HIPHOP,
So you think the Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism? I'd considered it a rather mild reaction to the violation of Colonial rights over the previous 10 years. The Tea Party was a warning to King George and he failed to get the message.
Terrorism in this case prior to the war is better shown in the forced quartering of British soldiers in colonist homes in which place the families were forced to give all or part of their houses and to serve the British soldiers in every way imaginable.
In the case of the Atomic Bomb, the only one being influenced to surrender was the Japanese leadership. US conventional bombing followed by a US invasion in the Spring of 1946 could have potentially wiped out half the Japanese population based on the tactics and reaction of the people when US forces took Okinawa. The US use of the Atomic Bombs in this senerio saved millions of Japanese lives. Because of the effects of a single Bomb, I can see how it is looked at as a terror weapon, but this ignores the fact that most people in Japan died and suffered from conventional bombs, not the two atomic bombs that were dropped.
If one were to define any act of violence as terrorism, then even a women defending herself with violence from being raped could be defined as terrorism. That is just absurd. The goals of the action, who is targeted, how they are targeted, are all factors in determining if a particular action is an act of terrorism.
Its obvious that 9/11 was an act of terrorism. Any action that specifically targets and murders innocent civilians is obviously terrorism.
So you think the Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism? I'd considered it a rather mild reaction to the violation of Colonial rights over the previous 10 years. The Tea Party was a warning to King George and he failed to get the message.
Terrorism in this case prior to the war is better shown in the forced quartering of British soldiers in colonist homes in which place the families were forced to give all or part of their houses and to serve the British soldiers in every way imaginable.
In the case of the Atomic Bomb, the only one being influenced to surrender was the Japanese leadership. US conventional bombing followed by a US invasion in the Spring of 1946 could have potentially wiped out half the Japanese population based on the tactics and reaction of the people when US forces took Okinawa. The US use of the Atomic Bombs in this senerio saved millions of Japanese lives. Because of the effects of a single Bomb, I can see how it is looked at as a terror weapon, but this ignores the fact that most people in Japan died and suffered from conventional bombs, not the two atomic bombs that were dropped.
If one were to define any act of violence as terrorism, then even a women defending herself with violence from being raped could be defined as terrorism. That is just absurd. The goals of the action, who is targeted, how they are targeted, are all factors in determining if a particular action is an act of terrorism.
Its obvious that 9/11 was an act of terrorism. Any action that specifically targets and murders innocent civilians is obviously terrorism.