To U.S. Empire Apologists: America Is A Terrorist State

[pmv]

Well it was war and the usaf did drop millions of leaflets warning of possible massive mombing incoming. Not really terrorism.

It was used to induce a surrender from the Japanese military. An incation campaign of Japanese home islands would have led to even more deaths.

I'm not sure how you can argue that it didn't meet the definition of terrorism. It achieved the war aims, of getting the Japanese to surrender, by terrorising the civilian population. How is that not terrorism?

From what I've read, I do believe your second point is correct - but since when does that make something not terrorism? If Hamas were to set off a big enough suicide bomb that killed so many civilians that Israel surrendered and abandoned the entire region, thus averting N more decades of deaths on both sides, that would still, without question, be terrorism, no?

You are getting into discussing the rights-and-wrongs of the cause for which the terrorism is employed, but that's surely not part of the definition?

Maybe the worst kind of terrorism is that in a cause that is incoherent or otherwise stands no chance of ever winning (like the Unabomber or ISIS, I would say), because that will never make itself unnecessary.

When looking at Northern Ireland it sometimes seems to me that terrorism worked for both sides. The IRA bombed their way to the negotiating table, while the British (with 'shoot to kill' and collusion with loyalist terror) sapped the will of the Republicans to continue with the armed struggle. Though I suppose its unclear because the peace depends on nobody giving an answer to the question of 'who won'.

Edit - damn Brexit is in danger of threatening that usefull ambiguity.

 

[sdifox]

Enough leaflets?

"Through much of World War II, Allied bombers would sometimes drop leaflets warning of impending bombing of a city. The leaflets often told civilians to evacuate, and sometimes encouraged them to push their leaders to surrender. In August 1945, leaflets were dropped on several Japanese cities (including, supposedly, Hiroshima and Nagasaki). The first round, known as the "LeMay leaflets," were distributed before the bombing of Hiroshima. These leaflets did not directly reference the atomic bomb, and it is unclear whether they were used to warn citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki specifically. The second round features a picture of a mushroom cloud and a message about the Soviet invasion (which commenced on August 9). The historical record is unclear, but it seems as though these leaflets did not make it to Nagasaki until after it, too, had been hit by an atomic bomb. Later leaflets informed the Japanese populace about their government's surrender before the emperor's official announcement."

All potential targets were warned
https://www.damninteresting.com/retired/ww2-america-warned-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-citizens/

 

[sdifox]

I'm not sure how you can argue that it didn't meet the definition of terrorism. It achieved the war aims, of getting the Japanese to surrender, by terrorising the civilian population. How is that not terrorism?

From what I've read, I do believe your second point is correct - but since when does that make something not terrorism? If Hamas were to set off a big enough suicide bomb that killed so many civilians that Israel surrendered and abandoned the entire region, thus averting N more decades of deaths on both sides, that would still, without question, be terrorism, no?

You are getting into discussing the rights-and-wrongs of the cause for which the terrorism is employed, but that's surely not part of the definition?

Maybe the worst kind of terrorism is that in a cause that is incoherent or otherwise stands no chance of ever winning (like the Unabomber or ISIS, I would say), because that will never make itself unnecessary.

When looking at Northern Ireland it sometimes seems to me that terrorism worked for both sides. The IRA bombed their way to the negotiating table, while the British (with 'shoot to kill' and collusion with loyalist terror) sapped the will of the Republicans to continue with the armed struggle.

You forget about the little war called WWII?

Hiriahima and Nagasaki were both militarily important targets.

 

[bshole]

You forget about the little war called WWII?

Hiriahima and Nagasaki were both militarily important targets.

Too bad about the 150 thousand civilians. Any city with a sizable population would have worked. America wanted to show the world how many people it could kill with a single plane on a single sortie. It worked and it was an act of terror. In the moral calculus, it probably saved lives.

 

[pmv]

You forget about the little war called WWII?

Hiriahima and Nagasaki were both militarily important targets.

Every terrorist claims they are fighting a war. Usually they have a defensible point, most terror attacks come in the context of a long history of conflict between the parties. That doesn't really single out that case. As far as I can see, what matters is, are the majority of the casualties civilians, and is the main purpose to inspire terror?

I don't buy the argument that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 'military targets', the overwhelming effect was due to the deaths of large numbers of civilians.

Plus that same logic would justify any number of IRA or PLO/Hamas attacks.

Again, you are getting into the morality of the wider conflict, and who's aims were more moral - which is in itself fair enough (I'd rather the Japanese hadn't won), but I don't see that it's directly relevant to the definition.

Historically almost everyone has committed terrorist acts, it seems to me. The British Empire certainly did so enthusiastically, as did many of it's opponants.

 

[sdifox]

Too bad about the 150 thousand civilians. Any city with a sizable population would have worked. America wanted to show the world how many people it could kill with a single plane on a single sortie. It worked and it was an act of terror. In the moral calculus, it probably saved lives.

I consider the firebombing much worse than the atomic bombs.

 

[sdifox]

Every terrorist claims they are fighting a war. Usually they have a defensible point, most terror attacks come in the context of a long history of conflict between the parties. That doesn't really single out that case. As far as I can see, what matters is, are the majority of the casualties civilians, and is the main purpose to inspire terror?

I don't buy the argument that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 'military targets', the overwhelming effect was due to the deaths of large numbers of civilians.

Plus that same logic would justify any number of IRA or PLO/Hamas attacks.

Again, you are getting into the morality of the wider conflict, and who's aims were more moral - which is in itself fair enough (I'd rather the Japanese hadn't won), but I don't see that it's directly relevant to the definition.

Historically almost everyone has committed terrorist acts, it seems to me. The British Empire certainly did so enthusiastically, as did many of it's opponants.

They were not even the most populous targets. Tokyo, Kyoto, Yokohama were all on target list.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33755182

 

[sdifox]

Every terrorist claims they are fighting a war. Usually they have a defensible point, most terror attacks come in the context of a long history of conflict between the parties. That doesn't really single out that case. As far as I can see, what matters is, are the majority of the casualties civilians, and is the main purpose to inspire terror?

I don't buy the argument that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 'military targets', the overwhelming effect was due to the deaths of large numbers of civilians.

Plus that same logic would justify any number of IRA or PLO/Hamas attacks.

Again, you are getting into the morality of the wider conflict, and who's aims were more moral - which is in itself fair enough (I'd rather the Japanese hadn't won), but I don't see that it's directly relevant to the definition.

Historically almost everyone has committed terrorist acts, it seems to me. The British Empire certainly did so enthusiastically, as did many of it's opponants.

There are protocols to be followed for a proper war.

 

[Zaap]

You forget about the little war called WWII?

Hiriahima and Nagasaki were both militarily important targets.

Yes, people forget the target of atomic attack wasn't Tokyo. My understanding is Hiroshima and Nagasaki both were more militarily important as you stated, but of course there were tons of civilian casualties too.

Of course, much of Tokyo had already been turned to ash by fire bombings. Fire-bombings before either of the two nukes had killed a lot more people and destroyed a lot more cities, but no one gives a fig about facts when it comes to things like this: it's that nukes are big and flashy. Screw the fact they put an end to further bloodshed the conventional way, which was actually far more deadly.


I really hate the tendency of modern armchair 'generals' to second guess the military decisions of WWII, from the total safety of 70 years and a false high-horse bullshit position. Sure, you'll never have to participate in the alternatives: continued fire bombings that would have killed FAR more people and wiped out more of Japan. Drafted, handed a gun and forced to go to invade the Japanese homeland your damned self.... a million or more casualties being the predicted result- your chances of surviving pretty much nill. But since it'll never be you... sure go ahead, sit back and snidely judge what it took to end the war.

It was one big shit sandwich any way you slice it. All things considered, it was probably the best and only way out. Notice that it didn't turn the Japanese into endless waves of terrorists forming radical groups hellbent of revenge. You know, the bullshit we're told that using military aggression "creates terrorists". It of course, almost never holds true. It's virtually always an existing radical ideology, not the use of military force.

 

[pmv]

I consider the firebombing much worse than the atomic bombs.

I think it's generally accepted to have been appalling and possibly a war crime. But, from what I've read, apparently the original casualty figures for Dresden are now considered to have been overstated. And the historian who first made an issue of the event, and who came up with the initial inflated figures was none other than David Irving, who went on to notoriety as a Holocaust denier. Seems like he might have been, even then in his earlier still-credible period, have been engaging in minimising German war guilt.

 

[sdifox]

I think it's generally accepted to have been appalling and possibly a war crime. But, from what I've read, apparently the original casualty figures for Dresden are now considered to have been overstated. And the historian who first made an issue of the event, and who came up with the initial inflated figures was none other than David Irving, who went on to notoriety as a Holocaust denier. Seems like he might have been, even then in his earlier still-credible period, have been engaging in minimising German war guilt.

I am more thinking Japan. Dresden was perhaps 25k? Japanese casualty was in the 150k range.

 

[pmv]

Yes, people forget the target of atomic attack wasn't Tokyo. My understanding is Hiroshima and Nagasaki both were more militarily important as you stated, but of course there were tons of civilian casualties too.

Of course, much of Tokyo had already been turned to ash by fire bombings. Fire-bombings before either of the two nukes had killed a lot more people and destroyed a lot more cities, but no one gives a fig about facts when it comes to things like this: it's that nukes are big and flashy. Screw the fact they put an end to further bloodshed the conventional way, which was actually far more deadly.


I really hate the tendency of modern armchair 'generals' to second guess the military decisions of WWII, from the total safety of 70 years and a false high-horse bullshit position. Sure, you'll never have to participate in the alternatives: continued fire bombings that would have killed FAR more people and wiped out more of Japan. Drafted, handed a gun and forced to go to invade the Japanese homeland your damned self.... a million or more casualties being the predicted result- your chances of surviving pretty much nill. But since it'll never be you... sure go ahead, sit back and snidely judge what it took to end the war.

It was one big shit sandwich any way you slice it. All things considered, it was probably the best and only way out. Notice that it didn't turn the Japanese into endless waves of terrorists forming radical groups hellbent of revenge. You know, the bullshit we're told that using military aggression "creates terrorists". It of course, almost never holds true. It's virtually always an existing radical ideology, not the use of military force.

Don't agree with most of that. As for 'second guessing WW2', not at all, I'm just very glad it wasn't me having to make such a decision. I've already agreed that the bomb probably saved more lives than it cost. But that's not central to the definition of 'terrorism'. It also suggests that the problem with many terrorists is that their bombs aren't big enough to end the conflict they are part of.

And who says nobody cares about firebombing? If you go down that route - emphasising conventional weapons are as bad as WMDs - watch out nobody points out US conventional bombs in Syria killed more civilians than did Assad's chemical attacks, just a week or two before.

And miltiary aggression destablises societies, and little good usually emerges from broken and traumatised societies. Unless, the aggression is undertaken with a preparedness to engage in the massive task of rebuilding afterwards (which the US did do in Japan and Europe, but has shown no interest in doing in the Middle-East, probably because those wars were engaged in far too casually in the first place).

 

[ch33zw1z]

Ignoring the moral side of it, those bombs were dropped specifically with the intent of terrifying the Japanese people and government into surrendering. Targeting civilians with the intent to terrify them into gaining your political aims seems pretty much the definition of terrorism.

Yea, we did it, it was effective. Own it.

 

[Zaap]

People need to read up on Dresden. The US engaged in daylight bombing over Germany- our air forced pushed ACCURACY over our own pilots safety. Bombing in the day time was far more dangerous for the air crews, but the targets were 'easier' to hit.

With Desden, all sorts of shit went wrong. The British were the ones who pushed area-bombing, and night raids, where it was safer for the bomber crews and hitting specific targets was less important. (look it up for the usual knee-jerk types.) The US and Brits actually argued about these different approaches.

The Brits hit Desden at night- their usual pattern, and firebombed the city.

The next MORNING when the USAF bombed what were supposed to be strictly military targets in Dresden, they were obstructed by bad weather, and the fires from the previous nights bombings by the Brits- making for an absolute mess.

People who actually care about logic and facts should know them at times- pushing the idea that Dresden was an example of purposeful US war crimes against the Nazi regime is a bit of bullshit that's actually spewed most by nazi-supporting war revisionists. Welcome to that crowd if you don't know your facts on this and just spout horseshit.

 

[pmv]

People need to read up on Dresden. The US engaged in daylight bombing over Germany- our air forced pushed ACCURACY over our own pilots safety. Bombing in the day time was far more dangerous for the air crews, but the targets were 'easier' to hit.

With Desden, all sorts of shit went wrong. The British were the ones who pushed area-bombing, and night raids, where it was safer for the bomber crews and hitting specific targets was less important. (look it up for the usual knee-jerk types.) The US and Brits actually argued about these different approaches.

The Brits hit Desden at night- their usual pattern, and firebombed the city.

The next MORNING when the USAF bombed what were supposed to be strictly military targets in Dresden, they were obstructed by bad weather, and the fires from the previous nights bombings by the Brits- making for an absolute mess.

People who actually care about logic and facts should know them at times- pushing the idea that Dresden was an example of purposeful US war crimes against the Nazi regime is a bit of bullshit that's actually spewed most by nazi-supporting war revisionists. Welcome to that crowd if you don't know your facts on this and just spout horseshit.

You seem very aggressive given what you say doesn't seem to relate to anything anyone said. Are you arguing with voices in your head or what?

Who said Dresden was specifically a US responsibility? Can you quote who said that? I'm well aware of the roll of 'Bomber' (or 'Butcher') Harris and the night raids vs daylight bombing argument. The UK has been an imperial power for a lot longer than you have. But, sorry, I don't make a lot of distinction between the world's major imperial powers, it's not a pissing contest between them, the deaths add up, they don't cancel out.

And did you not actually read where I pointed out the role of the revisionist David Irving in the initial research on Dresden?

Anyway, I _was_ logging in to say I don't really agree with the sentiment of the title of this thread. But equally, it ought to be properly acknowledged we aren't the unequivocal 'good guys' either. The West has played a massive historical role in screwing the world up, and every time we intervene we seem to just make things worse.

 

[bradly1101]

Now I'm thinking about leaflets, and I wonder what a major city in this country would do if our strongest enemy of any conflict had distributed leaflets warning of an impending, spectacular strike. Would the city evacuate? Would we see it as propaganda? Would we trust our military to protect us? What would you do? WWJD?

Does a recipient in Raqqa or Mosul say, "The Americans are coming! Goodbye ISIL! But my parents are elderly and I have three small kids. I don't have a car. The infrastructure and basic services are in short supply. Surely there are no terrorists in this neighborhood. They can't destroy the whole city, can they?" Boom! Deafening silence, innocent lives snuffed out. Just trying to think of all perspectives.

 

[Zaap]

pmv, it's not my fault you can't read. And you mentioned Dresden yourself in the context of war crimes, you complete and total idiot.

I don't want to get involved except to say that in a thread about "American terrorism," we shouldn't forget Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden, all places where we targeted civilians to try and force political change - the very definition of terrorism. The real question to me is, have we learned anything?

 

[bshole]

I consider the firebombing much worse than the atomic bombs.

Kind of like comparing cancer and heart disease, both were really really fucking brutal.

What is the scariest is that scientists were not entirely sure that the detonating an atomic device wouldn't start a chain reaction that annihilated the world... At least that is a factoid I read years ago.

 

[FIVR]

People need to read up on Dresden. The US engaged in daylight bombing over Germany- our air forced pushed ACCURACY over our own pilots safety. Bombing in the day time was far more dangerous for the air crews, but the targets were 'easier' to hit.

With Desden, all sorts of shit went wrong. The British were the ones who pushed area-bombing, and night raids, where it was safer for the bomber crews and hitting specific targets was less important. (look it up for the usual knee-jerk types.) The US and Brits actually argued about these different approaches.

The Brits hit Desden at night- their usual pattern, and firebombed the city.

The next MORNING when the USAF bombed what were supposed to be strictly military targets in Dresden, they were obstructed by bad weather, and the fires from the previous nights bombings by the Brits- making for an absolute mess.

People who actually care about logic and facts should know them at times- pushing the idea that Dresden was an example of purposeful US war crimes against the Nazi regime is a bit of bullshit that's actually spewed most by nazi-supporting war revisionists. Welcome to that crowd if you don't know your facts on this and just spout horseshit.

The US weren't trying to be "accurate" to save lives, they were trying to hit targets instead of just random shit. In the 1940s bombing at night was basically "spray and pray". Half the time they hit the wrong city.

BOTH the US and Britain engaged in terror bombing (terrorism) throughout WWII. Then Germans did the same, with their submarines and rockets, but they were punished for it later. To suggest that the US is in any way innocent because they bombed during the day is whitewashing for pro-US shill purposes.

 

[sdifox]

Kind of like comparing cancer and heart disease, both were really really fucking brutal.

What is the scariest is that scientists were not entirely sure that the detonating an atomic device wouldn't start a chain reaction that annihilated the world... At least that is a factoid I read years ago.

Lest us forget there is only an armistice on the Korean Peninsula.

 

[rommelrommel]

I will disagree that the nuclear strikes were terrorism. The objective was to make the emporer and military leadership surrender, not to terrorise civilians.

Were they a war crime, now that’s a different question.

 

[bradly1101]

All potential targets were warned
https://www.damninteresting.com/retired/ww2-america-warned-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-citizens/

We're lucky that leaflets have so much power over people.

 

[sdifox]

We're lucky that leaflets have so much power over people.

You understand this was WWII right? What else could have the USA done other than warn the Japanese government and its people?

 

[bradly1101]

pmv, it's not my fault you can't read. And you mentioned Dresden yourself in the context of war crimes, you complete and total idiot.

I don't like to respond to personal attacks, maybe you count on that. All I can say is read this. Britain had coalition support from us politically and strategically. American planes and bombs attacked the citizens of Dresden. It can be spun a bunch of ways. But facts are facts.

 

[Zaap]

I don't like to respond to personal attacks, maybe you count on that. All I can say is read this. Britain had coalition support from us politically and strategically. American planes and bombs attacked the citizens of Dresden. It can be spun a bunch of ways. But facts are facts.

For the record, I didn't personally attack you, I was responding to pmv who said that what you said hadn't been said.

German civilian were NOT the intended targets of American bombers in Dresden.

When engaging in the already shaky subject of "America is the worst country ever and is the same as terrorists... blah blah blah!!" one is going to step in the same pile of shit as the likes of nazi apologists, holocaust deniers and other assorted assholes of the world.

Naming Dresden specifically as an intended act of terrorism against civilians by the US- is bullshit that has its origins mainly in the form of nazi sympathizer history-revisionist assholes. That was not a stated objective of the US in that case, and in fact the whole US effort at daylight bombing was an attempt to be more accurate vs. just bomb civilians indiscriminately. I

F things were as claimed, purposeful terrorist actions, then the US would gladly have taken up night bombing exclusively, suffered fewer casualties and not put nearly as much effort into better bomb-sights, more accuracy, and highly more dangerous daylight missions.


BTW, for the blame America first crowd in general (not you BTW, just a general observation) surely the very next WWII thread will be all about how America didn't enter the war FAST ENOUGH for some armchair general assholes tastes!

Now here were are whining that the US actually DID fight (and put to an end) the war it wanted to stay the fuck out of as long as we could. It's always so easy to burn everything at both ends.

The US weren't trying to be "accurate" to save lives, they were trying to hit targets instead of just random shit. In the 1940s bombing at night was basically "spray and pray". Half the time they hit the wrong city.

That's a totally contradictory point, even though in a sense you're right.

Being "accurate" in this case means hitting a munitions factory you were trying to hit, NOT a civilian neighborhood five blocks away. If you can't understand the difference, there's no point even having this discussion.

Dealing with the tech of the times- you couldn't really put bombs perfectly on the target you were trying to hit from out of the sky- bombs were going to fall astray no matter what. That's just a fact that can't be changed by whinging about it 70 years after the fact.

Even if you don't believe in 'wanting to save lives' aspect- WHY would it make any sense militarily to want to waste bombs obliterating a row of houses five blocks from a munitions plant- INSTEAD of the munitions plant that's making tools of war to support the troops that are actively killing your countrymen? You can be jaded and say "Why waste the bombs?" and that's the only motivation- but the fact is, less civilian casualties are obviously a side-effect of actually hitting the MILITARY target, not random city neighborhoods.

One can make the case for Japan that the area firebombing and nuke attacks had an element of terrorizing the populace and forcing the government surrender as a stated goal- that's a legit argument with basis in fact. The FACTS of Dresden specifically, don't support this.