I described us living in a "morally ambiguous" world, and I've certainly seen the misery caused by people not content to just live their own moral code, but to impose it on the world.

In the case of Japan, a lot of our stubborn unconditional surrender mentality came from a sense of outrage over (historically verified) accounts of Japanese barbarism toward conquered populations and captured enemies. It wasn't enough to just stop the Japanese military expansion, the Japanese people needed to be punished for their wickedness. And so a certain amount of blood had to be spilled, one way or another, before we could let ourselves ease off. And as you say, had we not let emotion obscure judgment, we could have ended the war much earlier, with honor intact and much less death and destruction. Trying to balance the moral books too often requires oceans of blood.

I must resist broadening the definition of terrorism to mean violent actions in furtherance of political aims. All of war is subsumed by a definition so broad--it's so von Clauswitz--and while there's a certain philosophical and aesthetic appeal to that conflation, it is a conflation, which I think hampers our ability to talk rationally about the subject.

Were the firebombing of Dresden or atom-bombing of Japan both acts of terrorism on a par with 9/11?

In looking at the difference, I think the key is the complicity of the civilian population; its "innocence" if you'll forgive the moral allusion.

The Axis and the Allies were engaged in all out war, and the civilian populations of each were fully engaged in the war effort, not only in logistical supporting roles, but as the revolving-door reservoir of new fighters and refuge of retired fighters. In a situation like that, I have a hard time finding a solid dividing line between combatants and noncombatants.

(Which has interesting implications for the American style of all-out jingoistic war and conscription by protestation of patriotic fervor. Don't we all abandon the right to call ourselves noncombatants when we go around pounding our chests and brandishing weapons and dressing in military-style clothing and driving Hummers for god's sake??)

So all that verbiage leads me to conclude, not surprisingly, that 9/11 was an act of classic terrorism, while the dirty deeds of WWII were the use of terror tactics within the framework of all-out war. Consider the hair successfully split ;-)

Thanks for your concluding remarks, Bowser. I enjoy your occasional manifestations, we all do. Pace yourself if you must, but you can expect a warm welcome when you're in the mood.