It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Anniversary of worlds largest Terrorist Attack

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 03:29 AM

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
We were attacked without provocation on 9/11 and the same on Dec. 7 1941.

Hmmm without provocation you say? I'm going to call that an opinion at best if indeed we were 'attacked' on 9-11. As to your other point, yeah those filthy japs deserved to have CITIES nuked. Screw military targets, embargos, or their attempts to surrender.
214,000 people, almost all of them civilians, they were just filthy Japs huh? You're a monster.

posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 04:00 AM
I want to address two claims from this thread. 1) That it was the "worlds largest terrorist attack" and 2) Whether it was a terrorist attack or not (excuse: end the war quicker)

The bombing of Dresden was a terror attack. It was not a military target. It would not end the war quicker. It was pure terror and carried out by the British Royal Air Force and the United States Army Air Forces between February 13 and February 15, 1945. Nobody knows exactly how many died. I think some sources say 135,000. Other sources claim that more than 300,000 died in the bombings and the following firestorm that consumed the city. There was no excuse for this attack. I know this is a "memorial thread" for the victims of Hiroshima, and all respect to them and all. But I have to say that the bombing of Dresden might have been worse than the bombing of Hiroshima (no offense Hiroshima). Don't forget Dresden.

posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 04:16 AM

Originally posted by Hellmutt
Don't forget Dresden.

Or Tokyo or Kobe, both of which were also firebombed to the demise of hundreds of thousands of civilians. Good point hellmutt. While hardly new, of course, in the atrocity we call warfare, the mass killing of civilian populations from the air was, I am ashamed to say, an Allied innovation.

posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 04:21 AM
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...

posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 04:52 AM

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:

Pay attention - I said I felt sad for those who lost their lives in the bombing, therefore I was showing my respect to them. Secondly, I have the right to question your thread title because it does not form the basis of my opinion on the subject. As I said, I don't believe it was a terrorist attack as we commonly know them. Although by definition it could be seen that way, as Valhall cleverly pointed out.

I am not a WW2 expert so I can't contribute too much to this thread but I think the Dresden issue is a very interesting point - it may not have had the 'shock and awe' effect of a mushroom cloud but to kill so many innocents in a town that didn't really contribute to the war effort (as far as I am aware) is quite evil IMO.

posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 05:41 AM
While Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both horrific acts of violence, i believe people forget the firebombing of japanese cities. From 50%-90% of cities were demolished in constant bombing, there was no distingushing between civilian targets and military, all buildings were enemy targets. While the destruction may of came from thousands of bombs still i believe more innocent people died during these air raids. Now did any boms drop on american home soil? They hit hawaii and midway etc, yet the americans felt that this was so terrible that it deemed neccesary the bombing of cities.

I know this is going off topic, but the americans were hanging to get into the war, they cut off the oil supply to the japanese to provoke them into attacking, then when the japanese did hit pearl harbour, the american government claimed a the time it was a unprovoked attack. So the americans felt they had the higher moral ground in the fact they were responding to a attack, but the war started months befor with the oil supply. Even if america didnt drop a bomb on japan first, it started a economic war befor pearl habour.

For all the people who are claiming "it was a act of war, not terroism". How do you think the islamic suicide bombings view their actions, as terroism or acts of war?
The german bombing of britan was terroism, trying to break the public surport of the war, by spreading fear in the masses. War or Terroism, its violence you can lable it with what ever word you want, but in the end its simply a act of violence.

posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 06:34 AM
People have accused the Old Testiment of God'd behavour recently in the same way as this thread has accused the bombing. Its about putting a stop to a greater destruction, God used the flames on Sodom like we used the Nukes. Why? because it put an end to a greater threat and like from God we have inherited this basic understanding for the greater good. Yes Iran wants to destroy Isreal in the same manor but history repeating it self over Isreal has not detered repetition. There is a divide in this world a Christian Jewish Isreal or Muslim Jeruselem. I think 2billion would like to have Isreal free to worship on too, its not like we want Mecca aswell. muslims will only close it off for their keeps, non Muslims are not even allowed to go to Mecca let alone show Biblical evidence that is locked away in the middle east if not covered up and destroyed already. It is a cover up we can not even question them without certain threats.

So I would say yes sometimes you need to put your foot down and it makes you wonder was G W Bush more right than wrong. Could have waited for Iran to start its nuclear engangements and dealt with that.

Yes all war is tererrifying by discription-but does not mean terrorist.
Terrorist don't warn you- at least with war you know its about war.

[edit on 6-8-2006 by The time lord]

posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 06:38 AM
After what the Japanese did in NanKing I could care less what you call it! It was well deserved!

posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 06:40 AM
laiguana < why the big gap in your post only takes up space. Just wondered.

posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 06:46 AM

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...

the thing is that the japanese attacked without provocation, whereas the US used overwhelming force to end a struggle that would have gone on for years.

yes, it's sad that innocents had to die. yes, it was a devastating and horrific event. it was meant to be - we HAD to bring the japanese to their knees, quick.

calling the bombings a terrorist attack is absurd - it's ignorant. congrats on using the terminology of today to besmirch the name of America once again. apparently we're simple minded cretins who run the world simply by grunting and pointing, beating everyone who doesn't comply fast enough.

once again, i feel for the innocents who die in any attack, but remember that this was a time before the geneva convention, when any means necessary to end the biggest war in history had to be taken.

the japanese 'sucker punch' could absolutely be more appropriately deemed a terrorist attack than the bombs. the sinking of that merchant ship (the lithuania? i forget the name) would be even more appropriate still.

i'm disappointed in you, WTR. i didn't think you were a part of the anti-America propaganda machine.

posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 06:52 AM

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]

hmm. actually, this is a valid point.

i'm trying to think of a way to rebuke you on this, but it's probably going to be tough, and i'll likely be on shaky ground here. i'll be back to this in a bit.

AH! ok.

fine. i can admit that it was a terrorist attack. fully acknowledged. my problem lies in the connotation that the term implies....

the japanese certainly had the means to withdraw from the fight - had they simply withdrawn and not continued to press the attack, we might have roughed them up around the edges a bit, but they would have been much better off.

all in all, if you want to define terrorist attacks that way, you can declare ANY attack as a terrorist attack.

the nasty bit is when you have a sneaky group of turds who don't warn you about it first.

posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 07:03 AM
reading through several more of the replies, and we're reacting in abject horror to the deaths of civilians.

let's not forget that while innocent in any implicit terms of warfare, these people supported their governments and made it possible for them to wage war.

wait a minute...war...war...oh yeah! WAR. read the word. think about it.

the sad fact is that war is NOT a civilized endeavor, or else it would be called 'discussion'.

yes, civilians are going to die in a war. sad, but once again - it's WAR.

i've said it on this board before, and i'll continue to say it - life is short, life is brutal, and most of all, life is unfair. if you can't deal with that, then that is entirely your problem. if your country is involved in a world WAR, and you don't want to be a casualty, then here's my advice: RUN as far and fast as you can.

why is it that so many of you will have no problem eating a tasty hamburger (and they ARE tasty), and yet you recoil in horror at the thought of an innocent human being dying? sure, we sympathize more with the human as a natural response...but are we any better than any living organism?

face it - the US did what had to be done to cripple the japanese war effort. call it what you want, but god dammit, we were NOT in the wrong. the japanese AND the germans killed their share of civilians - it was not our place, nor our perogative to take the high road and risk our own civilians.

posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 07:08 AM
In all fairness, the nation of Japan did attack the US first, and invaded Alaska.

It's a total crock to call it a terrorist attack.

and if you're going with "it caused terror", then what was every other single battle where non military targets died? or any war for that matter...

Not to mention what Japan did to China.

War is Hell, what do you expect?

[edit on 6-8-2006 by Lysergic]

posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 07:38 AM
I agree with you Lys. How about we call every act of violence a terroist attack from now on, because that is the intent of violence. Ww should just give Webster a call and say hey please change the definition of Violence to : see terror. If you want to call a spade a spade, then that means the guy who lives down the street and yells at his kids is a terrorist. By some peopl'es logic here, that means he's instilling fear, correct?

As for the original topic of this thread, I too am saddned by the loss of civilian life on any front, and my heart goes out to the people who have suffered, are suffering, and will suffer in the future over the events of that day. And I am also greatful for them being a part of the swift ending to the war, as they have handled it much more courageously then anyone I know ever could. God Bless.

posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 07:51 AM
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.

posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 08:12 AM

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.

VJ day was months later than VE day.

posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 08:20 AM

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.

wtf? please stop making americans look bad with your abject lack of knowledge.

know the topic you're discussing, please.

posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 08:20 AM

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...

I think most Aussies see Japan as the major evil of WW2, as we suffered more from the Japanese than the germans. My father who grew up during the war would always tell me about the horrors of Dresden. You are so correct it was a lot worst that the two A-bombs, in terms of senseless murder of innocents.

The title of this thread, is obscene. Japan deserved everything it got in WW2. Its acts against humanity where just as bad as the Nazi's, it is just they had a better PR department since the war.

I don't condone war but Japan did instigate the war in the pacific, they brought it on themselves and their people.

[edit on 6/8/06 by tkmelb]

posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 08:51 AM
While I was going to comment on Dresden, I decided to do some research first, to make sure my numbers were correct.

Previously, I had thought that it was the 300K figure of casualties. Both the German and British figures for the bombings actually put the total figure to around 35K, while it was placed at 300K by the Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda.

EDIT TO ADD: And not to beat a dead horse more, but I really doubt that you "didn't even think" about this thread's title. :shk:

[edit on 8/6/2006 by cmdrkeenkid]

posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 08:58 AM
Just to add, the Japenese did not surrender until the second detonation.
It could be argued it was necessary to use atomic bombs to ensure decisive victory.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in