With events such as 911 and 7/7, and more recently the Mumbai attacks, it's clear in most people's minds that terrorism is rife and abhorent, and that something needs to be done about it. The Loons on the other side of the fence will argue that it's war, and that any target that causes damage to it's enemies is a legitimate one. What most people disagree with is the taking of innocent civilian lives. In all three of the cases mentioned above, civilians were targeted.
One thing that has always bewildered me a little however, is the Japan bombings by the US during WW2, and how they can even to this day be justified by certain military experts. The Tokyo napalm attacks, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Over 400,000 innocent civilian lives were taken, and lord knows how many suffered from serious health conditions due to fall out.
It would appear the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not necessary. By the end of May 1945, American fire-bombings of 66 cities of Japan had already decimated Japanese infrastructure, killed anywhere between half a million to a million people (including the Tokyo bombings) , and made 8.5 million people homeless out of a total Japanese population of 73 million. Japan was already defeated, and was seeking a method for surrender with neutral countries.
Is it fair and balanced to on one hand justify the japan attacks, yet on the other hand condemn attacks by Al Qaeda et al? They both attack civilians, and in both cases they view their targets as legitimate targets of war. The main difference being the death tolls involved.
Personally in cannot condone either.
One thing that has always bewildered me a little however, is the Japan bombings by the US during WW2, and how they can even to this day be justified by certain military experts. The Tokyo napalm attacks, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Over 400,000 innocent civilian lives were taken, and lord knows how many suffered from serious health conditions due to fall out.
It would appear the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not necessary. By the end of May 1945, American fire-bombings of 66 cities of Japan had already decimated Japanese infrastructure, killed anywhere between half a million to a million people (including the Tokyo bombings) , and made 8.5 million people homeless out of a total Japanese population of 73 million. Japan was already defeated, and was seeking a method for surrender with neutral countries.
Is it fair and balanced to on one hand justify the japan attacks, yet on the other hand condemn attacks by Al Qaeda et al? They both attack civilians, and in both cases they view their targets as legitimate targets of war. The main difference being the death tolls involved.
Personally in cannot condone either.
