Quote:
Quote by: Kamehameha34  Whatever.
Do you know what terrorism is?
It's use of violence for political purposes, or to intimidate. Japan wanted to come out strong because the U.S. had embargoed its oil, and Japan was projected to run out of it's oil reserve within two years. Japan had two choices - eventually bleeding itself dry of that crucial oil or attempting to win a war against the US within two years.
The difference we have is that you seem to think that it can only be called terrorism when there are principally civilian casualties, and that only one side need be clued in on the apparent war.
I see it a bit differently. Given the definition I gave, any act of war can be seen as an act of terrorism, but terrorism usually applies to any time one side commits an act of war that the other doesn't.
That's why the term "War on Terrorism" is a misnomer. |
No, it's only terrorism when the sole objective is to cause terror in order to manipulate a political entity into doing or not doing something. In this case, Japan determined that the American embargo was an aggressive act against Japan (and, arguably, an act of war). The response to America's act of aggression: war.