That aside, to me massacre connotes an attack by one force on another where the strengths of the two are grossly disproportionate, and the stronger side elects to exploit its advantage by attempting to murder their opposition wholesale. There is also the connotation that the extent of force used has a gratuitous dimension. This doesn't sound like Pearl Harbor, where the Japanese effort, whatever you think of their motivation, was directed against a large, heavily armed opposition, and where their intent was not the destruction of life per se but of naval ships. There were huge numbers of casualties in various Civil War battles, but most people wouldn't call them massacres.
mbs
> > 2. An unsuccessful (the main target, the aircraft carriers,
> > having been sent safely to sea beforehand) attack on a
> > major military base can scarcely rank as any sort of "massacre"
> Few military historians consider the attack a minor event, it
> seriously hurt the U.S. Navy, and it cost the lives of 2,300
> people--a massacre by most reasonable standards.