>100,000 dead in hiroshima was not 'murder,' it was an
>act of war.
Come on are you serious? OK, the word "murder" might not be the best but still. Who is to decide when something is an "act of war"? You? The winner? The one doing it? Killing 100k civilians is inexcusable in my opinion, and is as far as I am concerned (together with Nagasaki) one of the biggest act of terrorism in modern time.
One can put in all kind of excuses to justify it but that doesn't really change much do it? You can do that for ANYTHING. Was the destruction of WTC an action of war? Wy not, al-qaida consider themselves at war with USA. Remember that one of the targets that day was actually a military building, yet that is supposedly called an act of terrorism too. By the same ones that claim killing hundrads of thousands of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was competely justified and just an act of war. Sheesh.
>act of war.
Come on are you serious? OK, the word "murder" might not be the best but still. Who is to decide when something is an "act of war"? You? The winner? The one doing it? Killing 100k civilians is inexcusable in my opinion, and is as far as I am concerned (together with Nagasaki) one of the biggest act of terrorism in modern time.
One can put in all kind of excuses to justify it but that doesn't really change much do it? You can do that for ANYTHING. Was the destruction of WTC an action of war? Wy not, al-qaida consider themselves at war with USA. Remember that one of the targets that day was actually a military building, yet that is supposedly called an act of terrorism too. By the same ones that claim killing hundrads of thousands of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was competely justified and just an act of war. Sheesh.
There are three types of people in the world. Those who can count and those who can't.