Could pearl harbor be considered a terrorist attack?

[perfectchaoslemon]

I know it was an attack that didn't involve another country, but I'm not quite sure whether or not it can be considered as one.

[RandomPscho]

Re: Could pearl harbor be considered a terrorist attack?

What do you mean it didn't involve another country? Japan + USA = 2 countries.

[jellygod]

Re: Could pearl harbor be considered a terrorist attack?

yes it was a terrorist attack!

[Verruckter]

Re: Could pearl harbor be considered a terrorist attack?

Yeah, it was all planned by Saddam Hussein , Bin Laden and the Tooth Fairy.

[perfectchaoslemon]

Re: Could pearl harbor be considered a terrorist attack?

oh sorry, my mistake.

[GuidoHunter]

Re: Could pearl harbor be considered a terrorist attack?

No, it wasn't a terrorist attack because it was ordered by government officials of another country; it was an act of war.

IIRC, terrorists, by definition, are not representative of their countries of origin.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[ltbby]

Re: Could pearl harbor be considered a terrorist attack?

I think so.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Could pearl harbor be considered a terrorist attack?

It was ordered by another country and it was on a military base. There is no definition of terrorist by which pearl harbor could constitute a terrorist attack. Period.

Now, by defining "terrorist attack" as an attack which causes as much psychological damage as physical, both the dropping of the Atomic Bombs on Japan and the vast majority of firebombings of civilian populations, as well as Hitler's "Vengeance weapons" are terrorist attacks.

[Lamoc]

Re: Could pearl harbor be considered a terrorist attack?

No, it wasn't a terrorist attack because it was ordered by government officials of another country; it was an act of war.

IIRC, terrorists, by definition, are not representative of their countries of origin.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

Guido is right.

[Afrobean]

Re: Could pearl harbor be considered a terrorist attack?

No, it wasn't a terrorist attack because it was ordered by government officials of another country; it was an act of war.

IIRC, terrorists, by definition, are not representative of their countries of origin.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

What about when Taliban ran Afghanistan?

I'd say a terrorist attack is one which is intended to terrorize (ie to instill fear). Duh. The attack on Pearl Harbor, I believe was Japan being mad at us for trying to get Germans to pull us into the war and making it seem as though we didn't see Japan as a threat. Sort of like "oh so you think we won't do ****? **** you we **** up your pacific fleet fags".

[talisman]

Re: Could pearl harbor be considered a terrorist attack?

the taleban technically didn't attack us... that would have been al qaeda, which, granted, did have strong ties to the taleban.

[DARKSAMUS]

Re: Could pearl harbor be considered a terrorist attack?

What about when Taliban ran Afghanistan?

I'd say a terrorist attack is one which is intended to terrorize (ie to instill fear). Duh. The attack on Pearl Harbor, I believe was Japan being mad at us for trying to get Germans to pull us into the war and making it seem as though we didn't see Japan as a threat. Sort of like "oh so you think we won't do ****? **** you we **** up your pacific fleet fags".

The nazis hired the Japanese.

[devonin]

Re: Could pearl harbor be considered a terrorist attack?

Erm...I'm pretty positive that the Germans didn't -hire- the Japanese to attack the United States.

The US, UK and the Netherlands had created an oil embargo against Japan as a response to the Japanese invasion of China. Japan responded by attacking not just Pearl Harbour, but into Thailand and the Dutch East indies with an eye towards siezing control of oil fields there. Pearl Harbour was as much done to slow down the ability of the US to respond to their attacks against the dutch and china as it was anything to do with the European theatre of war at all.

The only reason Japan and the United States weren't already at war at this time, was that Japan and China were careful never to actually declare war on one another, lest the UN and by extension, the US, UK, and France declare war as well.

By any reasonable standard, Pearl Harbour was a government controlled deliberate military strike on military assets as a first strike prelude to war, and not a "terrorist" activity.

[GuidoHunter]

Re: Could pearl harbor be considered a terrorist attack?

What about when Taliban ran Afghanistan?

If a Taliban attack was not sanctioned by the Afghan government, it would be a terrorist attack. If it was, it would be an act of war.

I'd say a terrorist attack is one which is intended to terrorize (ie to instill fear). Duh. The attack on Pearl Harbor, I believe was Japan being mad at us for trying to get Germans to pull us into the war and making it seem as though we didn't see Japan as a threat. Sort of like "oh so you think we won't do ****? **** you we **** up your pacific fleet fags".

Go reread Kilroy's post to find out both why you're wrong and why you can't be right.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[devonin]

Re: Could pearl harbor be considered a terrorist attack?

Anyone who says that the attack on Pearl Harbour caused fear as its primary consequence a) scares real easy, and b) hasn't the faintest clue how much a battleship costs.