Is it possible that United States will officially apologize in future for atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Status
Closed
Jul 2016
9,562
USA
I agree , Japanese people were test subjects and America wanted to see the impact and effects of nukes on cities. Besides that, the intention was to terrorize Japanese nation. Thats why its a greatest incident of terrorism and war crime in human history, in my opinion.
When you write opinions like this: "Thats why its a greatest incident of terrorism and war crime in human history, in my opinion" you are never again allowed to cry about whataboutism. You opened the door for comparison, you are not allowed to restrict other candidates simply because they contradict your opinion.

That aside, yeah, everyone got the part where you think the atomic bombs were the great act of terrorism in history. Even though they weren't an act of terrorism, based on any legit legal definition of the word. But since you aren't aware of most of the discussion, I doubt you were aware that international bodies had actually codified that term too, which is just one of many subjects in this thread you're ignorant about yet so very opinionated over.

The dropping of the atomic bombs wasn't an act of terrorism, it was an act of war. Done in a declared war against a nation state adversary, 3.5 years into that war, which had already cost the lives of 111,000 dead servicemen, 253,000 wounded, 21,000 missing in action. Now while you obviously don't give a crap about them, the American public did. And we weren't about to risk the lives of tens of thousands more in invading Japan in order to get them to surrender, when we had the means to do it without any friendly casualties. As for the Japanese people, it sucks being pawns, but their govt had already made the decision to fight to the near death to resist the invasions, and were ready to sacrifice them all. We called them on that bluff, we dropped two bombs that only killed a small fraction of those that would have died in the invasion, and by doing so we broke the will of those of the Japanese power elite who controlled the country, and got them to cheaply surrender unconditionally.

An act of terrorism you call it. The reality was it was an act of mercy.

But you hate the US and your goal here is to try to make the US out to be a hypocrite, especially considering other well known modern terrorists. So while your motive to rewrite history is understood, you're just not good at it.
 
Aug 2014
1,249
pakistan
When you write opinions like this: "Thats why its a greatest incident of terrorism and war crime in human history, in my opinion" you are never again allowed to cry about whataboutism. You opened the door for comparison, you are not allowed to restrict other candidates simply because they contradict your opinion.
I did not. The topic is about possibility of America officially apologizing about using nukes on Japan. It does not concern with other acts of terrorism and war crimes.


That aside, yeah, everyone got the part where you think the atomic bombs were the great act of terrorism in history. Even though they weren't an act of terrorism, based on any legit legal definition of the word. But since you aren't aware of most of the discussion, I doubt you were aware that international bodies had actually codified that term too, which is just one of many subjects in this thread you're ignorant about yet so very opinionated over.
America is dictating the definition of terrorism after 9/11, but it simply means an act of terror by an individual or a state. American committed state terrorism.

The dropping of the atomic bombs wasn't an act of terrorism, it was an act of war. Done in a declared war against a nation state adversary, 3.5 years into that war, which had already cost the lives of 111,000 dead servicemen, 253,000 wounded, 21,000 missing in action. Now while you obviously don't give a crap about them, the American public did. And we weren't about to risk the lives of tens of thousands more in invading Japan in order to get them to surrender, when we had the means to do it without any friendly casualties. As for the Japanese people, it sucks being pawns, but their govt had already made the decision to fight to the near death to resist the invasions, and were ready to sacrifice them all. We called them on that bluff, we dropped two bombs that only killed a small fraction of those that would have died in the invasion, and by doing so we broke the will of those of the Japanese power elite who controlled the country, and got them to cheaply surrender unconditionally.
So an American says Japanese people were pawns of their rulers and Americans liberated them and did them a great favor by instilling fear in their hearts and irradiating two of their cities. One can also say American people were/are pawns and fuel of their governments. And Al-Qaida were also thinking along your lines when they crashed planes into world trade center i.e shortcut to end American interventionism in the Muslim world at the cheaper cost of "few thousands" deaths.
 
Besides that, the intention was to terrorize Japanese nation. Thats why its a greatest incident of terrorism and war crime in human history, in my opinion.
The intention was psychological shock, which can be viewed as '' terrorising''. However you claiming it's the greatest incident of terrorism ever I have to ask: By what consensus? Which people put forward the idea that it was the greatest and based on what? It isn't a war crime, there weren't any laws or provisions outlawing it. If you claim something is the ''worst'' and someone draws a parallel among the lines of ''I disagree, I think X was worse and deserves to be considered the worst, here's why....'' then it isn't whataboutism, it's a perfectly rational and in many cases expected response. If you ever read a vs thread or a ''most overrated/underrated X in history'' thread you shouldn't be surprised. That's why the best/worst claims and rankings are made, to be disputed. If you refuse to accept dispute or discussion and just brush it off as whataboutsim you won't learn much or expand your opinion, the very point of a debate in my opinion.
 
Likes: Azad67
Jul 2016
9,562
USA
I did not. The topic is about possibility of America officially apologizing about using nukes on Japan. It does not concern with other acts of terrorism and war crimes.
No, this thread, which you created, is now officially about whether or not the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan constitutes the worst terrorist attack in all of history, which are your own words. Which is a judgement based on comparison of all terrorist attacks, which means others have to be brought up. You opened that door, even if you did so inadvertently (which is obviously the case). So when you write "No whataboutism" then the natural reply now is simply, "NO"

America is dictating the definition of terrorism after 9/11, but it simply means an act of terror by an individual or a state. American committed state terrorism.
The problem with all of this is you state your ignorant opinion, as its clear you have no clue what any codified definitions of terrorism are, and then you try to play it as fact. Then you conclude with your opinion, and try to shut down any replies because it doesn't agree with your opinion, which is biased because you're anti-American with a blatant agenda. Luckily, you're bad at this or you might actually convince someone you're right. Thus far, you've gotten nothing but push back from everyone besides the one individual that already agreed with you in the first place, who also proved in the past to have a bias against Americans, and in this thread has proven that they don't even know what biological warfare means, after believing a chemical defoliant might be a type of one (LOL).

So an American says Japanese people were pawns of their rulers and Americans liberated them and did them a great favor by instilling fear in their hearts and irradiating two of their cities. One can also say American people were/are pawns and fuel of their governments. And Al-Qaida were also thinking along your lines when they crashed planes into world trade center i.e shortcut to end American interventionism in the Muslim world at the cheaper cost of "few thousands" deaths.
And now we get to the guts of this. This entire discussion comes down to you feeling the need to defend Al Qaeda. Why didn't you just create a thread to do that? Instead you created this one, a warped roundabout way trying to place America as more dangerous and evil as Al Qaeda, which again, is just your ignorant opinion. Imagine how awesome this thread was if you could drop the sectarian bias? But alas, that wont ever happen.
 
Jul 2016
9,562
USA
The intention was psychological shock, which can be viewed as '' terrorising''.
If that is the definition of terrorism, than all aspects of warfare that negatively affect the human psych are terrorism. Which means all of them, since warfare is more psychological than physical. Which then waters down the definition of terrorism to the point it doesn't even mean anything.
 
Status
Closed

Similar History Discussions