quickly otherwise the war would have been dragged on for years and many more casualties more then the 2 nukings and terrorsits at that time were japanese kamakazis and not U.S military
Logic in action there... Nuking was an act of war but Kamikaze's were terrorists? Oh dear...
Sometimes I wonder if Americans speak the same language as the rest of us...
Originally posted by Valhall
Well, I don't buy that you didn't think about the title, or didn't want to debate this issue. lol (don't offend my senses )
BUT, with that said, if we have decided to describe terrorism as
Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
Then, yes, this was the world's largest terrorist attack. I absolutely agree. Both in effect (i.e. it was an indiscriminate act that killed uninvolved civilians as well as (actually more than) combatants) and in the intent (the intent was to instill terror in the Emperor to where he would surrender) - ie. the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.
Some people get all caught up in the "but it shortened the war and prevented even more deaths" argument to the point they can't call a spade a spade. It was an attack on civilian populations for the end result of coercing the Japanese government through terror - that's a terrorist attack.
[edit on 8-5-2006 by Valhall]
Originally posted by MadMachinist
if those bombs didnt go off america wouldnt have had the ability to fight off the germans the way they did in europe afterwards.
now could someone theorize what the war in europe would have looked like if americans were not involved in D DAY to help push the germans back.
Originally posted by MadMachinist
if those bombs didnt go off america wouldnt have had the ability to fight off the germans the way they did in europe afterwards.
now could someone theorize what the war in europe would have looked like if americans were not involved in D DAY to help push the germans back.
Originally posted by Hellmutt
At the time of the bombing, 300,000 refugees from east Germany were in Dresden. It was considered as a "safe town", and it had been spared from bombing all through the war...