Quote Originally Posted by DDT
But really there Klinky, whats the difference between one Atomic bomb and a massive carpet bombing? The same amount of people get killed. Afterall, isn't that the objective of war, to kill people. You should keep in mind that this idea to limit the amount of dead people to only combatants is a NEW idea in war. No such concept was worried about in WWII or WWI. You see back then the idea that one side of an arguement or war could actually be righteous was still prevalent. Not so, now in this age of grey. These days everybody is correct because they "have their own truth". Well that's a load of huey. Hitler and Japan were wrong and that's it.
They lived by the sword (attacked peaceful people), so they died by the sword (we dropped an A bomb and carpet bombed them. End of story.
What is the difference between an atomic bomb and a massive carpet bombing? ALOT. Radioactivity does not only kill the current generation it effect ALL the next generations. Birth defects that will occur again and again, down the generations. Uninhabital land for centuries. But you were probably only talking about instentanious loss of lives/destruction.

If you had studied WWII history, you would remember that Germany, after the fall of France, actually bombarded English military bases and did not touch the civilian population. The RAF was in deep doo-doo, they were losing more planes than they could build... Germany was winning the air war over Britan. Then a stray German bomber accidently drops bombs on London. England revenges themselves by bombing Berlin. After that Hitler got so vexed he decided to bomb the civilian population of England, which gave a much needed respite to the RAF and they could regain the air supremacy. The point I am making is that WWII (or WWI) did not go out of the way to kill civilians of opposing forces initally (notibale exception the Jews, which is a different story), it just degenarated into what it became.

In any case, bombing the civilian population, no matter with what reasons, is not justifiable and is TERRORISM.

I am very aware of the "moral standards" were different then, but that is not justifiable now. That is why NOW we should call it as an act of terrorism, and if you want you can add ", but they didn't know any better". As long as you are consistent. Al Qaida blowing themselves up in London is a terrorist act, we all agree on it, even though the terrorists are at war with England.