If the definition of terrorism is the deliberate targeting of non-military personnel & buildings....?

Question

...in order to further a political or religious ideal, then how does that square with the bombing of Hiroshima & Nagasaki, the bombing of Cambodia (no military at all), the bombing of Afghan villages, the Mai Lai massacre etc etc?

Answer 1

definitions are based on what side you are. when CIA expels an elected prime minister of another country thousands of miles away from America, it's called "covert operation".

should we not call someone a terrorist if he is:



- lying about the reason for going to a war -invading- another country and waste trillions of dollars, directly and indirectly, and brings hatred for his own country,

- authorizing his own government to torture suspects,

- trading weapons all over the world,

- interfering in many other countries and calling any country standing against imperialism a "dictatorship" etc,

- sending billions a year regularly to allies no matter they kill innocent people whatever.



see how people are now cheering for him again. Obama is not the man to change; worse is, Americans do not accept any change in their policies and still think someone should change it for them.

Answer 2

I think you may be missing a portion of the terrorist definition. I think the use of non uniformed military forces is part of the issue. However let us look at your examples:



1) Hiroshima and Nagasaki I understand the concern about civilian population. However we are talking about total war here and an attempt to save AMERICAN lives. an invasion of Japan would have cost hundreds of thousand of American lives and probably over a million civilian lives

2) The bombing of Cambodia was in fact targeting of enemy supply depots and troops and was a legitimate military target

3) The bombing of select targets in Afghan villages is targeting enemy combatants. These has been a significant number of collateral deaths. The US is working with the Afghan Government to minimize these deaths.

Mai Lai was a war crime. we treated it that way. Unfortunately I do not think we punished enough people up the chain of command. I also think we failed to recognize the heroism of the US Soldiers who stopped the slaughter.

Answer 3

definition terrorism deliberate targeting military personnel buildings

Answer 4

I despair if the level of education indicated by this question is standard.



Many things wrong in this world but learn to separate what happened and why. The ignorance for the atom bomb is glaringly obvious and it is being used to cloud the other issues.



ETA, from the OP "If dropping the atom bomb on Japan doesn't fit that description I don't know what does. Thank you."



Different set of circumstance, there was an all out war on and the options were abundantly clear. Death on a scale never seen before in an opposed landing or the bomb. Lesser of two evils in a war the US did not start. Same goes for the allies over Europe. The enemy started down the dangerous road with only one option other than surrender. Both demonstrated they would fight to the last, or at least the last of everyone else.



Try to understand what that means when you take the war to them.

Answer 5

If the U.S. or an ally does it, it's ok; it's not terrorism. That's a double-standard and hypocritical in the extreme. How can we expect not to be victims of terrorism when we are constant perpetrators of it? People will retaliate, that's human nature.



I know some people don't want to hear that. It is because I love my country that I want it to do right and I am so disappointed when it does wrong, so don't beat me over the head with the, "You're anti-American!," baseball bat. I love America. It's my home and the home of my family and loved ones. I want America to live up to it's potential and I want it to be safe. Killing innocents makes us less safe, because it instills hatred in the hearts of those left behind and they will do anything to strike back at us, even kill themselves in the process.

Answer 6

They know exactly what they are doing the reason the US even came into the second WW was in exchange for Palestinian rule by the Zionists. I think the Zionist plan is just to simply demolish people who aren't them and get in the way of any land grabbing and riches to steal for themselves and monopolise on it, just like an inbred thieving gypsy might like we have in Britain who are a law unto their own. And if it divides Nations too all the better for them, because we are just cattle in the way of their world domination, and it gets the job done quicker.

Answer 7

It's all down to who does the targeting.

If you bomb my house, it's an act of terrorism or a war crime.

If I bomb your house (in Hiroshima, Dresden, Gaza etc) it is a legitimate act of self-defence or collateral damage.

Answer 8

–noun

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.



n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.



Acts of violence committed by groups that view themselves as victimized by some notable historical wrong. Although these groups have no formal connection with governments, they usually have the financial and moral backing of sympathetic governments. Typically, they stage unexpected attacks on civilian targets, including embassies and airliners, with the aim of sowing fear and confusion. Israel has been a frequent target of terrorism, but the United States has increasingly become its main target. (See also September 11 attacks, Osama bin Laden, Hezbollah, and Basque region.)





noun

the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

Answer 9

Terrorism is the attacking of innocents. It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with politics and power.

Answer 10

Why not include Dresden and every other German city, too. Countries at war have lost the terrorist claim. Warfare isn't pretty, even for civilians, and no war has excepted them.



If Japan invaded and killed people in San Francisco, that would't have been a terrorist act, just warfare.



Grow-up/

Answer 11

I can sum it up in just a few short words for you: Anger, Greed, and Control for Power - Control Freaks.

There ya go.

Answer 12

Terrorism doesn't have a target other than killing lives that are disagreeing with their radical stance. How many people have you met that have suicide bombed places?



Crazy and Scary.

Answer 13

Hiroshima and Nagasaki both were home to miltary industries.

North Vietnam was using Cambodia as a logistical hub (The Ho Chi Minh Trail, you might have heard of it)

Bombs have been dropped on Afghan villages to kill Taliban members and at times mistakes have been made.

My Lai was an isolated incident, not government policy.

Answer 14

Don't panic Timmy! Lassie will find you in the well soon!!

Or not.

Answer 15

Self defense...

Answer 16

Are you a hippie....