if 9/11 was aimed to kill as many people as possible and scare americans and was called an act of terroism. dont the atomic bombings in japan count as the same as they were meant to kill as many people as possible and scare japan out of the war???
2007-06-02 05:21:33 · 4 answers · asked by Dhpo 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
at war or not at war.both attacks were aimed at civilians , so what is the difference.
2007-06-02 07:02:21 · update #1
ok the u.s and japan were at war, japan attacked pearl harbor which was a military target, why did america bomb them and kill over 150000 civilians. and how was 9/11 worse than that??
2007-06-02 22:46:07 · update #2
Wow, you really just opened my mind to that. I suppose we could consider ourselfs terrorists...
2007-06-02 05:27:19 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I really don't think the two are realistically comparable. The politics of the times are not even on a level playing field. We did not make the first move in WWII.The atom bomb was a scare tactic, and an effective one, but anything the U.S. did at that time falls under the category of retaliation. At least we used our own planes! 9/11 was a pure act of aggression, unprovoked by a declaration of war. Here's some logic to ponder - why did kamikaze pilots wear helmets?
2007-06-03 02:44:19 · answer #2 · answered by lanay 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Japan was at war with the US, they had previosly attacked Pearl harbor. Now let us turn to 9/11, it was perpetrated by Muslim terrorists on civilians in the WTC. Where was the war that was going on? It was a cowardly act performed by hate filled people who used religion to justify attacks on civilians in a country that was not at war with them. It was a terrorist act to the core.
2007-06-02 12:29:08 · answer #3 · answered by A Person 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nice question, I would have to agree, but weren't we all ready in the war with japan when we dropped the bombs?
2007-06-02 12:46:22 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋