There are a lot of subtleties in your post that some, apparently, have failed to grasp...but there are some pitfalls, too.

The real issues we must deal with today are that (1) in a world with only one real superpower, warfare is asymmetric, with small, inchoate forces opposing larger, better equipped ones; (2) today's war against Islamic extremism is not being fought against nation-states [as was WWII]; (3) it's tricky to apply today's standards when examining past conflicts.

Calling the atomic (and conventional) bombings of cities during World War II acts of terrorism may have some element of truth, but it's a bit disingenuous. What makes it especially problematic is that it clouds the already murky waters surrounding attempts to come up with a useful definition of terrorism.

To me, if an act is committed by a nation-state, it is an act of war - any "terrorist" aspects are incidental. Real terrorism - to me, anyway - is when individuals or groups lacking the imprimatur of a nation-state attack civilians as their primary target, usually in furtherance of a specific political agenda.

If your point is that we are dealing with the world in too unskilled and unsubtle a way, I may agree. Our leadership is exceptionally ham-handed. But - Newtonian or Einsteinian - I think we're in a struggle for the future of human civilization, and we'd better be damn sure what we want that civilization to look like - or we won't have one.

Jack, I'm having trouble understanding just what you mean on this one - could you please explain to a dumb non=PhD what this quote has to do with what Donnie wrote?

Mmm. Terrorism=evil, entering, fighting and winning WW2= good, therefore bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki != terrorism.

Seems to be the reasoning. Ignoring what terrorism actually is, psychological warfare, sapping morale and inducing chaos, as opposed to what most modern _terrorists_ and _terrorist attacks_ are: monstrous.

Taboo vs consideration. The fear is that by acknowledging and examining the similiarity of the tools and methods, you flirt with equating the morality of the actions.

To honestly say that dropping the bombs was not terrorism, you would have to say they were dropped solely to destroy infrastructure, not to force Japan's hand out of fear of further bombings. Or that terrorism cannot be conducted by nationstates, only smaller 'illegal' groups.

But if the end goal is the same, why the insistence on another word? Is illegality terrorism's defining characteristic, rather than the killing of civilian targets in order to sow terror? The difference between Hiroshima and 9/11 not the preceding rape of Nanking or attack on Pearl Harbor, not the mobilization of the entire country of Japan for war, but rather the enlistment status of those involved?

Elisson: To call the comparison disingenuous... if there is an element of truth, where is the element of untruth? You acknowledge that actions by nation states can have terrorist _aspects_, yet you deny that they are terrorism. I think the quote applies very strongly here.

Unmuddy the waters. Often the discussion is muddy because a conclusion is barred from consideration before you even start. If bombing Hiroshima CANNOT be terrorism, yet it fits what we think of as terrorism, congitive dissonance occurs. You can attempt to redefinie terrorism until it exlcudes Hiroshima... or you can look more closely at what is.