America is a terrorist group
Hiroshima and 9/11 both used mass civilian death to generate terror to achieve a political goal. Yet one is called "tragic necessity," the other "terrorism."
They will come up with excuses for why America did not commit terrorism. And for this they have to make an argument for why killing civilians to achieve a political goal is terrorism in one case and not in the other. So they have to find some arbitrary difference to make them seem different.
So they say "America is a state actor." As if, if Al Qaeda had captured territory and become a state, and then carried out the exact same attack, they would say it's not terrorism anymore, simply because they were a state. Even though America itself has multiple state actors on its list of terrorist organizations.
It was a “declared war” or “total war” as if that makes it no longer terrorism.
"It was a military necessity." As if a terrorist organization cannot think that a terrorist attack is necessary.
"It was a response to aggression, not unprovoked." As if it’s no longer terrorism if you didn’t start the war.
“A full scale invasion of Japan would have caused more deaths than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.” A full scale invasion of America would also have caused more death than 9/11. If al Qaeda was strong enough to do a full scale invasion of America would 9/11 no longer be terrorism because they could've done a full scale invasion?
"Dropping the bomb was intended to end a war." Why does that matter? Why would that make it no longer terrorism? Do you care whether al Qaeda intended to stop America from causing wars in the middle east with 911? If it turned out 9/11 caused Americans to stop attacking the middle east because they feel their actions have consequences would you say it’s no longer terrorism?