|
|
#1 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Eggville
Posts: 37
|
I know it was an attack that didn't involve another country, but I'm not quite sure whether or not it can be considered as one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: New York
Age: 29
Posts: 504
|
What do you mean it didn't involve another country? Japan + USA = 2 countries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
FFR Player
|
yes it was a terrorist attack!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
FFR Player
|
Yeah, it was all planned by Saddam Hussein , Bin Laden and the Tooth Fairy.
__________________
Truth lies in loneliness, When hope is long gone by -Blind Guardian, The Soulforged Image removed for size violation. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Eggville
Posts: 37
|
oh sorry, my mistake.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
is against custom titles
|
No, it wasn't a terrorist attack because it was ordered by government officials of another country; it was an act of war.
IIRC, terrorists, by definition, are not representative of their countries of origin. --Guido http://andy.mikee385.com |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
FFR Player
|
I think so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Little Chief Hare
|
It was ordered by another country and it was on a military base. There is no definition of terrorist by which pearl harbor could constitute a terrorist attack. Period.
Now, by defining "terrorist attack" as an attack which causes as much psychological damage as physical, both the dropping of the Atomic Bombs on Japan and the vast majority of firebombings of civilian populations, as well as Hitler's "Vengeance weapons" are terrorist attacks. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 551
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 | |
|
Admiral in the Red Army
|
Quote:
I'd say a terrorist attack is one which is intended to terrorize (ie to instill fear). Duh. The attack on Pearl Harbor, I believe was Japan being mad at us for trying to get Germans to pull us into the war and making it seem as though we didn't see Japan as a threat. Sort of like "oh so you think we won't do ****? **** you we **** up your pacific fleet fags".
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Resident Penguin
|
the taleban technically didn't attack us... that would have been al qaeda, which, granted, did have strong ties to the taleban.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 251
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Erm...I'm pretty positive that the Germans didn't -hire- the Japanese to attack the United States.
The US, UK and the Netherlands had created an oil embargo against Japan as a response to the Japanese invasion of China. Japan responded by attacking not just Pearl Harbour, but into Thailand and the Dutch East indies with an eye towards siezing control of oil fields there. Pearl Harbour was as much done to slow down the ability of the US to respond to their attacks against the dutch and china as it was anything to do with the European theatre of war at all. The only reason Japan and the United States weren't already at war at this time, was that Japan and China were careful never to actually declare war on one another, lest the UN and by extension, the US, UK, and France declare war as well. By any reasonable standard, Pearl Harbour was a government controlled deliberate military strike on military assets as a first strike prelude to war, and not a "terrorist" activity. |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 | |
|
is against custom titles
|
If a Taliban attack was not sanctioned by the Afghan government, it would be a terrorist attack. If it was, it would be an act of war.
Quote:
--Guido http://andy.mikee385.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Anyone who says that the attack on Pearl Harbour caused fear as its primary consequence a) scares real easy, and b) hasn't the faintest clue how much a battleship costs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 285
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
I think that Pearl Harbour had not a thing to do with Germany, and was because Japan knew full well that once they attacked the Dutch East Indies, that the US would be coming after them, and decided to pre-empt it with a surprise attack, which was, as we know, damn effective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#18 | |
|
is against custom titles
|
Quote:
--Guido http://andy.mikee385.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,345
|
so i was in pearl harbor yesterday...
made me remember this post so basically a terrorist attack is usually for political or religious gain involving a surprise attack i believe it was a thing of war, not of terror
__________________
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
It doesn't necessarily need to be a surprise, I'd say the IRA spent more than a few years very blatantly, and openly committing terrorist acts.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|