Originally posted by Intelearthling
reply to post by airspoon
That was then. This is now. The way war is fought has changed dramatically. Why are you so intent on focusing on Japan? The allied fire bombings in
Germany killed more civilians than that were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
We had to use them before we could give them the chance to use them on us or any other nation. Besides, the only reason for the Soviet Union to
declare war on Japan in 1945 was to aquire the nuclear reasearch Japan had already succeeded at.
I say again: that was then. This is now. Our mental state on how war should be waged is different. Then again, there hasn't been another World War
since then neither.
The difference is that the bombings in Europe didn't deliberately target civilians, rather civilians were considered to be collatoral damage. We
bombed industrial and military targets in a goal to reduce their war-making effort. Unlike in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the goal wasn't to kill
civilians for a political goal. In fact, the difference between the two, is the same difference that seperates a military strike from an act of
The definition of "terror", according to Marriam-Webster
4 : violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands
The goal of the nuclear bombings in Japan, was to intimidate the Japanese government into giving in to our demands, an uncondtional surrender. When
our government committed this act, they had the same goal and tactic that Al Qaeda had, when perpetrating 9/11 (or whoever you believe to have
committed the act). Again, the only goal was to intimidate the Japanese government into surrender, a political goal, as opposed to knocking out any
industrial or military targets. Ny the logic many are using here, Al Qaeda should also be justified for the events of 9/11, since they allegedly
targeted their targets for the greater goal of freeing their people from oppression.
As much as I take up for the Palestinians in their on-going conflict with Israel, I would never condone the targeting of innocent people, such as the
bus blasts of last decade. They too were targeting civilians for a political goal. They weren't targeting military and government forces and innocent
people just happened to be caught up in their violence.
In this day in age, people are confusing what terrorism is. This is partly or mainly due to propaganda in drumming up support for a particular agenda.
These days, we are often lead to believe that any attack by America's enemies are acts of terror. For instance, it is not uncommon for the media to
suggest that terrorists have attacked an outpost with mortars. This simply isn't true. When a military unit, irregardless of whether you think they
are legit or not, attacks another military unit, it is hardly terrorism and if you think differently, then where would you draw the line? Would
American military action not be considered terrorism too, by that definition of the term?
It's because of this recent "War on Terror", people are mislead into thinking terrorism is what it isn't and that it isn't what it is.
"Terrorism" is anyone who attacks America and her allies, rather it is when you deliberately target civilians for a political goal.
As much as people want to whine and cry about the atrocities of the Japanese government, the people of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki hardly had anything
to do with it, especially the children. They were not soldiers and thus shouldn't have been targeted.
Would Iran be justified in sending nuclear missiles into our cities in an effort to prevent the American or Israeli military from striking their
nuclear sites? Should they be able to deliberately target, kill and maim hundreds of thousands or even millions of American civilians to save their
military from destruction? If you answer no, then ask yourself how you came to that conclusion. Could it be because they aren't American?
Al Qaeda (if in fact they are guilty), didn't commit the attacks on 9/11 because they were jealous of our freedoms or because they were bored with
nothing else to do, rather they had a political goal and obviously felt that the killing was justified and would make life easier for them and their
people. Does this make it right? Right after 9/11, I can remember all of the talking heads, suggesting how disgusting it was that this group would
target innocent civilians for their own political goals, which ultimately made them terrorists. Now a decade later, it is how disgusting they are for
targeting Americans for any reason, which makes them terrorists, so "they" would want you to believe.
Again, why is okay for the US to do it, but not for Al Qaeda? Is it because they are diffferent than you? Is it because you are better than them?
The lesson here, is don't allow the popular media to skew the definition of "terrorism" and instead, see it for what it is. When you deliberately
set out to kill and/or maim innocent civilians, you are a terrorist, plain and simple. In fact, part of the responsability of a professional soldier,
is to minimize civilian casualties. When you purposefully target them, you are not a soldier, rather you are a terrorist. With as much terrorism as
has happened in the last decade or so, you would think that all moral people would be condemning it, instead of condoning it. It only seems that
people are eager to condemn it, when either someone tells them too, or it is against their own country. With that being said, I don't think people
are condoning it on purpose, rather it is ignorance preventing them from seeing it in the first place.
Even our own court of law sees the difference between deliberately targeting an innocent person and accidently killing one as a result of a different
goal. If you are shooting at an intruder and you accidently kill "Joe-Shmoe", it's manslaughter. If you deliberately target "Joe-Shmoe", it's
murder. If you are hunting deer and and accidently shoot "John", you aren't going to be charged with murder (if in fact they believe your story)
but if you deliberately attack "John", you are committing murder.
Here is the deciding factor that you can't deny, no matter how hard you try to ignore it or block it out of the equation. America's only goal in
killing all of those innocent people, was to intimidate the Japanese government into an unconditional surrender, otherwise known as a demand. This too
was Al Qaeda's goal (if in fact they are guilty), to kill civilians to intimidate for their own demand or political goal.
Edit to add:
It's quite sad to see so many people claiming to deny ignorance, yet ignore obvious facts when the data doesn't fit their view-point. Instead of
objectivity, people are allowing their own personal biases to skew their conclusion.
Furthermore, people keep bringing up the atrocities of the Japanese government and somehow use that to justify the whole-sale murder of thousands of
women and children. Two wrongs don't make a right. With that logic, it should be perfectly acceptable for Iraqi nationals to bomb American cities or
kill as many American children as possible.
[edit on 6-8-2010 by airspoon]