Well, once you have “war”, then “terrorism” becomes IMHO- impossible. True, one can have “war crimes”, but no longer terrorism.
And why use Hiroshima as an example? Why not the London Blitz? Or the V1/V2 terror attacks? Or Dresden? Or the fire bombing of Tokyo?
In fact, Hiroshima & Nakasaki were picked for their military significance. So, besides the irrelevant fact that the population there were killed by one bomb instead of thousands- what’s the diff? Ah- you say that the “lack of warning” made it terrorist? So- we warned the Germans about Dresden? If you say they could warn themself- as they saw the planes coming- then how about the V2? No warning there. No- the fact that those nations were AT WAR was all the warning needed.
Of course, that means if we were still fighting a recognized nation in Afganistan (the Taliban was recognized by a couple of nations, at least), then I guess that if the Taliban/Afganistan army had flown a warplane over & bombed Wash DC that might be an act of “war”- as there are enough warlike elements in this conflict for some to call it a legal war.
Actually, using Hiroshima as an example is unfair and slightly trollish. Many have debated whether or not we needed to use the Bomb, and thus the usage of atomic weapons is disputed. Thus, perhaps some dudes who disagree with the use of atomic weapons would say they are always “terrorism”. But that’s unfair- it is not the weapon system- it is the attack & the target (ouside of a “war”)- that defines terrorism.
If one defines terrorism so loosely, then the word loses all it’s significance.
Well, yes and no, AZ. I do not see a problem with the destruction of al qaida or the removal of the taliban from power. However, fact that us officials have publically declared that they expect civilian casualties as a direct result of their bombs, but do not consider those acts to be terrorist (just collateral damage. wow imagine having that phrase on your tombstone) - that is hypocritical whether or no the us war is justified. (I think my point is if you’re gonna fuck me in the ass, don’t tell me you’re shining my shoes. At least be an honest dickhead if thats what you want to be.) I hesitate to say more on the subject in this thread - 'tis not the topic at hand. In a more appropriate thread I would be glad to fully answer the question.
Anyway, terrorism. Ah yes. To argue that the term only applies to ‘them’ implies a relativist argument. - “You see, our morals are different, so when we kill civilians, it is for the cause of good.” I don’t buy it. Terrorism is terrorism; it is about the act and intent. The word implies nothing along the lines of justification or necessary evil, if you will. That is a different argument all together.
Re: Whack-a-Mole,
Like I said, “…most, if not all…” Not an absolute statement.
But … with american and euro-colonial involvement in the pacific over the century and a half century preceding wwii, even if hitler had been stopped in '33 or '34, removing an important wwii ally of imperial japan’s, nothing guarantees that conflict wouldn’t have arisen there. Think of this way: if britain, france, etc. did not have the continental commitments of the war, they may have been able to stop the expansive japanese empire themselves, removing the american necessity for involvement. Of course, japan may have wanted to challenge the american movement in the pacific anyway, so we’ll never really know. Or maybe the ussr, minus european commitments could/would have occupied the japanese attention (they weren’t exactly friends), negating the entire pacific theatre of the war (from allied perspective, anyhoo). But it’s all speculation, & I am not an expert.
Look, I’m not making the argument that the war against japan, as it unfolded historically, was unjustified. What I am saying, though, is the nuclear attacks, justified by the situation or not, were terrorism. Period. The objective criteria of the generally accepted (and accepted by me) definition are met by dropping a nuclear weapon on a city.
If japan had developed the bomb before the us, and dropped a couple on, say detroit and pittsburgh (industrial cities which supported the war effort) in an effort to end the war, would you consider that terrorism? I hesitate to put words in your mouth, but my guess would be yes.
As to the assertion that the acts of september 11 were an act of war, as opposed to crimes against humanity, proposed, I believe, by Suasponte …ummm, why can’t they be both? The terms are not by any stretch mutually exclusive. Right now slobodan milosovic is being tried for crimes against humanity (amongst other things) which were also acts of war. So I think its pretty clear that the standard has been set. Ideally, in my view, the septmber attacks would be treated just as crimes against humanity, with a full invocation of international law, but alas, ideals are just that; and osama bin laden has publically declared war on the us at least twice since 1996 so I guess whaddayagonnado…
Clearly, the difference is intent. If you think in terms of US law on homicide, it is the difference between 1) willful intent to commit murder, 2) negligent homicide, and 3) manslaughter. Do you not acknowledge those differences? And you further suggest that the WTC was an “economic structure” and not a building loaded with civilians?
Now that is an interesting opinion, but it would certainly lead one to conclude that the current “war on terrorism” is simply misplaced. It should be the “war on Al Qaeda”.
How do you expect to use a word in a debate but not be willing to tell us what you mean when you use the word? Frankly, I think the FBI definition is generally accepted in this thread, and represents the meaning of the word’s current common usage.
I accept your Palestinian analogy and the distinctions it highlights, but both Hiroshima and Nagasaki encompassed the two elements you relate to terrorism, but some “context” prevents you from acknowledging that it was terrorism - even then. And that’s not to suggest that it wasn’t justified.
I can’t accept that, and you have not offered any compelling reason why that is so. Truman clearly understood the “full effects” of the atomic bomb. There is evidence that he believed that Hiroshima was a military target (it wasn’t), but there is no such evidence on Nagasaki. He knew he was killing thousands of innocent women and children, and only justified it due to the barbaric nature of Japan’s war tactics and stubborn refusal to accept an unconditional surrender.
That’s a poor analogy. If your great-grandfather owned slaves, fought against emancipation, but publicly supported civil rights, that would be hypocritical. If I am guilty of being stupid, it is for attempting to debate with a person who won’t even agree on the meaning of their words.
Remember, the “war on terrorism” isn’t directed strictly at Al-Qaeda or the Taliban.
But you argue that this standard is subjective, changing over time? And that those standards have changed significantly over the past 60 years?
Duckster: Your clarification seems to relate back to whether Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified - which isn’t the issue. You seem to agree that the definition of terrorism is context sensitive, which I’m not buying. Or are you simply agreeing that terrorism may be justified if your enemy is guilty of heinous atrocities? Further, are you asserting that only recognized countries can wage war, and that recognized countries at war cannot wage terrorism? Or that any party to a war must have an official declaration of war?
DrDeth, thanks also for taking the OP on directly. You seem to ascribe to the theory “all is fair in love and war” (possibly excluding the love part). And I don’t buy it. There is a long established history for the international laws of warfare. Hiroshima may not be the best example, but many of the others you offered were not sponsored by the US (Dresden and Tokyo excepted). I chose Hiroshima and Nagasaki because they are generally more familiar to most people, not to mention dramatic. And I think Dresden and Tokyo would be fine examples of terrorism in war. Justifiable? Perhaps, but terrorism nonetheless.
Cite? While Truman believed Hiroshima was a military target, it was not. And I would be interested in what cite you might come up with for Nagasaki, because I have not found such a reference in my research.
Imminent Warning is a significant issue. Just the sounds of planes generated airraid warnings, allowing civilians to take shelter. The fact that the Germans and the Japanese may have used terror tactics isn’t the point (they did). The point is that we did also.
We are at war with Al Qaeda. And we knew that in advance. Their leader declared a Jihad (translate: Holy War), and declared his intention to kill Americans, even civilians. It clearly was an act of war. And it used terror tactics.
I’m not “against the bomb” or even against the war with Al Qaeda. I just think the rhetoric is disingenuous.
im_a_loser sorry, I spoke too soon. Our thinking is not consistent. I see a significant difference between collateral damage (knowingly killing civilians when targeting military or militarily significant infrastructure targets) and terrorism. I also see a difference between the accidental death of civilians, due to targeting errors and human error, and terrorism.
It is terrorism
originally posted by AZ:
“Terrorism is defined as violent or criminal acts against a civilian population for the purpose of coercion, and promoting a political cause or agenda.”
originally posted by me:
“I would go so far as to say all offensive military tactics that harm, or are a threat to civilians are terrorist. (I would also include politically motivated acts that are not specifically military in nature, where civilian casualties are expected or at least probable - i.e. an engineered famine, or economic sanctions that lead to hundreds of thousands of deaths.”
You agreed with me up to this point, but now drop off at collateral damage? I include those referred to as ‘collateral damage’ as victims of terrorism. Willful blindness - i.e. ‘we know civilians will die, we’re going to bomb anyway, and they’re just collateral damage anyway’ - equals intent. When the violence against civilians has a political motive (what military situation is NOT politically motivated?) it is terrorism. Period. Objectivity requires consistency. You are looking for an objective definition of terrorism, and how it applies to military acts, right?
The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was an act of terrorism, by the definition AZCowboy offered in the OP. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as a means of forcing the Japanese to surrender, was an act of war which was forced on the United States by those same people. Terrorism? Please. Retribution, well, maybe. Necessary? You bet.
Before the bombing of Hiroshima, the Japanese were warned of our possession of the A-bomb. They didn’t believe it. Leaflets were dropped on Hiroshima before the bombing, giving “civilians”
a chance to evacuate. They didn’t take it.
Hamish asserts, based on a excerpt from Truman’s diary, that the Japanese were already negotiating for peace before August 6, but any feelers they had put out were not official, not properly directed, and not acceptable if they had been. Even after Hiroshima had been essentially removed from the planet, by the 9th of August there still was no official move by the Japanese to end hostilities.
Luckily, the Japanese didn’t know that we only had the two A-bombs at the time. It was their belief that they faced ultimate distruction that caused them to sue for peace. If we had attempted to invade the Japanese home islands, the cost in life on both sides would likely have been many times the toll of the two nuclear bombings.
Monocracy’s assertion that there would have been fewer deaths if the US had surrendered is ludicrous in view of what was done to the disarmed and helpless citizens of Nanking. The Japanese took more non-combatant lives there than they lost in Hiroshima. Think of San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle subjected to contests among Japanese officers as to who could kill more people with a sword. Fewer American lives? Please!
Harry Truman’s duty was to end the war victorious and to save as many American lives as possible in doing so. You can rewrite history all you care to, and exercise your grey cells in “defining” what war is and is not. But in the end, Truman did the right thing. And there is little doubt that in the long run he also saved many more Japanese lives than were taken on those two horrible days.
Terrorism is not defined merely as the act of targetting civilians, it’s the act of targetting civilians for the sole pupose of striking fear into them, so that they will accede to your demands. That would exempt bombing places like Peenemunde, which were largely civilian operations but with military significance.
I think you can find examples of terrorism all through WWII, by all sides. I think an even better example than Hiroshima was the Doolittle raid on Tokyo, which served no military purpose other than to put the Japanese ‘on notice’ that America ccould and would kill their people.
Certainly the V1 and V2 bombings were terrorist acts by the strict definition of the word. Most other civilian targets in the war had at least a veneer of military justification, but there can be no doubt that all sides engaged in the practice of bombing civilian populations with the goal of breaking the back of popular support for the war in those nations.
The big question is, does it matter? The world was a much different place sixty years ago. It was total war. The very survival of freedom was at stake. The enemy showed no mercy. So the gloves came off, and it was a gigantic brawl. The rules of conduct in wartime were changed after WWII, by the way. It is now a war crime to target civilian populations with mass bombing, I believe.
Believe it or not, I don’t have the same ‘terrorism is evil’ attitude as many of the people on my side of the fence. I think Osama Bin Laden is an evil, despicable man, and Al Qaida should be wiped off the face of the planet. Same for Saddam Hussein and Yassir Arafat. But not so much because they are using terror tactics as because they are simply wrong. They would be just as wrong if they targeted only military targets with precision smart bombs, because their cause is not just.
If the United States were attacked and invaded, and the government collapsed, do you think the people would not revert to terror tactics? If that’s the only weapon they have, then that’s what they would do. Americans engaged in it in the Revolutionary war, after all. And America supported the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan back when they were using the same tactics against Russians that they use against us now.
Interestingly, I don’t believe that it was intended to be. The target was military (there were relatively few civilian deaths). And Japan intended to give advance notice (very little, granted). It was a surprise attack.
Cite? The Japanese received no more warning about Hiroshima, and only slightly more about Nagasaki, then the US received from Al Qaeda prior to 9/11.
Thank you, Sam Stone. I completely concur, and let it serve to address my response to im_a_loser as well.
Stating that (even twice in the same post) does not make it a true statement. Nagasaki may not have been a military target, but Hiroshima clearly was. It was the primary staging area for troops at that end of the archipelago. Preparatory to an invasion, the most immediate target would have been the one that had not only large numbers of troops, but the bureaucracy in place to route tham to other locations.
It was not a naval base, a munitions center, or a manufacturing center, but it most definitely was a military target.
-From “War’s End” by Major General Charles Sweeney:
p. 149
-Warning leaflets had been tried before:
op cit., p. 122
The USAAF even dropped leaflets after August 6 about using the atomic bomb again, unless Japan surrendered:
ibid., p 179
Sweeny (who was the only man to fly on both atomic missions, and dropped the plutonium bomb on Nagasaki after his initial target, Kokura, was obscured by cloud) says that “millions” of leaflets were dropped, and the message broadcast in Japanese by radio.
This is an excellent debate! I have never before considered that terrorism can be justified, but I won’t take issue with the decision to nuke Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Perhaps the evil of terrorism is nullified if the objective in the end is to save lives , Truman’s primary motive, wheras Usama or even Arafat’s buddies can not claim to be saving lives with their terrorist acts.
I’m puzzled by the assertion that Americans in the Revolutionary War and the Mujahhadeen in their war on Russia engaged in terrorism. Certainly guerrilla tactics were employed in both cases, but the opposing civilian populations were not involved to the best of my knowledge. Later of course, the Chechnyan revolutionaries were involved with bombings in Moscow.
I can’t find any references to support this. In fact here I find a list of facts that dispute this notion.
Rodd Hill, references that tend to claim that Hiroshima was military target don’t discuss troop staging areas, but the Second Army Command and industrial sites outside of town as a military target justification. But the center of the commercial district was targeted, and those military targets remained mostly undamaged.
Spooky, isn’t it?
I accept your information on the leaflets. Thanks for posting the reference.
I thought there were documented accounts of attacks by American Guerillas on British non-combatants, but if that’s not the case I’ll gladly retract that.
I didn’t say the Mujahadeen engaged in terrorist attacks in Afghanistan against the Soviets, I said that they used the same tactics against them as they are now using against us.
I’m not saying that terrorism is right or a valid tactic, I’m saying that is the resort of people who wish to attempt a military solution without any other military options. I mean, let’s say that the Palesitinians were really horribly oppressed. If they were living in virtual slavery, or were subjected to severe limitations on their freedoms, then would they still be wrong to try to achieve justice through terrorism? I mean, they have absolutely no chance against the military, so they have to seek other ways.
The most important thing to be evaluated is the validity of the cause, and only secondarily the tactic used to achieve it. After all, if a high-tech enemy started smart-bombing us by hitting military targets because they want to invade and subjugate the people, would their actions be any more just?
Also, I can see the justification some might have for waging a war of terrorism on citizens of a democracy, because supposedly their government is acting on their behalf. That makes them belligerants in a way. At least, I can see how someone in the middle east might see it that way.
I haven’t figured out how to insert the quote of mine you referred to, so the italicized paranthetical remarks are mine for clarification. Sorry. As to the Japanese intention of giving notice, they should have sent a better typist to Washington.
According to Truman’s diary, July 25, 1945, “He (Secretary of War Stimson) and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a statement asking the Japs (sic.) to surrender and save lives.”
The above URL shows that Truman intended to warn Hiroshima. But, to be honest, I’ve discovered the actual order to drop the bomb made no mention of either warning the Japanese, or that it must be a military target only.
I remember in the fifties (geezer, you know) that documentary films shown on TV about the A-bomb said there had been leaflets dropped, but that could have been just propaganda. Thanks for making me look it up. I trusted too much to memory.
That doesn’t change my mind about the appropriateness of dropping the bomb, however, for the reasons already stated. War is heck!
This should lead you to the diary entry I cited. Sorry, I don’t have the insertion method down yet ( or the link was too many layers in). If this doesn’t work look up Hiroshima in Yahoo. Again, my apolpgies. DG
And the phrase “war hero” is badly overused, and out of place in most instances.
In that case why don’t you lay out your exact concerns about our “current ‘war’” without trying to analogize it to something debatable from 55 years ago?
I happen to think GW made a bunch of silly statements like, you’re either with us or against us, we’ll get Bin Laden dead or alive and so on. I still think he acts like a smirking frat boy and I don’t think he suddenly got to be Wonder Man on the afternoon of the 11th of September.
But what on earth does any of that have to do with the atomic bomb, or any bomb in WW II?
(I am probably going to be sent to the pit for this)
I didn’t want to mention this earlier because the attack of 9/11 was very close and it could possibly hurt people’s feeling. Also I would like to mention that my country also suffered two terrorist attacks (Israel embassy, 1992 and Amia building 1994).
I also consider the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki terrorists attacks, also the bombings of Rotterdam, London, Berlin, Hamburg, Dresden, Tokio, etc, etc.
The fact is that all conventions try to protect civilians, in a war there is no possible way to do this completely save for example the Africa Campaign in World War II which was probably one of the “cleaner” wars ever fought.
So civilians will be harmed in a war but every side needs to maximize their efforts to keep the harm at it lowest. For example if you have to bomb a weapons factory and there is a Hospital nearby, bad luck for the Hospital if you hit it. A totall different thing is to attack a city with incendiary bombs (Tokio, Hamburg) with the objective of “weakening the moral resolution of the civilian population” in my definition that is plain terrorism.
Everyone in this thread(who defend Hiroshima) argues that the bomb in Hiroshima was necessary to end the war, no matter what. I know the argument, invasion of Japan would mean lots of dead soldiers.
Now my point, all of you know that fundamentalist terrorists consider the western war (And specifically U.S.A as the natural leader of it) as their enemies. This year the United States will be spending 450 billion dollars in their army, there is no country in the world that can beat you in the field of battle. There is absolutely no way they can face you “conventionaly” and expect at least the remotest chance of winning. Then from their point of view, and from the point of view of those who justify Hiroshima, the attack of 9/11 was a legitimate one, it’s object destroy economic and military capacity they also tried to knock out your political leaders and ultimately cause a lot of terror (NATO did that at Serbia, Irak, and Afghanistan).
Morality is universal, perhaps you can argue that Hiroshima happened more than half a century ago, and that Humans rights notions weren’t that developed. The same is not true about our latest wars.
Estilicon, you mischaracterize the argument of those of us who defend the use of that bomb to end WWII. Not only would it have meant more dead Soldiers on both sides, it would have meant more dead civilians, and a lot more of them, on the Japanese side. The Japanese military had already snowed the population by getting rid of a free press and had even schoolboys practicing bayonet use in the event of a land invasion.
To all who consider war terrorism: you can redefine any word in any way you wish–that does not mean people will accept your revisionist view of what really happened.
You’re young (your bio says you are a student) so you can be forgiven thoughtless words…up to a point. But reconsider them carefully, or the pit you are sent to ultimately might not be the one you anticipate. Admittedly, some of us got a little off the question posed in the OP (which was whether or not the act of bombing Hiroshima was terrorism) and offered our opinions on whether that act was justified. But Before you say that the 9/11 attack was justified on any grounds whatever, consider how you’d feel if the British had bombed Buenos Aires during the Falklands conflict. (The underlining in your statement above is mine to emphasize the point I’m taking up.)
If you want to take up the question of whether terrorism generally may be justified in some context, that’s for another thread (and for a cooler debater than I am). But you are touching a hot button here, Son. :mad:
Monocracy - I never asserted that the acts of 9/11 were acts of war or crimes against humanity. As for Milosevic, he is being tried for crimes against humanity and war crimes. What he is not being tried for is “terrorism”.
AZCowboy -
You want a definition? Fine. Take the FBI definition and add the phrase “excluding those acts which take place during open warfare.”
As for Truman, how do you know he “clearly understood the ‘full effects’ of the atomic bomb”? Do you have any information that Truman (or indeed anyone else) recognized the long-term effects of radiation poisoning, for example? He thought the A-bomb was a really big bomb - he believed it was a difference of degree, not kind.
Why is my great-grandfather analogy a poor one? You are asserting that the US’ “war on terrorism” is hypocritical because of actions taken 57 years ago by people who are no longer alive. That seems squarely on point with the great-grandfather analogy.
I did not, do not, and never will assert that a government’s duty to protect the lives of its citizens is a “standard,” much less an objective one. Where did that come from? What I stated was subjective (and subjective based on the time period only) was whether or not a particular act constituted terrorism or a war crime. And I stand by that - Caesar’s conquest of Gaul did not consist of war crimes, regardless of how barbaric we would consider his actions now.
It then goes on to note that the interdiction against shipping had destroyed its usefulness for that activity–but there is no indication that it had stopped being a supply point. If an invasion occurred, those supplies (and the direction of the Army HQ) would be essential to the defense.
My statement was not that Hiroshima was the most important target (and it is certainly true that it was left relatively unmolested because it was not an industrial target.)
It is simply not true to claim, however, that it was not a military target.