Comments Elsewhere

Contra-sequitur watch: replying to a post in which I factually described the atomic bombing of Hiroshima as “the deadliest act of terrorism in the history of the world,” a commenter at /r/history tells me [emphasis added]: “that’s some very heavy handed hyperbole they’re using there. THE BOMB WAS MEANT TO SHOCK, TO HORRIFY, to silence even the most gung-ho Japanese nationalists who were on a ‘death or glory’ mission, even though the country was manifestly beaten. It was emphatically not terrorism.” Seriously in what possible universe would the premise there actually lend support to the conclusion, instead of lending support to exactly the opposite claim? http://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/1ju9fm/68_years_ago_today_815_am_local_time/cbiooqa