i hope you are not saying that its ok to kill innocent babies in an atom bomb, as long as our soldiers are saved ?

so tell me the difference between what was done at hiroshima and nagasaki and terrorism ?

From the video, Mr Whittle pointed out the following which might or might not be true and i will get into the details later in this discussion.

Lets just assume what Mr Whittle is saying is true and that :

(1) Hiroshima was given adequate warning

(2) Hiroshima was of military value

(3) Japanese resistance was not crumbling

(4) Japan was not trying to surrender

And lets say Al-Qaeda had the same policy of the Truman Administration and Al-Qaeda did the following :

(1) Warned the Pentagon of a pending attack

(2) Only targeted the Pentagon

(3) US government's resistance to withdrawing troops from Saudi Arabia was not crumbling

(4) the US government was not wanting to surrender its bases in Saudi Arabia

My Question is : Would the US government then say that Al-Qaeda was not a terrorist organization if all four points above took place ? off course not.

(2) Hiroshima was of military value.

Hiroshima was of military value ? while Tokyo which planned the Pearl Harbor attack was not ?

The reason Hiroshima was spared conventional bombing is because it did not have prime military installations; and having the bomb explode above the city was to cause maximum damage to as much of the city as possible where school children were in school learning while the bomb was dropped and the Nagasaki bomb was dropped over a church: St. Mary’s Cathedral.

In April 1945, US General Groves was instructed to pick targets for the nuclear bombs. "To enable us to assess accurately the effects of the bomb, the targets should not have been previously damaged by air raids." Four cities were chosen, including Hiroshima and Kyoto. War Secretary Stimson vetoed Kyoto, and Nagasaki was substituted. ( Leslie Groves, Now it Can be Told: The Story of the Manhattan Project, 1962 : Page 267 )

Addressing Mr Whittle's points :

(1) Hiroshima was given adequate warning.

No matter how many warnings Hiroshima was supposedly given, the US government should have known, as in the case of Katrina, thousands of people might not be able to move due to illness, being handicapped and the poor and destitute would not have been able to evacuate or realize the seriousness of an atomic attack because no warnings were given about radiation poisoning.

Background to the atom bombing :

Even though the US government forced Japan at the "point of a gun" to sign unequal treaties in the late 1800s, the Japanese people, even as late as 1937, were sympathetic to the plight of five American civilians who were wounded due to an unintentional attack by a Japanese naval aircraft on a US gunboat in China.

Numerous christian Japanese students sent christmas cards including letters, profusely apologizing for the unfortunate incident, on top of the millions ( in today's dollars) sent by the Japanese government to compensate the US government. Other letters from Japanese individuals and organizations contained gifts of money along with expressions of regret.

Even the people of Nagasaki (recipients of the second atom bomb) were sending money to the US embassy in Nagasaki for the USS Panay incident.

It is apparent that radical elements within Japanese society who wanted to drive the US out of China, due to US gun boat diplomacy, were behind the attack on USS Panay and other incidents in order to draw the US into greater conflict with Japan.

From the video, Mr Whittle pointed out the following which might or might not be true and i will get into the details later in this discussion.

Lets just assume what Mr Whittle is saying is true and that :

(1) Hiroshima was given adequate warning

(2) Hiroshima was of military value

(3) Japanese resistance was not crumbling

(4) Japan was not trying to surrender

And lets say Al-Qaeda had the same policy of the Truman Administration and Al-Qaeda did the following :

(1) Warned the Pentagon of a pending attack

(2) Only targeted the Pentagon

(3) US government's resistance to withdrawing troops from Saudi Arabia was not crumbling

(4) the US government was not wanting to surrender its bases in Saudi Arabia

My Question is : Would the US government then say that Al-Qaeda was not a terrorist organization if all four points above took place ? off course not.