Quote:
Originally Posted by Aramike
There's no doubt we used terror to conclude the war. But that doesn't make us terrorists.
First off, the US being victorious over Japan was a foregone conclusion. The only question was how many American lives would be lost. Terrorists are unable to achieve their ends using any other method, whereas we merely chose the path of least resistance.
Secondly, we were openly militarily engaged with Japan. Terrorists NEVER openly engage (unless defensively only, in which they almost always try to run).
|
Oh ok, only American military lives matter, Japanese civilian lives are worth less.
What do you mean terrorists don't openly engage? Organisations referred to as terrorist organisations almost always release a declaration of war against their enemy. There is no rule of war that says that one should "openly engage" the enemy in any way.
Quote:
|
Terrorists are unable to achieve their ends using any other method, whereas we merely chose the path of least resistance.
|
Well isn't that kind of what makes the whole thing morally questinable? What you call terrorists are fighting an asymmetrical war, the US would have had the option of using traditional military force or the nukes, and they chose nukes.
Quote:
|
It's silly to think that, due to the bomb we are somehow "terrorists". ALL wars involve "terror" as a weapon to one degree or another ... the difference is whether or not the weapon is used for expediency or as a sole resort.
|
So what you are saying is that "terrorism" is just a concept, a word used to demonize a particular group. State terrorism is another concept, used to describe states that use terror methods.