I agree that we did not drop the A-bombs for revenge or retaliation. We dropped them to save American lives. I don’t agree with you that it was excessive, although thousands of innocent civilians died. We warned the Japanese that we had this weapon. They ignored our threats. So we used it. Did they then surrender? No, so we dropped another, which finally convinced them we were serious. This is not a debate whether we should have used it. I think Truman made the right decision, but many others disagree, especially those who weren’t around then.
For purposes of this thread, an action by a sovereign nation-state during an act of war or quasi-act of war is not terrorism. That’s pretty clearly not what the OP was asking about.
Does someone have further information?
Well, what is and isn’t terrorism can be hard to define. But I think one common definition of modern terrorism is a violent act that is carried out by neither governmental nor military forces on civilian targets for political reasons. And possibly additionally that the organizations responsible are often below even the guerilla level of insurgence, in that they have no practical fighting force and control no land, but rather rely on secrecy and blending in with the populace to shield themselves from counter-attacks. Though, this can get a bit blured. I’m not an export on Peru, for instance, but I believe the Shining Path qualifies as a guerilla force (in that they have something approaching a rebel army and quasi-control of some land) that has still commited acts of terrorism (car bombs in Lima and stuff of that nature). But overall I think this matches what the OP was asking for (though feel free to correct me, if it isn’t). So that not only rules out Hiroshima and other acts of war as terrorist attacks, but also government sponsered killing of its own civilians independent of any war (e.g. the chemical attacks on Kurdish villages by the Iraqi military during the late 80s).
Going by this definition, I think the WTC event, by itself, probably is the worst terrorist attack ever, in terms of how many killed. I suspect that papers and newscasters refer to the event as the “worst terrorist attack on American soil” simply because it is obviously that (prior to the attack the Oklahoma City bombing had been described as the “worst terrorist attack on American soil”, and it was pretty obvious fairly early on that the death toll would exceed that event), whereas determing if it was the worst ever would require a bit of research and debate.
I looked around the web a bit and couldn’t find any accounts of terrorist attacks that had even close to 5000 causilties, which is what the WTC attack may have. Indeed, I didn’t see any that had the 800 possible dead of the Pentagon.
I did notice that someone asked the same question of the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/liveonline/01/nation/attack_kaiser1.htm
Not a definite answer, but some support for this being the worst ever.
Okay, if the atomic bombs don’t rate as terrorist acts because there was a declaration of war in place… how about the illegal bombing of Cambodia near the end of the Vietnam War? There were thousands of casualties there. I’m still waiting for Henry Kissinger’s war crimes trial.
And, correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the attack on Panama City also condemned by the international community as an illegal act?
I’m sorry, but this is just crap. The whole point of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to end the war.
Far, far from clouding the issue, questions of whether or not a war is declared makes all the difference in the world. If I pick up a gun and shoot you, it’s murder. If you and I are soldiers on opposite sides of a declared war and I shoot you, it’s not murder.
Just so, blowing up the World Trade Center was an act of terrorism. Dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was an act of war, by virtue of it happening during a war, by one of the parties in that war.
This is NOT just a semantic argument, it goes to the heart of what is considered acceptable behavior and what is not.
Shooting a person is not acceptable behavior, and so it’s called murder. One soldier shooting another soldier during a war is, whether you like it or not, generally considered acceptable wartime behavior, and so is not considered murder.
Same act, different circumstances, different level of acceptability, different label. WTC bombing was terrorism. Bombing Hiroshima was not, plain and simple.
Christopher Hutching (sp) is or has recently published a book calling for a war crimes trial for Mr kissinger. It was also published in Harpers or Atlantic monthly and is available on the web. Sorry if I remember incorrectly.
It was Christopher Hitchens. The articles done appear to be online anymore. They were Feb and March 2001 in Harpers. I did find this link
A funny thing to put my mind at ease, but thank you Amok. I, for one, am still ashamed that this is what it took to get the US-- and the whole world-- involved in the eradication of terrorism, but I am glad there is general resolve. I pray that political ties and leanings don’t ruin what could otherwise be a swift resolution of a serious world problem. Let history and international courts judge our actions… but Eris, let us do them!
Governments and members of governments are not terrorists. You may disagree with government actions all you want, but governments are official entities who are recognized by their citizens and countries around the world as responsible for their population, their economy, and international diplomacy.
Terrorists, on the other hand, are small groups of people united in a common cause of destruction of one ideal to make way for their own ideal at any cost necessary. They do not use diplomacy. They do not consult. They make up their minds, and they do it, and everyone else be damned.
Any attempt to compare governments to terrorists is an error of the highest semantic magnitude, and this comes from someone who is a self-professed anarchist/libertarian who distrusts government on any level whatsoever.
Here’s a link to The Christopher Hitchens Web:
http://www.enteract.com/~peterk/
It has many articles written by Hitchens, as well as numerous pieces detailing the allegations against Kissinger.
What exactly was unclear about manhattan’s post? We are not discussing the actions of government during (declared) wars or (undeclared) quasi-wars. Period.
bibliophage
moderator GQ
I think that’s too narrow a definition. Many times what one side sees as terrorists, the other side sees as freedom fighters. Before Israel became a nation, the Israelites committed acts of terror, but they saw it as acts for their statehood. Terrorists don’t necessarily, therefore, seek the destruction of one ideal, but they do want theirs to exist, either by way of freedom or by sovereignty. When they do seek the destruction of an ideal, they are no longer just terrorists. They are maniacs.