NationStates Jolt Archive

The United Nations building in New York City is located on the waterfront, so it would have made an easy target and been interpreted as an attack against the entire world instead of just against the United States. If radical Islamists want to dominate the world with their particular strain of Islam, then why not plane-bomb the UN? ~ Michael.

The United Nations building in New York City is located on the waterfront, so it would have made an easy target and been interpreted as an attack against the entire world instead of just against the United States. If radical Islamists want to dominate the world with their particular strain of Islam, then why not plane-bomb the UN? ~ Michael.

What, exactly, is the point of this poll?

Theres no option for "they should have flown the plane into nothing" OR "whichever had the least casualties"

The United Nations building in New York City is located on the waterfront, so it would have made an easy target and been interpreted as an attack against the entire world instead of just against the United States. If radical Islamists want to dominate the world with their particular strain of Islam, then why not plane-bomb the UN? ~ Michael.

What, exactly, is the point of this poll?

Good question. There are many of my countrymen(ie neo-cons) that think the UN is either outdated or trying to take over the world. Don't know if he is one of them.

Love Poetry: If you look at the casualty lists of the twin towers, it was pretty much an attack on the world. Many countries lost people in that attack.

meh, doing that might have solved the US some problems, but would have screwed the EU, who like to hide behind UN athority and what not. Either wya, people would ahve died and that would have been bad


i think its ironic that when Woodrow Willision propsed the Leauge of Nation...Eropue called him a moron and said it was acrappy idea.....now they absolutely love the UN....i like the hypocracy of that. Diffrent time, diffrent place though!

The United Nations building in New York City is located on the waterfront, so it would have made an easy target and been interpreted as an attack against the entire world instead of just against the United States. If radical Islamists want to dominate the world with their particular strain of Islam, then why not plane-bomb the UN? ~ Michael.

I guess their problem was with the USA.

i think its ironic that when Woodrow Willision propsed the Leauge of Nation...Eropue called him a moron and said it was acrappy idea.....now they absolutely love the UN....i like the hypocracy of that. Diffrent time, diffrent place though!

Yes, Europe did think it was a crappy idea but at least they accepted it. But good ol' Pro-Isolationist Congress put Europe to shame and completely flipped out over the League of Nations. If they could have physically relocated the United States to the far side of the moon I think they would of done it.

As for attacking the UN Building since that would be a even more symbolic attack on the world (as some people claim), I would like to remind you that while Al-Qaeda may be evil camel-F'ing bastards they aren't stupid. Their mullahs could preach all they want about the Great Satan not being able to hurt them, but they knew damn well U.S. planes were going to blow to hell anything caught above ground. If they had attacked the UN (and thus every nation thats part of the UN, so the entire 1st and 2nd world more or less) there wasn't going to be a ground to hide under after that.

It's probably enough pain in their ass to have only us after them, they didn't need the whole damn planet coming down on them. So they attacked the WTC which was the de facto symbol of American Capitalism, and the destruction of which was a personal slap to the United States.

Yes, Europe did think it was a crappy idea but at least they accepted it. But good ol' Pro-Isolationist Congress put Europe to shame and completely flipped out over the League of Nations. If they could have physically relocated the United States to the far side of the moon I think they would of done it.


Im thinking im going to have to agree with you there though

Yes the UN is outdated

Yes the US should get out of the UN as fast as possible

No the terrorists shouldn't have flown a plane into it. People dieing is rarely good, regardless of who they are. Business people vs. ambassadors...both would be just as bad. Al Quieda should have flown the plane into good old Osama, and save themselves the trouble of having their already pitiful countries torn apart and ravaged.

They should have flown it into an exclusively American target. Where there were no Europeans around.

The United Nations building in New York City is located on the waterfront, so it would have made an easy target and been interpreted as an attack against the entire world instead of just against the United States. If radical Islamists want to dominate the world with their particular strain of Islam, then why not plane-bomb the UN? ~ Michael.

I guess their problem was with the USA.

That's exactly the point.. Bin Laden wanted to hit American interest not world interests.. However, in fairness terrorists shouldn't of flown planes into any thing..

I am going to leave it there, I find Love Poetry's opinions a little to extreme for myself and I don't want to get caught up in a big argument.

But yeah, you hit the nail on the head.

Theres no option for "they should have flown the plane into nothing" OR "whichever had the least casualties"

The terrorists would never have gone for a casualty minimizing situation. Otherwise they'd have their sleeper cells shoot random people on the streets.

The United Nations building in New York City is located on the waterfront, so it would have made an easy target and been interpreted as an attack against the entire world instead of just against the United States. If radical Islamists want to dominate the world with their particular strain of Islam, then why not plane-bomb the UN? ~ Michael.

They don't want to dominate the world, just the Middle East, but don't get me wrong, I think that is bad enough. Maybe they are pissed at the particular strain of US Christian fundamentalism that is dominating the world?

Attacking the UN, that would just be stupid. It would have helped the US more than it would have helped them, a point that has already been proven by previous posts. And yes, it wasn't just Americans killed when the Twin Towers collapsed, a fact that seems to be forgoten

The United Nations building in New York City is located on the waterfront, so it would have made an easy target and been interpreted as an attack against the entire world instead of just against the United States. If radical Islamists want to dominate the world with their particular strain of Islam, then why not plane-bomb the UN? ~ Michael.They don't want to dominate the world, just the Middle East, but don't get me wrong, I think that is bad enough. Maybe they are pissed at the particular strain of US Christian fundamentalism that is dominating the world?If they only want to dominate the Middle East, then why are they fighting in Sri Lanka and in the Philippines? ~ Michael.

The United Nations building in New York City is located on the waterfront, so it would have made an easy target and been interpreted as an attack against the entire world instead of just against the United States. If radical Islamists want to dominate the world with their particular strain of Islam, then why not plane-bomb the UN? ~ Michael.They don't want to dominate the world, just the Middle East, but don't get me wrong, I think that is bad enough. Maybe they are pissed at the particular strain of US Christian fundamentalism that is dominating the world?If they only want to dominate the Middle East, then why are they fighting in Sri Lanka and in the Philippines? ~ Michael.
The Tamil are mostly Buddhist or Hindu. Not sure which. And the Abu Sayaf have been fighting in the Phillipines for nearly 20 years now. Both struggles have been going on for a while now and neither one has their roots in Osama.

The United Nations building in New York City is located on the waterfront, so it would have made an easy target and been interpreted as an attack against the entire world instead of just against the United States. If radical Islamists want to dominate the world with their particular strain of Islam, then why not plane-bomb the UN? ~ Michael.They don't want to dominate the world, just the Middle East, but don't get me wrong, I think that is bad enough. Maybe they are pissed at the particular strain of US Christian fundamentalism that is dominating the world?If they only want to dominate the Middle East, then why are they fighting in Sri Lanka and in the Philippines? ~ Michael.

That's Abu Siaef (sp?) in the Phillipines. They are affiliated with Al - Qaeda (supposedly, anyway) but are more interested in setting up a their own Islamic state rather than world conquest.

What have the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka got to do with it? That's been going on for decades and has nothing to do with Al - Qaeda. Once again, the Tamil Tigers are trying to succeed from Sri Lanka, not take over the world.

The United Nations building in New York City is located on the waterfront, so it would have made an easy target and been interpreted as an attack against the entire world instead of just against the United States. If radical Islamists want to dominate the world with their particular strain of Islam, then why not plane-bomb the UN? ~ Michael.

It's really immature to think that they want to rule the world by Islam. The reason these terrorist groups have been created is because they are angry at acts committed against them and their people and their religion. al-Qaida is a direct result of the fact that the US kept bases in the holy land - Saudi Arabia and that US soldiers were Christians and Jews and other non-Muslims. It's the same for the Jews - they desire to keep Jerusalem because they think that it is their holy city and it must be controlled by Jews.

The United Nations building in New York City is located on the waterfront, so it would have made an easy target and been interpreted as an attack against the entire world instead of just against the United States. If radical Islamists want to dominate the world with their particular strain of Islam, then why not plane-bomb the UN? ~ Michael.

It's really immature to think that they want to rule the world by Islam. The reason these terrorist groups have been created is because they are angry at acts committed against them and their people and their religion. al-Qaida is a direct result of the fact that the US kept bases in the holy land - Saudi Arabia and that US soldiers were Christians and Jews and other non-Muslims. It's the same for the Jews - they desire to keep Jerusalem because they think that it is their holy city and it must be controlled by Jews.

It's rather ignorant to think that none want Islamic law running all. Abu-saef(sp) has demanded an Islamic state. The Muslims in Algeria are fighting a little war (oh about 60000 dead) because they are not an Islamic state. The Shi'ite are saying Iraq should be an Islamic state.

Some of the fundis of the Islamic world have said the world has to be Islam.

The United Nations building in New York City is located on the waterfront, so it would have made an easy target and been interpreted as an attack against the entire world instead of just against the United States. If radical Islamists want to dominate the world with their particular strain of Islam, then why not plane-bomb the UN? ~ Michael.

It's really immature to think that they want to rule the world by Islam. The reason these terrorist groups have been created is because they are angry at acts committed against them and their people and their religion. al-Qaida is a direct result of the fact that the US kept bases in the holy land - Saudi Arabia and that US soldiers were Christians and Jews and other non-Muslims. It's the same for the Jews - they desire to keep Jerusalem because they think that it is their holy city and it must be controlled by Jews.

Right on, finally someone who has actually done some research on this topic. I couldn't be bothered going into detail earlier. I chucked in that "bad enough" thing because I'm not really a fan of Islamic states, I'm all for keeping God out of running a country. I don't like how religious the US government is either, so I'm not too hypocritical.

The United Nations building in New York City is located on the waterfront, so it would have made an easy target and been interpreted as an attack against the entire world instead of just against the United States. If radical Islamists want to dominate the world with their particular strain of Islam, then why not plane-bomb the UN? ~ Michael.

It's really immature to think that they want to rule the world by Islam. The reason these terrorist groups have been created is because they are angry at acts committed against them and their people and their religion. al-Qaida is a direct result of the fact that the US kept bases in the holy land - Saudi Arabia and that US soldiers were Christians and Jews and other non-Muslims. It's the same for the Jews - they desire to keep Jerusalem because they think that it is their holy city and it must be controlled by Jews.

It's rather ignorant to think that none want Islamic law running all. Abu-saef(sp) has demanded an Islamic state. The Muslims in Algeria are fighting a little war (oh about 60000 dead) because they are not an Islamic state. The Shi'ite are saying Iraq should be an Islamic state.

Some of the fundis of the Islamic world have said the world has to be Islam.

Umm, what I was saying is that they don't want an Islamic country worldwide. They want an Islamic government in Muslim lands and there is no problem with that. The US involves itself in the affairs of these countries and this is another source of terrorism against the US. US continues to pour billions of dollars into Israel who occupies Arab land, controls the al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, and continues to kill Palestinians. In Iraq, once again - another reason for them to get angry at the US.

And it's Abu Sayyaf.

i wouldn't take out the un harmless debating society it is, heck if i had my way the un would be the only place in new york the muds were welcome.

i wouldn't take out the un harmless debating society it is, heck if i had my way the un would be the only place in new york the muds were welcome.

Shut up, stupid Nazi. :evil:

i wouldn't take out the un harmless debating society it is, heck if i had my way the un would be the only place in new york the muds were welcome.

Shut up, stupid Nazi. :evil:

quiet stupid faintly middle eastern sound person. why don't you do something useful, like riding an isreali bus with one of those special belts you boys are so fond of.

Knock it off. Now!

Otherwise...I pull out the "DEAT-stick" and beat some people about the head with it. Kapeesh?

sorry :oops:

being good now, rational conservative puppet come out to play

It wouldn't make sense for the terrorists to fly into the UN HQ instead of the WTC, given that they already had a plane heading to the Pentagon. The targets were exclusively American and aimed at big business and the government.

The only real reason for the UN being out of date is that there is still the security council. Without that (IIRC, USA, UK, China, Russia and France can veto any act passed by the rest of the UN) then there's nothing obselete. Human rights, clean water and education never go out of date.

Also, as far as the League of Nations goes, Europe was behind it as a peacekeeping nation (for Europe read Britain, France and Italy- the rest of the nations were quite small and didn't have much bargaining power when it came to trade.) It failed for four reasons. First of all it had no army and so it was useless against the Italian invasion of Abyssinia, for example. Secondly, it had no teeth. When Japan and Germany were displeased they simply walked out and suffered no real loss. Thirdly the US didn't want a part of it and so the largest trading nation in the world didn't give its support. Finally nations like Germany and Russia were not allowed entry (until 1926 and 1939 repectively.)

Having said all of that, the League did have its fair share of successes, and it was upon that model that the UN was formed. Except in 1945 the world leaders (again, just the big players) got it right and learned from their mistakes. I suppose my point is that the League collapsed as WWII approached, but there is no sign of the UN faltering yet, and no hint of WWIII either, so either the world's just lucky, or the UN has had some influence on world politics, after all it's the only real forum for nations to communicate with the rest of the globe.

Aidan (Can't find the satirical cartoon I wanted to link to on the net. Grr!)