U.S. reviews 9/11 documents for possible release

[Deesse23]

The critical difference between Japan and Al Queda is that Japan declared war and destroyed the US navy in Hawaii.  Once you're engaged in all out war with another country, the point is to end the war.  The US did the natural thing, the thing any nation would do, and took the war to Japan, and the US was winning the war with conventional weapons.  At the point where a country is getting its clock cleaned, its leaders have to make the wise decision to surrender and spare the lives of its people.  Japan made it clear that surrender wasn't going to happen and it's people worshiped their emperor.  So there were three alternatives, 1) the US could have said that's enough and pulled out of the war, leaving Japan's government intact and with a grudge, making it likely they would do it again in the future, 2) continue the conventional war and cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Japanese and Americans, or 3) use the nukes and scare the shit out of Japan and end the war.  I believe Truman made the right choice.  Mind you, It took two nukes and a third was inconsideration before Japan wised up, so their noggin's were pretty hard.

I dont see how any of this is relevant to the question if dropping two nukes during war is a terrorist act.

Mind you, the USA signed the Haague convention, asking to "spare civilians, other noncombatans as well as civilian innstallations as much as possible" during a war. So, no, it wasnt "natural" to raze all major cities with firebombing raids, or dropping nukes.

As much as i hate to say it, but Goebels was correct when he labeled them "terrorbombings", because thats all those massive attacks on (german and japanese cities) were. Of course he conveniently *forgot* to mention Coventry, Amsterdam, etc.. No, sir, everybody was wrong in doing so, everybody, and they knew it.

Back on topic, as i already explained, one may consider all of this to be of "terrorist" nature, but to me the state vs (private) organisation distinction is the small but crucial one making the necessary difference between the US dropping nukes and Al Quaeda flying planes into skyscrapers: Both actions are to be condemned and maybe considered to be "terrorist" in the colloquial sense, but one at least was part of a process called "war", where everyone intended to still follow some basic rules (but in the end didnt), the other one is just some random religious fanatic schmocks deciding they shoud have the power to decide about the life and death of thousands.

An action of war has at least some minimal semblance of civilisation (and maybe a military goal to justify, like avoiding even more casualties in case of an invasion of mainland Japan) to it, but what Al Quaeda did....they can suck my dick before they go to hell as well as any member of this forum defending them.