5 ms·

Except that Japan and the US were at war at the time (therefore not peacetime targets). Maybe you're thinking of the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor?

barry-cotter 9y ago
It’s not terrorism if a government does it openly. It was a breach of international law but to call an attack by one nation’s military on another’s terrorism is well outside any non propagandistic usage.
- gonvaled 9y ago
  So you are saying that governments can not be terrorists (as long as they are open about it)? Funny definition is that. So, how do you call acts of agression performed by governments against non combatants? Since the only reason not to call them terrorism is to paint (your?) government actions with a nicer brush, I assume you call those acts "liberation events"
  - zdkl 9y ago
    > So, how do you call acts of agression performed by governments against non combatants? War crimes. The reason not to call it terrorism is because that is not what the word means. If a sovereign nation formally declares war to another, any action covered by international convention is classified seperately from "civil" or militant violence.
    - gonvaled 9y ago
      Fair enough!
      - barry-cotter 9y ago
        If you want to learn more about international humanitarian law there’s an excellent MOOC from UC Louvain on EdX. https://courses.edx.org/courses/course-v1:LouvainX+Louv16x+1T2017/540e625f4d024a3380864e857a7ed0c3/ https://courses.edx.org/courses/course-v1:LouvainX+Louv16x+1...
- timthelion 9y ago
  Is there any non propogandistic use of the word "terrorism"?
rhcom2 9y ago
It was certainly "war against non-combatants" though. Two cities filled with civilians.
scott_karana 9y ago
Did you miss "in war against non-combatants"? Hiroshima and Nagasaki were exactly that. Even Tokyo was considered. PS, Pearl Harbour was against military targets, and peacetime is arguable considering the embargoes, etc. Still not "high ground" by any means, but hardly unprecedented. The US already had a fleet there precisely in case it was needed against the Japanese empire.
- Jakawao 9y ago
  Also, keep in mind that Hawaii was not even a US State at this point. It was an independent island nation that happened to have a US military base.
  - DrScump 9y ago
    No, it was a U.S. possession, not unlike Alaska (bound for statehood) or the Philippines (preparing for independence).
- kazagistar 9y ago
  There was no point in nuking Tokyo and such because it had already been almost entirely burned to the ground by firestorms from previous firebombings.
- ghostcluster 9y ago
  Japan hadn't declared war.
  - timthelion 9y ago
    US never declared war in Vietnam. And since when did saying "I hate you, I'm going to war with you" make it OK to indiscriminately kill civilians. ISIS has declared war on England. Does that make it OK for them to bomb the subway?
    - ghostcluster 9y ago
      What are you trying to argue? That Pearl Harbor wasn't a surprise attack? That the Japanese didn't employ terrorist tactics against American civilians? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_balloon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_balloon > And since when did saying "I hate you, I'm going to war with you" make it OK to indiscriminately kill civilians Maybe ask the Japanese? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre If you can't understand a strategic decision to bring a war to an end and avoid a larger loss of life, I don't know what to tell you.

barry-cotter 9y ago

It’s not terrorism if a government does it openly. It was a breach of international law but to call an attack by one nation’s military on another’s terrorism is well outside any non propagandistic usage.

gonvaled 9y ago
So you are saying that governments can not be terrorists (as long as they are open about it)? Funny definition is that. So, how do you call acts of agression performed by governments against non combatants? Since the only reason not to call them terrorism is to paint (your?) government actions with a nicer brush, I assume you call those acts "liberation events"
- zdkl 9y ago
  > So, how do you call acts of agression performed by governments against non combatants? War crimes. The reason not to call it terrorism is because that is not what the word means. If a sovereign nation formally declares war to another, any action covered by international convention is classified seperately from "civil" or militant violence.
  - gonvaled 9y ago
    Fair enough!
    - barry-cotter 9y ago
      If you want to learn more about international humanitarian law there’s an excellent MOOC from UC Louvain on EdX. https://courses.edx.org/courses/course-v1:LouvainX+Louv16x+1T2017/540e625f4d024a3380864e857a7ed0c3/ https://courses.edx.org/courses/course-v1:LouvainX+Louv16x+1...
timthelion 9y ago
Is there any non propogandistic use of the word "terrorism"?

rhcom2 9y ago

It was certainly "war against non-combatants" though. Two cities filled with civilians.

scott_karana 9y ago

Did you miss "in war against non-combatants"? Hiroshima and Nagasaki were exactly that. Even Tokyo was considered. PS, Pearl Harbour was against military targets, and peacetime is arguable considering the embargoes, etc. Still not "high ground" by any means, but hardly unprecedented. The US already had a fleet there precisely in case it was needed against the Japanese empire.

Jakawao 9y ago
Also, keep in mind that Hawaii was not even a US State at this point. It was an independent island nation that happened to have a US military base.
- DrScump 9y ago
  No, it was a U.S. possession, not unlike Alaska (bound for statehood) or the Philippines (preparing for independence).
kazagistar 9y ago
There was no point in nuking Tokyo and such because it had already been almost entirely burned to the ground by firestorms from previous firebombings.
ghostcluster 9y ago
Japan hadn't declared war.
- timthelion 9y ago
  US never declared war in Vietnam. And since when did saying "I hate you, I'm going to war with you" make it OK to indiscriminately kill civilians. ISIS has declared war on England. Does that make it OK for them to bomb the subway?
  - ghostcluster 9y ago
    What are you trying to argue? That Pearl Harbor wasn't a surprise attack? That the Japanese didn't employ terrorist tactics against American civilians? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_balloon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_balloon > And since when did saying "I hate you, I'm going to war with you" make it OK to indiscriminately kill civilians Maybe ask the Japanese? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre If you can't understand a strategic decision to bring a war to an end and avoid a larger loss of life, I don't know what to tell you.