US bombing of Hiroshima Nagasaki was it a act of terrorism?

One of biggest lies ever made to justify using nukes...

 

Oh? Pray enlighten us, Mr. Conspiracy Theorist.

 

Mr Conspiracy Theorist?!? Because I don't believe that WWII would continue indefinetly without droping nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?!?
Are you kidding me?!?
Japan was on their knees already when they got nuked. Read some history for a change!

 

< sarcasm > Yes, and we were only at war with Japan. < /sarcasm >

 

Hmmmmm you convinced me: war would last indefinitely without nukes...
Seriously, start reading. And I mean it. Sarcasam can't help you when you post nonsense.

 

Can you explain to me why they did not even surrender after the first bomb?

It is pretty clear that they were not "on their knees" ready to surrender. They had no intention of just giving up unless they had no other option. Well, after two nukes they had no other option but to surrender.

 

I'm still waiting for you to elaborate on this:

Go read history isn't a valid argument.

If you're going to make a statement like that, back it up with fact and I may actually consider taking your suggestion seriously.

I'm inviting you to prove what I'm saying is nonsense.

 

Well, I never said "they were on their knees ready to surrender". US and allies already got plan to invade Japan and it was only matter of how many vicitims there would be to completly military defeat Japan.
They were so desperate loosing that they invented Kamikaze . If you read article about it you'll see that they were loosing badly and they where on their knees in front of US forces.

And why did not they surrender after first bomb? Did Hitler surrender? Those who decide about surrender are not those who suffers in wars. Hitler rather killed himself than surrender and his plan was to completly destroy Germany before allies got in.

After two nukes they had option to continue to fight. Aren't they? After those two bombs US planed more of it. US plan was to drop them as they become ready. And the plan for invasion was still on.

 

no ,it wasn't. It was a revenge towards Japan bombing of pearl harbor.

 

Go read history IS valid argument. Japan was loosing war and it was just matter of time when they would be defeated so your claim that war would be continued indefinitely is a lie or simply nonsense.
Operation Downfall was cancelled after Japan surrender.
Again, read history instead making such nonsense claims.

 

So what ever you do in revenge is ok?

 

That makes no sense. They surrendered after two bombs. Obviously something convinced them. Do you think it was something other than the bombs that convinced the Japanese to surrender?

 

If you want to teach someone a lesson you will fight back. You attack me and I'll kick your ass. Simple as that. Its human nature.

 

They would surrrender sooner or later without bombs and you guys wants us to believe that they wouldn't.
Read it and than get back to me: Surrender of Japan.
They was ready to surrender and they would surrender bombs or no bombs.

 

So 9/11 is ok with you? I mean it's just the way of fighting back? Ya know, it's just human nature...

 

Yes, Operation Downfall was canceled AFTER the surrender. Not surprising considering there was no need for it. And you just happen to know exactly when Operation Downfall would have ended, so you can tell me exactly how long the war would have continued if Hiroshima and Nagasaki had not been hit? I suppose you can also tell me exactly how many casualties there would have been on both sides.

You are an idiot. Don't assume everyone else is as well.

 

Again read some history. When you start with insults I'm pretty sure that you are one of those who don't read too much...
I don't know how much time war would last yet you know that it would last indefinitely... makes me go hummmm

 

great enlightenment

I would also love to hear your views about Palestine ?

 

Hey, you're the one who doesn't seem to know what indefinitely means:

Indefinitely
: not definite: as a: typically designating an unidentified, generic, or unfamiliar person or thing <the indefinite articles a and an> <indefinite pronouns> b: not precise : vague c: having no exact limits

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indefinitely

Any more unfounded assumptions about my education and habits?

 

It is quite amazing that you were having so much problems in the others thread that women don't have enough rights in Islam and yet you fail to support those from whom even the right to live was snatched

civilians were killed and deliberately attacked, if the bombing of japan is justified then what is terrorism ?