Anniversary of worlds largest Terrorist Attack

Originally posted by Valhall

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

does this (above) mean that ,does this (below) qualify as a terrorist act(s):
www.let.rug.nl...

"local patriots led by Samuel Adams staged a spectacular drama. On the evening of December 16, 1773, three companies of fifty men each, masquerading as Mohawk Indians, passed through a tremendous crowd of spectators, went aboard the three ships, broke open the tea chests, and heaved them into the harbor.As the electrifying news of the Boston "tea party" spread, other seaports followed the example and staged similar acts of resistance of their own.'"

or this::
www.americanrevolution.com...

""On the very day (May 10, 1775) that the Second Continental Congress met, Ethan Allen and his Green Mountain Boys, together with a force under Benedict Arnold, took Fort Ticonderoga from the British, and two days later Seth Warner captured Crown Point""

so our great country was founded on terrorism???
by "terrorists"???

please tell me it wasn't..........

oh yeah , i forgot, when its the "home country/team"
we are called resistance, as mentioned above..........

now i'm confused,....... who is the terrorist, and who is the resistance???
wait.....we're called patriots too.........
which one is it..??......whose team am i supposed to be on again??

Originally posted by yeah right

Originally posted by Valhall

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

does this (above) mean that ,does this (below) qualify as a terrorist act(s):
www.let.rug.nl...

"local patriots led by Samuel Adams staged a spectacular drama. On the evening of December 16, 1773, three companies of fifty men each, masquerading as Mohawk Indians, passed through a tremendous crowd of spectators, went aboard the three ships, broke open the tea chests, and heaved them into the harbor.As the electrifying news of the Boston "tea party" spread, other seaports followed the example and staged similar acts of resistance of their own.'"

or this::
www.americanrevolution.com...

""On the very day (May 10, 1775) that the Second Continental Congress met, Ethan Allen and his Green Mountain Boys, together with a force under Benedict Arnold, took Fort Ticonderoga from the British, and two days later Seth Warner captured Crown Point""

so our great country was founded on terrorism???

by "terrorists"???

please tell me it wasn't..........

oh yeah , i forgot, when its the "home country/team"
we are called resistance, as mentioned above..........

now i'm confused,....... who is the terrorist, and who is the resistance???
wait.....we're called patriots too.........
which one is it..??......whose team am i supposed to be on again??

I actually wouldn't think so. 1. They were not trying to instill terror (the costumes were to protect their identities.) and 2. they didn't indiscriminately wage an attack....they only hurt the exact target they were after.

BUT - with that said. (And I'm absolutely floored you had to have some one point out the difference.) I'm okay with it if you want to call it terror. Since I'm the one stating the U.S. has committed the largest terrorist attack in modern times. What difference does it make on these two?

If you are so insistent on trying to make some point - that you didn't make by the way??? - and so detached from humanity that you can equate boxes of tea with a couple hundred thousand dead civilians. You're more than welcome to...

get on that pony and ride!

I'll just keep dropping the quarters for ya...because we all want you to be happy! :0

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by Rockpuck

...and when you see the slaughter, rape, pillaging of defensless people you will scream at your telivision in confusion!

I know exactly what you're talking about! Because I've done this several times just in the past 3 years.

HOW'D YOU KNOW THAT!?

I love to see me making my point clear, as you cannot and will not answer the question because you simply do not know. again I ask of you to enlighten me. Same with you SteveR, please enlighten me with your knowledge in world affairs, blowing eachother up is not good enough for you, give an alternative.

I know what youll say "aw juss talk it over like nice people do" .. and again my point would be made from my previous post.

there's really no convincing the neo-hippies, is there? do you people refuse to listen to logic? does your empathy extend that far, that it transcends time and space?

yes. well, time, but not space. no. i don't know what you're talking about.

terrorist attack???

terrorist attack - n : a surprise attack involving the deliberate use of violence against civilians in the hope of attaining political or religious aims.

didn't the US drop leaflets after the hiroshima bombing? even if they didn't, how would it be considered a surprise attack? you are at war with another country. aren't you supposed to be on guard because you know you are going to be attacked at anytime? the type of weapon used makes no difference. seems to me that some are confusing the amount of damage with terrorism. if the US only dropped conventional bombs on aug. 6th, 1945, would it be considered a terrorist attack?

also, was the US targeting just civilians or were they collateral damage?

seems to me that pearl harbor was the terrorist act.

well atleast it effectivly helped keep down the over population issue, which is the biggest threat to survival right now, that and all the problems that stem from over population.

I really don't see why all the fuss is being made over the word 'terrorism' and how it applies to Hiroshima/Nagasaki.

The bottom line is, thousands of innocent civilians died in those two attacks, alone. The question is, did we have the right to decide their deaths for the sake of saving the lives of others? That is really the question.

And just as in Iraq, I refuse to accept that we, as Americans, have the moral authority to even dare to decide who lives and dies. You can make all the arguments you want... that all those people died to save the lives of many more etc. etc.

If your family was killed in a bombing that was supposedly carried out to prevent future potential deaths, I SERIOUSLY doubt that you would be fine and dandy with it... and that is what disgusts me about all you pro-war people. You presume to know who is worthy of killing so that others may live... that is not our responsibility. That is God's job.

May we, as a nation, hopefully redeem ourselves one day.

Originally posted by watch_the_rocks
..............
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:

and they are right, it was not a terrorist attack...

I do have to wonder why you have the picture of Osama Bin Laden in your avatar...i also wonder why the star and the color red around him.... Do you admire him or something?....

As far as I know from television program, US scientists wanted to know the effects of nuclear radiation for human being. They'd guessed it but they didn't know the scale.
Whatever the reasons, nuclear bomb in war just cause terrible problems for civilians more than the war it self. It's truly solving problem with (making other) problem.

cause terrible problems for civilians more than the war it self

Profoundly put, good thinking!

Originally posted by 25cents
there's really no convincing the neo-hippies, is there? do you people refuse to listen to logic? does your empathy extend that far, that it transcends time and space?

I suppose Douglas Macarthur and Dwight Eisenhower were 'neo-hippies' as well then?

Source
Truman was told by his army generals, Douglas Macarthur and Dwight Eisenhower, and his naval chief of staff, William Leahy, that there was no military need to use the bomb.

Well do you know that If we did not bomb Japan we would of had to invade it with over a million troops. Did you know Japan was training school girls to impale americans with bamboo lances. Did you know that nearly every civilian would be fighting the army with millions of soldiers wounded and possibly millions of civilians killed. Think twice before you call it a terrorist attack since it actually saved lifes.

The people who are saying oh Japan wanted to surrender we shouldn't have done that blah blah blah I bet hardly any of you know that most of the japanese goverment wasn't going to surrender and even after they were bombed twice and the emperor recorded his surrender speach their was an uprising and they were trying to make sure the tape wasn't released because they wanted to fight to the end but the attack made most of the goverment surrender not all.

Originally posted by spinstopshere
The people who are saying oh Japan wanted to surrender we shouldn't have done that blah blah blah I bet hardly any of you know that most of the japanese goverment wasn't going to surrender and even after they were bombed twice and the emperor recorded his surrender speach their was an uprising and they were trying to make sure the tape wasn't released because they wanted to fight to the end but the attack made most of the goverment surrender not all.

It's called a 'period'. Check into it.

Anyway... to me, the fact that the Japanese military might've wanted to fight on is largely irrelevent to this subject. 200,000 innocent people were killed in literally a flash because we deemed them expendable in the name of "freedom" and our own security. That is selfish and just as despicable as it is today when innocent Iraqis are killed. We have no right to decide who lives and dies so that we may live, especially if they did nothing to us.

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were cowardly acts committed in the our own self-interest with no regard for anyone else... no respect for human-life.

The old "it ended the war so it ended up saving lives in the long run" is complete crap. Who are we to decide who is going to give their lives so that others can live? It's NOT our place... but we've been doing this since the start.

And the 2000 at Pearl Harbor? Whether it was a set up or not is irrelevant. They were standing in formation on Sunday morning when Pearl Harbor was attacked. How about the thousands in China that Japan used as guinea pigs to see how chem/bio weapons worked? Or the thousands of POWs they slaughtered or simply let die by not feeding them? DO NOT sit here and say how the US was the evil party in this. BOTH sides did terrible things and neither side was innocent.

Do you SERIOUSLY think that it was ONLY the military that would have fought? You need to study the Japanese culture at the time a little more then. The civilians would have fought just as hard to protect the Emporer. Hirohito was God to them, and they would have fought hard to protect him.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
And the 2000 at Pearl Harbor? Whether it was a set up or not is irrelevant. They were standing in formation on Sunday morning when Pearl Harbor was attacked. How about the thousands in China that Japan used as guinea pigs to see how chem/bio weapons worked? Or the thousands of POWs they slaughtered or simply let die by not feeding them? DO NOT sit here and say how the US was the evil party in this. BOTH sides did terrible things and neither side was innocent.

Do you SERIOUSLY think that it was ONLY the military that would have fought? You need to study the Japanese culture at the time a little more then. The civilians would have fought just as hard to protect the Emporer. Hirohito was God to them, and they would have fought hard to protect him.

Are you SERIOUSLY telling me that we know for sure that every one of those 200,000 dead Japanese were ready to fight and die for a lost cause? Do we have the right to just automatically assume this and then execute them BEFORE they commit the supposed crime that we 'know' they're going to commit because they've been brainwashed by their own government?

Look. I'm not dismissing the countless dead at the hands of the Japanese who were absolutely ruthless. I totally acknowledge that. We're NOT TALKING about those events, though. We're supposed to have the moral highground... we're supposed to be the ones who are above all that, killing innocent people etc... the ones with 'God on our side.' The bottom line and the fact that you cannot deny is that 200,000 innocent Japanese civilians died because of those two bombs. You can justify it in your mind all you want but you cannot refute the fact that they, by and large, had done nothing wrong, and were killed because some suits in Washington decided that they were worthy of dying so we could save our own selfish asses.

And honestly, if the Japanese were brainwashed to worship their emporer and follow him, to the death if necessary, I can't blame them 100%... it's the same as if some Iraqis came and set off two nuclear devices inside two major U.S. cities as retalliation for us absolutely screwing up Iraq with an UNPREVOKED attack that has thus far killed FAR more innocent people than the Japanese did at Pearl Harbor (oron 9/11, for that matter). I see a lot of similiarities between the Japanese war-machine and those who have been brainwashed to support Bush and the U.S. military-complex. Rah-Rah... God bless America (and screw everyone else).

Originally posted by watch_the_rocks
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.

Yeah, right. Posting a very inflammatory remark, knowing that American casualties would have been infinitley higher had we had to invade the Japanese homeland, AFTER BEING DELIBERATLEY ATTACKED FIRST AT PEARL HARBOR. This is about as much of a terrorist attack as me shooting a home-invader to protect my family. Grow up, and quit the shameless rhetoric.

Didn't mean to start a debate. Yeah, suuuuuure.

Originally posted by MajesticJax

This is about as much of a terrorist attack as me shooting a home-invader to protect my family. Grow up, and quit the shameless rhetoric.

Yeah, except in this case we didn't shoot the home-invader.... we nuked the home-invader's sister, brother, mother, father and the rest of his neighborhood. But they're not really people, I guess.... more like cockroaches. Best to exterminate them all so they can't breed.

Pathetic.



[edit on 7-8-2006 by firebat]

Oh right. I forgot. The US isn't allowed to do ANYTHING bad, or anything to try to end the war faster. I strongly suggest you study the Japanese people and their history. The WOULD have fought and they would have fought ferociously. As someone said, they were training young girls how to spear US soldiers when they landed, and other ways to fight back. Their mindset was completely different from the US mindset.

But then I guess that doesn't matter. All that matters is that the US is evil for setting off bombs that were supposed to end things, may I add AFTER warning Japan we were going to do it first.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Oh right. I forgot. The US isn't allowed to do ANYTHING bad, or anything to try to end the war faster.

If the solution that ends the war faster is 'bad' and immoral, then no, we aren't "allowed" to do it, at least not according to what we supposedly consider the values of this country to be, not if we're supposed to listen to our conscience. The "Judeo-Christian" thing to do, in essence, would've been to give our own lives before we decided those civilians were not as worthy of living as we were. Really, the invasion of Japan might've been unnecessary in the first place. Their entire navy was at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. The islands were blockaded and were completely open to our B-29's.

I strongly suggest you study the Japanese people and their history. The WOULD have fought and they would have fought ferociously. As someone said, they were training young girls how to spear US soldiers when they landed, and other ways to fight back. Their mindset was completely different from the US mindset.

I don't need a history lesson. I need you to tell me how we get off punishing people for things they haven't done yet, killing civilians that included children, women and the elderly. 200,000 individual lives destroyed.... not because they signed up for the military and gave their lives for their country... but because we DECIDED they were going to give their lives for US. Truman was quoted in a cabinet meeting shortly after the two bombings that he was reluctant to drop a third atomic bomb because he didn't want to take another 100,00 lives... the thought of the children dying was too much for him. Where do we draw the line? How many dead Japs or Iraqis etc. are worth the safety of the United States? We can murder 200,000 men, women and children but another 100,000 is just too much for our moral conscience that we, as Americans, pretend is supreme and righteous over everyone else's? (albeit the current war has nothing to do with our safety) Are we REALLY that important, that hundreds of thousands of innocent people should be sacrificed so that we can live our comfy little lives?

But then I guess that doesn't matter. All that matters is that the US is evil for setting off bombs that were supposed to end things, may I add AFTER warning Japan we were going to do it first.

So you're telling me that letting someone know you're going to shoot them in the face, right before you do it, is a MORAL thing to do? You think some guy will fight back (naturally) when you pick a fight with them so you just shoot them in the face to end it quicker? That's basically the jist of your despicable justification of one of the most horrendous acts of mass-murder in human history.

[edit on 7-8-2006 by firebat]