I have been trying to understand the difference ethically, if there is any, between 0/11 and the United States dropping a bomb on Hiroshima.

I think a better example would be the USA's bombing of Hanoi. As there was no state of war, this was certainly terrorism.

I think the use of atomic weapons in japan was really based on the desire to save american lives in a war we knew would become protracted if we invaded the japanese mainland. A better question might be the fire bombing of japanese cities prior to the use of atomic weapons. This seems a bit terroristic to me, although it may have been an act of desperation.

It may be that the problem is with this definition of "terrorism" which seems excessively broad; that it includes so many different actions with different motives seems to indicate that, while useful in a very general way, it is not precise enough to sustain any kind of argument.

Well let's see... I see the parallel, and its likely undeniable; that they both involved the indiscriminate killing of noncombatants; making both clearly immoral. But substantively, that's about where the similarities end. Here are some of the larger differences:[INDENT]

• Two different peoples with different cultures and populations
  
• One was perpetrated used the bodies of their own people as projectiles, the other through combatants whose purpose didn't include "we're one of your planes!"
  
• Two different times and vastly different circumstances
  
• ... and perhaps most importantly, one stopped a war, the other one started (or grossly-expanded) one
  

[/INDENT]No, I don't condone either kind of wholesale slaughter. But please bear in mind that the differences far outnumber the similarities. Any time we try to draw correlates between events, there'll be more differences than not.

Still, your assumed point (that they're both ethically wrong), I think, is valid.

America is all geared up against terrorists saying how horrible they are and how they depreciate the value of human society. I agree with this, yet I also find interest in the fact that people so easily forget that we're not much better than they are.

Now I do not advocate 9/11 in any way shape or form, I strongly disagree with Al-Qaeda's tactics, however, I also think America unethically went into the Middle East to fight the "war on terrorism" when we ourselves have been terrorists in the past. Am I wrong on this point of view?

The bombing of Hiroshima was an act of state terrorism. It was an intentional attack on innocent and defenseless citizens for a political goal.

Yes it seems that way, though I'm not a historian.

But simply saying that doesn't lead to understanding of 9/11 versus Hiroshima does it?

As I said in my last post, it's nearsighted to try and bring a "we aren't any better than they are" message out of it. We don't call modern Germany hypocritical if they condemn genocide.

I think the other questions would be: what are "civilians" and is terrorism ever justified?

I think a situation where you are choosing between bombing and between invading with an army of draftees (not soldiers by choice) against a civilian populace that will fight back is a lot less clear cut. But this is not necessarily a correct interpretation of the historical situation because it's complicated. The justifications I've heard for hiroshima have always been that it was a preventative, a lesser of two evils. Was the 9/11 attack preventing a greater evil?

Yes it seems that way, though I'm not a historian.

But simply saying that doesn't lead to understanding of 9/11 versus Hiroshima does it?

As I said in my last post, it's nearsighted to try and bring a "we aren't any better than they are" message out of it. We don't call modern Germany hypocritical if they condemn genocide.

I think the other questions would be: what are "civilians" and is terrorism ever justified?

I think a situation where you are choosing between bombing and between invading with an army of draftees (not soldiers by choice) against a civilian populace that will fight back is a lot less clear cut. But this is not necessarily a correct interpretation of the historical situation because it's complicated. The justifications I've heard for hiroshima have always been that it was a preventative, a lesser of two evils. Was the 9/11 attack preventing a greater evil?

Trying to call your enemy derogatory terms like terrorist or barbarous is inconsequential, war is war.

Those terms are derogatory, of course. But they are, nevertheless, descriptive. "Rapist" is derogatory. But "rapist" may still describe correctly anyway. It may be derogatory to call someone a rapist, but he may still be a rapist. And it may be derogatory to call someone a terrorist, but he may still be a terrorist.