Israel

[The Grand Nudger]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bomb...d_Nagasaki

since we know that those bombs were aimed at soft targets, would that also make the USA army a terrorist organization ?

Yeah, I'd call the bombings at Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden (as mentioned before - and there are some other notable examples from WW2 as well - might add the Blitz to this one as well- not so much the start, as theres some contention that the initial civilian casualties were unintentional - though it rapidly declined to intentional strikes on civilians.) acts of terrorism.

but back to the link you provided. According to your definition, terrorism is the engagment of civilian & soft targets to produce terror.. I found this in the link

"the appropriate balance of Shock and Awe must cause ... the threat and fear of action that may shut down all or part of the adversary's society or render his ability to fight useless short of complete physical destruction."[7]

knowing that the american army did hit "baghdad" which is a soft target, without the consideration of the fact the people & children live there, to spread terror that "prevents an action"..

Baghdad wasn't a soft target, just wow (though granted - we turned it into one awfully quick). Care to fact check yourself or do I need to do it for you? The shock and awe campaign targeted strategic buildings, not apartments, though we can expect that there was a significant amount of damage done to civilian structures both by mislayed munitions,bad intel, the general force of explosions and their tendency to throw alot of shit around, etc. A very large amount of consideration must have been given to civilians - it would be miraculous that any civilians were left alive after weeks of continuous bombing if no thought had been given, wouldn't you say? Case in point, airstrikes, by confirmed casualties, have been the least lethal operations in the entirety of that campaign. Consider the two scenarios side by side, a sustained shock and awe campaign - which did not target civilians, can be maintained for long periods of time with surprisingly low numbers of civilian (or otherwise) casualties - an act of terrorism -explicitly targeting civilians- is generally starts and ends very quickly and amounts to surprising high number of civilian casualties. You are either forgetting or intentionally excluding a very important part of what is required to call an act an act of terrorism.

does that also means it's a terrorist attack ?

So, as above, I guess that answer would be a no, huh? Perhaps if we had attempted to do the same thing with b-17's and carpet bombing I'd be inclined to give the notion credence, but due to the fact that we did not, and the amount of ords that landed relative to civilian casualties, I'm more inclined to conclude that you're grasping at straws on this one.

Trying to make a "good side" & a "bad side" during wars can help us end it. There is always a better side, especially in invasions.

When I revise the history of america, I know that the native americans were right. If I wanted to stop that war, I would stop the part which started the oppression.

No, Atlass, there really isn't. There's us and them, winners and losers, heros and villians - but better, nah, takes too many backflips to make that work out. If the first step in laying a case in against Israel is to make them the bad guys and excuse their adversaries for what have you (for example), I'm afraid it's DOA.