Go Back   Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums > General Discussion > Critical Thinking
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-8-2007, 09:01 AM   #21
bobbycat73
FFR Player
 
bobbycat73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Milford, Connecticut
Posts: 339
Default Re: Could pearl harbor be considered a terrorist attack?

It was during a time of war.

Japan was sided with the Axis powers. They bombed us. Do you also want to say the atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrorist attacks as well? They both were a surprise to the opposing side. They also both caused fear.
__________________
aids

http://mafia.cheats4us.org/index.php?x=241521 <- Hot asian chicks!!
bobbycat73 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-8-2007, 02:34 PM   #22
Afrobean
Admiral in the Red Army
FFR Veteran
 
Afrobean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: the moon
Age: 32
Posts: 13,262
Send a message via Skype™ to Afrobean
Default Re: Could pearl harbor be considered a terrorist attack?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbycat73 View Post
It was during a time of war.

Japan was sided with the Axis powers. They bombed us. Do you also want to say the atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrorist attacks as well? They both were a surprise to the opposing side. They also both caused fear.
Well the bombs we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't standard militarist attacks. Nuking a city of civilians... as a retaliation for them directly attacking a military base?

The function of the bombs we dropped in Japan WERE to scare them. Killing civilians can serve no other purpose in war but to scare.

However, this comes back to what Guido has said. The bombs we dropped in Japan were an official military act, and as such, defining it as a terrorist attack would be quite difficult.
__________________
Afrobean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-8-2007, 02:37 PM   #23
Kilroy_x
Little Chief Hare
FFR Veteran
 
Kilroy_x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Colorado
Age: 32
Posts: 783
Send a message via AIM to Kilroy_x
Default Re: Could pearl harbor be considered a terrorist attack?

By some definition the dropping of the Atomic Bombs was a terrorist attack, in the sense it was meant to cause as much psychological devestation as physical devestation, but it wasn't a terrorist attack in the common or conventional use of the word.
Kilroy_x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-8-2007, 02:41 PM   #24
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: Could pearl harbor be considered a terrorist attack?

Again, its an issue of whether causing fear was the -primary- intended consequence that tends to define whether it was a terrorist act or not.

The dropping of the atomic bombs was not intended to cause fear, it was intended to demonstrate to the Japanese that continued refusal to surrender in the wake of the major hostilities was a foolish course that would cost them a very large number of civilians and property loss.

The alternative was continuing to fight for months and months and having to grind the Japanese military down into nothing, because Hirohito had already made it abundantly clear that surrender under normal circumstances was completely unacceptable.

In fact, as the story goes, they had only intended to use the one nuclear weapon, but after it was dropped, the Japanese basically accused them of only having one, and intended to keep fighting, so they had to drop a second one just to prove they meant business.
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-8-2007, 03:03 PM   #25
jewpinthethird
(The Fat's Sabobah)
FFR Music ProducerFFR Veteran
 
jewpinthethird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Palm Springs, California
Posts: 11,711
Send a message via AIM to jewpinthethird
Default Re: Could pearl harbor be considered a terrorist attack?

Exactly, the justification for the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to prevent any further soldier casualties that would arise from invading the country. Basically, it was the US flexing it's power saying, "hey, check us out, we got bombs yo and we could do this all day. You know, because we have hundreds of bombers lying around just waiting to turn your piss-f*ck of a country into rumble...or splinters I suppose. Surrender or we will kill more of your civilians, because are bad ass like that. Don't f*ck with America, because won't hesitate to do it again if we had to."

Also, the fire bombing raids killed more civilians than the Atomic bomb did...but we don't hear some much about that because it didn't look as cool.
jewpinthethird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-8-2007, 03:17 PM   #26
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: Could pearl harbor be considered a terrorist attack?

It amounts to the fact that if the Japanese thought what was coming was a straight up army vs army battle, they would have (and stated explicitly) just kept going until one side or the other was completely destroyed. About the only way to force a surrender was to make it abundantly clear that what they thought was an even fight simply wasn't.

"So it's a knife fight eh...I guess this machine gun might be a little much?"
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution