Newscasters are hailing this-- quite correctly, of course-- as the biggest terrorist attack in America.
…In America…
My god, who got it worse than that? (pardon my obvious ignorance here)
It was not an “attack” but several attacks. It was not terrorism, but acts and a declaration of war. It was declared war not by statements but by actions. Unfortunately, we don’t know who has declared war on us, but I’d lay my money on bin Laden and the Taliban, who recently appointed him its general of the Army.
Rather than start a new thread, I thought I’d ask my somewhat similar question here.
Is this the first kamikaze act we’ve seen since WWII?
I’m a very minor military history buff, but, admittedly, not up on current acts of war.
Well, whenever you’re playing with statistics, you have to define your terms.
“Biggest terrorist bomb ever”–
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9606/29/saudi.wrap/
Most monetary damage done–
Most people killed–
Biggest building destroyed–
…etc.
Also, it depends on how you’re going to define a “terrorist act”. Were Pol Pot and Papa Doc Duvalier terrorists? Is Saddam Hussein a terrorist, and are the Kurds victims of terrorism?
Nym:
No, the Palestinians have been doing a “suicide bomber” thing all summer in Gaza. But they’ve been doing it on foot and in busses, not in planes.
Well, then I would think that the biggest attacks would be based exlusively on two things: biggest death toll and largest amount of economic damage. Biggest bomb doesn’t really count if it only sprays dirt around…
As far as defining terrorism, I think we can say that it is an act invloving death and damage done by a group of people acting independent of a government with the intent to make a political message or instill fear or both.
barbitu8, I think it is safe to assume it was one attack. Really, we don’t think of battles in terms of individual soldiers. This was a singular effort.
I believe this is quite definitely a terrorist act. A declaration of war would entail someone admitting it, and challenging America. This was not done.
Hell, this might be the largest death toll SINCE WW2. How many total Americans died in Vietnam? I’ve heard estimates of yesterday’s death toll at around 50,000.
I’ve wondered the same thing as the OP, but as the thread seems to be headed, I’d suggest that terrorism - an act or acts that are designed to strike terror into the people observing it - has occurred many times in many places on a larger scale. And the bomb that we dropped on Hiroshima has to fall into that category. It was designed to terrorize the Japanese into giving up their war effort. It had virtually no strategic value, at least none commensurate with the damage. It was a terrorist event.
This was most certainly terrorism.
Part of the confusion is the media and politicians are using the word WAR sybolicly(sp?). The WAR ON DRUGS is NOT a war, but a way to say we will do more than normal policeing(sp?) [can’t spell tonite at all 
]
I had a brother killed in Vietnam so I understand this.
Also remember we have had almost a gerneration and a half having grown up without a REAL war (aka Vietnam or before)
Sure we had Greneda, Panama, Gulf War and Yugoslavia but it was removed and almost like a video game.
Terrorism seeks to employ fear and target the symbolic.
This act clearly was symbolic. It hit the defense. It hit America’s financial districts.
It seeked to cause fear and did that. We have FIVE squad cars in our neighborhood in a THREE block radius. Is a terrorist gonna drive thru this slum area and blow up the hood. I doubt it. But people are scared.
They told us we could leave work if we wanted. Most left. I stayed I wasn’t gonna let terrorist cheat me out of a day’s pay.
What I learned from this is now I now what people in Isreal, Palastine and other places live with daily.
Is it the biggest act. Depends on how you define it. For instance a lot of Japanese would say the dropping of a Nuke is an act of terror in a war, so that was it.
I would disagree but many others would say no.
Approximately 50K Americans died in Vietnam. No way the death toll is that high… there were probably around 50K people in both WTC but obviously they weren’t all killed.
Still, though, I would bet it is in the 5 digit range.
For the record, I wouldn’t consider an act performed by one government on another is a terrorist act, especially not after war has been declared by an act of government.
But I was simply thinking that this was the largest terrorist attack ever, and the knowledge of my own ignorance was quick to avoid making this assumption because many countries have had many terrorist attacks over the years, most notibly England and Israel.
But it makes me wonder none the less. I don’t want to know to brag or anything, but I would like to think that this is the largest so it would demand the largest retribution… and the largest world support. I’d be very ashamed if I found out this wasn’t the largest and I didn’t know of anything bigger 
I’m confused: Isn’t it an act of war when a government uses military foirce against a military target? And terrorisim by definition the acts of an isolated individual, or isolated group, against civillians?
I’m not trying to be argumentative, I just thought I had a clear idea of the correct distinction and now I’m not so sure.
B.
We all agree it was an attack that killed thousands of
civilians.
Acts of war, by my definition, would be acts under the
auspices of a soveriegn nation against another.
Acts of terrorism would be attacks designed to gain
publicity, frighten, and threaten, especially attacks
against indirect targets (that is, attacks not on the
primary enemy, but something valuable to the enemy),
because they are easier to attack.
They’re not mutually exclusive.
I’d say the biggest terrorist attack ever was the US attack on Hiroshima.
You might be thinking “Hiroshima was definitely not a terrorist attack.” The only reason it was not considered a terrorist attack was because it was in retaliation for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, an attack by one nation against another.
By definition, terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion- Webster’s. Sounds exactly like what the US gov’t had in mind at the time; to force Japan out of the war by any means necessary. It just so happens that the atomic bomb was a novelty item and seemed like a logical means of retaliation at the time even though the majority of those killed were women, children, and the elderly.
I’d like to get this back on topic with a tweak, actually.
So what have the biggest acts of terrorism been? Not just in the US, but anywhere, anytime?
To claim bringing the war to the Japanese islands was a terrorist act is just warmed over leftist tripe. There was a war going on, if you’ll recall.
The events of Sept. 11th (and any that may follow) are most definitely an act of War. You don’t have to like it, and probably won’t. That is all.
I have a hard time believing they nuked Hiroshima as RETALIATION for Pearl Harbour. You got a cite for that?
Honestly, do I need one? Call it a retaliation, call it what you will. It’s all semantics anyway. Do you think we would have nuked Hiroshima had they not bombed Pearl Harbor? I don’t think so. Then again, the A-bomb was a novelty, nobody had ever used it on another country. It was also an expression that said to Japan and every other nation “We are not the ones to F*CK with.”
FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS THREAD HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI WERE NOT TERRORIST EVENTS BECAUSE THEY OCCURRED BETWEEN TWO MUTUALLY RECOGNIZED GOVERNMENTS WHO WERE AT WAR WITH EACH OTHER
Damn, can we please just accept that as a fucking premise and move on already? If there is no real answer as DDG suggested I can live with that, but I really would hope that no one has ever received a worse treatment and we did nothing about it.
Thank you.
I’m sorry it is inconvenient to hear but I think wishbone has a point. The whole point of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to terrorise the Japanese leadership and population. The bombing had very little military value; probably less than the attack on the Pentagon. I think promotion of terror is as good a definition of terrorism as any. IIRC though, the bombing of Dresden by largely British aircraft took an even larger toll.
Questions of sovereignty and whether or not a war is declared just cloud the issue. It seems that Osama may have had some state’s backing but this still definitely seems like terrorism to me. Besides, when are declarations of war ever made anymore? The US probably hasn’t declared war on anyone since WWII but that doesn’t mean America hasn’t killed heaps and heaps of people in the meantime.
Terrorism is a proven tactic insofar as 4 of the 5 nations on the UN’s security council have attained legitimacy and sovereign status via methods largely fulfilling any defintion of terrorism. Just because the horrific events of Tuesday have so shocked us all, it doesn’t mean you can rewrite the past and especially not the present. The sad truth is that this is just the worst single act against people of Western European descent (of whom Americans are the most important).e
Doesn’t this definition fit war in general? What do you think the whole point of the blitzkreig (sp?) was for? The point in war to so overwhelm the enemy with fear and confusion that they submit to your will.
The Germans didn’t want to kill every single Englishman. They just wanted England to surrender. The Blitz didn’t kill nearly as many people as the traditional warfare. Most of the damage was done psychologically to the English people cowering in their basements.
The Japanese Army would have happily gone on fighting until all of them were dead. Along with countless other Americans. In order to minimize the American casualties, we had to convince the Japanese that all their fighting would be in vain if they continued. Though, I grant you, two bombs may have been excessive, but you need redundancy.
In an attempt to veer back on topic, in terms of human life and property damage, I think this is the largest non-wartime attack. I think D-Day or the Blitz might be larger wartime attacks.