{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
This thread is inspired by another: view original post
4/28/2014 8:30:19 PM
73
Is 9/11 the worst act of terror in history?
Sgt Mag thinks it is.
What an idiot. Clearly he needs a history lesson.
English
#Offtopic
-
The horror, the absolute and utter horror of it all.
-
6 RepliesJapan gets two of their cities blown up No one cares America gets two of their building blown up Everyone loses their shit
-
What I did to your mum's butt last night would be considered an act of terror by some. But she loved it.
-
It completely depends on what definition you use for an "Act of Terror." All I can see in this thread is people arguing semantics over a term that lacks an internationally accepted definition, which is completely pointless. Yes, 911 is probably the worst single attack on civilians conducted by a non-government organization. The bombing of Hiroshima was probably the worst single attack whose goal was to incite fear (to convince the Japanese to surrender) with disregard to noncombatants. The Nanking Massacre is one of the worst acts of unlawful violence by a soldiers without orders from the military. It's all about how define it, and unlike what some people here seem to think terrorism does not have a single, universally accepted definition.
-
4 RepliesNope. The Federal Reserve is the worst act of terror in history.
-
4 RepliesEdited by Mags: 4/29/2014 2:19:08 PMITT: People who have no idea what they're talking about. Terrorism. This whole thing is about terrorist attacks, not crimes committed during war (those are war crimes). Jesus Christ people, take an IR class.
-
3 RepliesIf you define terrorism as an attack on civilians by persons or groups not directly affiliated with any government or military, 9/11 is probably the worst. At least it's the worst I can recall. You could make a case that the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was an act of terrorism, in which case that would probably top the list as the "worst".
-
I'm having a hard time getting the image of a toxic vag out of my head
-
Because it's only terrorism when it happens to the U.S.
-
3 RepliesIf you talk about attacks within the United States than yes. If you mean just overall, than no. There have been far worse things that have happened, but aren't considered terrorism for god knows what reason. I think the -blam!- of Nanking is worse, but most people won't call that terrorism because it was an "act of war"
-
6 RepliesIt's the worst act of terrorism against the US. Actually, it's considerable as the only successful act of terror. But still. As far as history goes, 9/11 doesn't even rank in the top 10. The official Death Toll of 9/11/2001 is 2,996 casualties. An insignificant number in an insignificant event. Hiroshima/Nagasaki Bombings Have no recorded Death Toll, but are estimated at a combined number of 150,000 and 75,000 respectively, though as many reports agree: [quote]It is not unlikely that the estimates of killed and wounded in Hiroshima (150,000) and Nagasaki (75,000) are over conservative.[/quote] The reason people are shocked by 9/11 is because of how quickly the information spread, and because it happened "ON 'MURICAN SOIL!" [spoiler]Inb4 people get angry because I compared "an act of war" to "an act of terror". Reality's Calling: The A-bombs weren't sent out for any other reason than to put an end to the war, through means of [i]sheer terror[/i]. [/spoiler]
-
1 ReplyStalin's purges.
-
5 RepliesI mean, the Holocaust was pretty bad.
-
1 ReplyThe activation of the 7 rings 100000 years ago. The forerunners are truly scum.
-
1 ReplyIn America it was. I'm not sure about elsewhere in the world.
-
Worst in recent years.
-
These hoes aint loyal
-
Nope. WWII was.
-
32 RepliesEdited by Khan: 4/29/2014 8:41:52 AM9/11 took the most casualties in an act of terror. People here are saying military attacks are the same thing as terrorism, which is not true. The holocaust was not to scare jews, it was to kill them off. They didn't blow up some jews to terrorize them. Pearl Harbor was not to terrorize the United States, it was a military strike with an objective. The Bombing of Dresden was not to scare people, it was to eliminate them. 9/11 was not done to defeat the United States in an act of war. It was to scare it's citizens and incite terror into everybody in the country.
-
Edited by banj0: 4/29/2014 7:39:04 PMObviously the social implications of 9/11 cannot be ignored, but it's certainly not the biggest loss of human life in history, and I can't shake the feeling that if it didn't happen in New York City it wouldn't have changed the US the way it has.
-
12 RepliesYour the idiot. Complaining about someone you don't even know, on an online forum THINKING someone actually cares?
-
One might considering Nero burning down a large portion of Rome to screw over the early Christians to be an option.
-
Edited by Jiggleslinky: 4/29/2014 4:02:49 PMI dunno that time when they burned Washington to the ground was pretty bad. That was during the War of 1812 though so... you know, war and such.
-
27 RepliesNo. The nuking of Hiroshima was.
-
This not a stab against the average American person, but America has bombed so many civilians in all the wars and its always been swept under the rug but when it happens to them the whole world knows and gets the title of the most devastating act of terror. I don't think so.
-
Hey Kiyo.
