Why is September 11 called terrorism but Hiroshima bomb not?

Question

I imagine if Saddam exploded an atomic bomb in New York that would have been called terrorism, as the two countries were at war. This is not a criticism against America but a genuine philosophical question.

Currently my definition of terrorism is the target of the attack - whether its civilian or military. Therefore September 11 was terrorism because it targeted civilians. Suicide bombing in Israel is terrorism because it targeted civilians. Pearl Harbour was not because the attack was targeted against military installations. Appreciate all opinions as long as they make sense.

Thanks for the replies so far. The most popular reason given to me is that the net effect of Hiroshima bomb was good - because it stopped the war.

Using this assumption. Let's say that the Japanese hypothetically continued the war therefore resulting in more deaths on the Allied Forces and the Japanese people - would the atomic bomb attack then be considered terrorism?

Also hypothetically, if Saddam was successful at detonating an atomic bomb in New York and subsequently threaten to nuke the other American cities. As a result the American forces withdrew from Iraq therefore stopping the war - would the bomb attack then be justifiable (not terrorism)?

Just to note I am preparing for a debate so please keep the ideas coming :)

Answer 1

I'm sure in Japan it's called that. And they most likely have their memorial day on when that horrible day occured when the US terrorism hit their shores.

Answer 2

Well, it's like this- Japan thought it had some big cojones and attacked Pearl Harbor, which, if you'll look at the thing, kinda ticked the USA off. So do you call that terrorism too? I do! So, a couple of years later, the US dropped the most powerful weapons ever seen on Japan. So, you got people walking around with their flesh burned off, whole huge cities gone in seconds, so you have to wonder if the Japanese thought, why did we attack them? Probably one of the stupidest mistakes in history, you think? So we can safely deduce that (1) the USA was attacked, therefore provoked. (2) Japan suffered for it. So how exactly does that compare with Sep. 11th? What did all those innocent people do to provoke Osama Bin Hidin'? If it had been Saddam, maybe it could have been understood. But you gotta give Saddam credit, even he wasn't stupid enough to level New York. People wouldn't be able to live in the radiation soaked, crater hole called Iraq for a hundred years. Osama couldn't foresee the results of his actions, now what does Al Qaeda have? American troops walking the streets of Muslim nations, where there were no Americans before. Good call, Bin Runnin'!

Answer 3

Because September 11 is not transparent, who is responsible for the attack and what is the purpose, until after further investigations and examinations.

If Saddam declared a war with America and then bombing New York, it would be called New York bomb instead of terrorism. I think.

Answer 4

nicely, Hiroshima killed hundreds, upon hundreds of persons, genetically defecting 3 generations to return. 9/11 grow to be an act of terror in retaliation of unfastened speech, civil rights, unfastened love and non secular freedom. As for reasons, Hiroshima grow to be a reaction to a thoroughly unwarranted attack on a Naval base in Hawaii. 9/11 grow to be the artwork of very offended muslims disenchanted on the actuality that they are in a position to't have what we've. while you're annoyed on the government. connect the club, yet do not learn a quite justified strike or retaliation to a thoroughly un needed act of terrorism. those terrorist who behead human beings and say "dying to the west" are wearking NIKE footwear AND CORONA SHIRTS!!! Your anger against the U.S. government is largely a quiet yipe among 1000 different hippies. I question the government. yet I comprehend that not something can substitute the character of the beast of being the worlds stable means.

Answer 5

If the attack was done during a war, by an uniformed soldier, acting under a chain of command, then it is an act of war.
If it is done in secret, in disguise, in peacetime or against a target of no military significance- then it is an act of terrorism.

These distinctions do not mean there is a difference in punishment- there are crimes of war too, after all. And many nazis ended up hanged for just such crimes

Answer 6

What differentiates terrorism from what is not terrorism is in the intent. We dropped a bomb on Hiroshima in the effort to stop a war. A bomb on New York is not an effort to stop a war. There is where the difference lies. The intent.

Answer 7

The major difference is that there were combatants there. Terrorism is all about a sudden unexpected attack. War on the other hand is a drawn out conflict in which both parties are aware of the problem and still chose violence as the most likely way to solve it.

Answer 8

Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were successful attempts to stop the second world war. Note, that they were sucessful, and in the long run probably saved more lives by ending a war that was killing so many on a daily basis.

Answer 9

The bomb in Hiroshima saved many more lives than it stopped. The Japanese at the time were not about to stop and there would have had to been a ground invasion had it not been for the bomb, causing the loss of many, many more lives than either of the bombs, loss of lives on both sides.

Answer 10

Japan was clearly the aggressor .The US was reluctant to get involed in the begining. In my opinon the US was a righteous country until that war monger Nixon took over.As a non US citizen I think the majority of the US people are fair-minded.

Answer 11

The atomic bombs were used to bring the Second World War to an end as it had raged for six years and the Japanese were not prepared to surrender. I can't see any similarity between that situation and the situation involving Middle Eastern terrorists.