NationStates Jolt Archive

Since the US was already at war with al-Quaeda, wasn't this a legitimate military target?

On 9/11? Because they used hijacked civilian planes.

On 9/11? Because they used hijacked civilian planes.

They killed fewer civilians in that plane than most US bombs do

This sounds like one of those topics where they try and bait you into a lil trap then they can commence America bashing....there are other topics for that you know, all over the place....

why becasue it was cowardly murder or is that not enough for you, like sucide bombing are okay in New Grande

They killed fewer civilians in that plane than most US bombs do
Oh God, I'm not even going to further touch this one. Are you trying to associate the U.S. with terrorism?

why becasue it was cowardly murder

If it was al-Qaeda then they were already in the middle of a war with the US. The attack on the Pentagon would be legitimate since the Pentagon is where the military plans their anti-al-Qaeda attacks.

I'm not saying that I agree with al-Qaeda (or even that they were behind the attack on the Pentagon) but if they were responsible for the attack on the Pentagon then I don't see as how it is "terrorism"

Oh God, I'm not even going to further touch this one. Are you trying to associate the U.S. with terrorism?

What do you consider a military tactic that indescriminatly bombs heavly populated civilian areas?

This sounds like one of those topics where they try and bait you into a lil trap then they can commence America bashing....there are other topics for that you know, all over the place....
Don't take the bait form the sad little people.

If it was al-QaedaYes it was Al-Qaeda then they were already in the middle of a war with the US.
On September 11, 2001 at about 9:00 EST, yeah the war began. The attack on the Pentagon would be legitimate since the Pentagon is where the military plans their anti-al-Qaeda attacks.But that was BEFORE the war triggered did the Pentagon was attacked. Thus, Al-Qaeda struck before the U.S. did anything to them.

I'm not saying that I agree with al-QaedaDuh (or even that they were behind the attack on the Pentagon)Yes, because Osama Bin Laden isn't enough but if they were responsible for the attack on the Pentagon then I don't see as how it is "terrorism"You must be blind then. It's so obvious.

The title of this thread is "What was so bad about bombing the Pentagon".

That's flamebait, not a topic for debate.

What do you consider a military tactic that indescriminatly bombs heavly populated civilian areas?
I call it an attention grabber.
War is not a nice thing.
Simple minded fools buy into the "CNN War without Collateral Damage".
Civilians die in war that is a fact.
Name one War with no civilian losses.
The difference is between targeting civilians and just bad tactics.
Any dullard can realize that.
To your direct topic:
While I mourn the loss of American life, the Pentagon is a perfectly acceptable military target.
If I am to site the realities of war including the fact that civilians die I can not ignore the fact that the Pentagon is one of the Crown Jewels of American military targets.
If I was at war with America, I would target the Pentagon.

Yes it was Al-Qaeda
On September 11, 2001 at about 9:00 EST, yeah the war began. But that was BEFORE the war triggered did the Pentagon was attacked. Thus, Al-Qaeda struck before the U.S. did anything to them.


The war with al-Qaeda goes back a lot longer than Sept. 11th -- In case you don't remeber, Bill Clinton was launching missiles at them back in '98 -- that means that the US had been at war no fewer than three years befor the military strikes against the USS Cole and the Pentagon

I'm not saying that I agree with al-Qaeda (or even that they were behind the attack on the Pentagon) but if they were responsible for the attack on the Pentagon then I don't see as how it is "terrorism"

The simple answer is that "terrorism" as used by the American government has, up until now, meant any attack that we want to consider illegitimate for legal purposes. Now it also means any criminal investigation, in pursuit of which, law enforcement officials want to ignore civil rights. These crimes or unpopular activities then become a prefix attached to the word terrorism.

Drug smuggling = Narco-terrorism
Money laundering = Fiduciary-terrorism
Union groups = Political terrorists
Voting against Republicans = Legislative terrorism (I'm not joking that's what the republican head of the Texas state legislature called the democrats' efforts to stall an illegal jerrimandering campaign).

The war with al-Qaeda goes back a lot longer than Sept. 11th -- In case you don't remeber, Bill Clinton was launching missiles at them back in '98 -- that means that the US had been at war no fewer than three years befor the military strikes against the USS Cole and the Pentagon
yup.

The title of this thread is "What was so bad about bombing the Pentagon".

That's flamebait, not a topic for debate.

It was inspired by the topic "What was so bad about bombing Dresden," the difference here is that the Pentagon was a military target, while Dresden was not.

This thread is massive flamebait. I'd recommend not responding.

The war with al-Qaeda goes back a lot longer than Sept. 11th -- In case you don't remeber, Bill Clinton was launching missiles at them back in '98 -- that means that the US had been at war no fewer than three years befor the military strikes against the USS Cole and the Pentagon
Forum Boredom (as is your forum title, no?), the point of NS is not to flame bait. It's for intellectuals to quietly plot their conquest of the world. Now simply accept that there's a logical difference between using civilian planes as missiles and real missiles as missiles.

Hell, my local Wal-Mart could;ve been attacked by the same plane and you would've seen the SAME EXACT results.

If it was al-Qaeda then they were already in the middle of a war with the US. The attack on the Pentagon would be legitimate since the Pentagon is where the military plans their anti-al-Qaeda attacks.

I'm not saying that I agree with al-Qaeda (or even that they were behind the attack on the Pentagon) but if they were responsible for the attack on the Pentagon then I don't see as how it is "terrorism"
Ok, ok, I see the problem.
Since al-Qaeda is not an actual state it can not be at war.
Since it can not be at war, it can not have an honest military target.(I realize this is symantecs)
al-Qaeda being a terrorist orginization only commits acts of terrorism.
No matter what the target is it is not "legit", because al-Qaeda is not "legit".
That is the only answer I see.

If it was al-Qaeda then they were already in the middle of a war with the US. The attack on the Pentagon would be legitimate since the Pentagon is where the military plans their anti-al-Qaeda attacks.

I'm not saying that I agree with al-Qaeda (or even that they were behind the attack on the Pentagon) but if they were responsible for the attack on the Pentagon then I don't see as how it is "terrorism"

While I agree that attacking the Pentagon could be viewed as attacking a military target, I think that using civilian planes would make it a terrorist attack as opposed to a military operation.

Also, you can't divorce the Pentagon from the Twin Towers. They were part of the same attack. And those were clearly civilian targets, not military.

Now simply accept that there's a logical difference between using civilian planes as missiles and real missiles as missiles.


Tell me the logical difference between killing several civilians in a bombing campaign to kill a few terrorist, and using a few civilians in a bombing campaign to kill several military personal?

Tell me the logical difference between killing several civilians in a bombing campaign to kill a few terrorist, and using a few civilians in a bombing campaign to kill several military personal?
Tell me the difference between the WTC and the Pentagon. You seem to think that just because the Pentagon was attacked that it was okay. Thus you shun 2,700 other lives over at the WTC/Pennsylvania on 9/11.

While I agree that attacking the Pentagon could be viewed as attacking a military target, I think that using civilian planes would make it a terrorist attack as opposed to a military operation.

So, do you consider any military operation that kills civilians as a terrorist attack? Why is it not a legitimate tactic to use civilian planes to take out military targets, but it is legitimate to use military planes to take out civilian targets?



Also, you can't divorce the Pentagon from the Twin Towers. They were part of the same attack. And those were clearly civilian targets, not military.


That's an interesting point. While the Twin Towers were clearly civilian targets, they were a major part of the military-industrial-complex. Still, it seems to me that it was an unmistable terrorist attack -- but I still see a major difference between the attack on the WTC and the one on the Pentagon.

"Tell me the difference between the WTC and the Pentagon."

One was a military installation, while the other was civillian. It shouldn't be so difficult to differentiate between the two.

"You seem to think that just because the Pentagon was attacked that it was okay"

It was "okay" in the sense that it was a military target, with military personnel. As opposed to a civillian target (WTC) with civillians.

"Civilians die in war that is a fact."

By that rationale then I guess the attack on the WTC was perfectly legitimate.

Yes, let's all paint a pretty picture that we're all RIGHT when we say that only military operatives died in the Pentagon on September 11

Spc. Craig Amundson, 28, Fort Belvoir, Va.*
Melissa Rose Barnes, 27, Redlands, Calif.*
(Retired) Master Sgt. Max Beilke, 69, Laurel, Md.*
Kris Romeo Bishundat, 23, Waldorf, Md.*
Carrie Blagburn, 48, Temple Hills, Md.*
Lt. Col. Canfield D. Boone, 54, Clifton, Va.*
Donna Bowen, 42, Waldorf, Md.*
Allen Boyle, 30, Fredericksburg, Va.*
Christopher Lee Burford, 23, Hubert, N.C.*
Daniel Martin Caballero, 21, Houston, Texas*
Sgt. 1st Class Jose Orlando Calderon-Olmedo, 44, Annandale, Va.*
Angelene C. Carter, 51, Forrestville, Md.*
Sharon Carver, 38, Waldorf, Md.*
John J. Chada, 55, Manassas, Va.*
Rosa Maria (Rosemary) Chapa, 64, Springfield, Va.*
Julian Cooper, 39, Springdale, Md.*
Lt. Cmdr. Eric Allen Cranford, 32, Drexel, N.C.
Ada M. Davis, 57, Camp Springs, Md.*
Capt. Gerald Francis Deconto, 44, Sandwich, Mass.*
Lt. Col. Jerry Don Dickerson, 41, Durant, Miss.*
Johnnie Doctor, 32, Jacksonville, Fla.*
Capt. Robert Edward Dolan, 43, Alexandria, Va.*
Cmdr. William Howard Donovan, 37, Nunda, N.Y.*
Cmdr. Patrick S. Dunn, 39, Springfield, Va.*
Edward Thomas Earhart, 26, Salt Lick, Ky.*
Lt. Cmdr. Robert Randolph Elseth, 37, Vestal, N.Y.*
Jamie Lynn Fallon, 23, Woodbridge, Va.*
Amelia V. Fields, 36, Dumfries, Va.*
Gerald P. Fisher, 57, Potomac, Md.*
Matthew Michael Flocco, 21, Newark, Del.*
Sandra N. Foster, 41, Clinton, Md.*
Capt. Lawrence Daniel Getzfred, 57, Elgin, Neb.*
Cortz Ghee, 54, Reisterstown, Md.*
Brenda C. Gibson, 59, Falls Church, Va.*
Ron Golinski, 60, Columbia, Md.*
Diane M. Hale-McKinzy, 38, Alexandria, Va.*
Carolyn B. Halmon, 49, Washington, D.C.*
Sheila Hein, 51, University Park, Md.*
Ronald John Hemenway, 37, Shawnee, Kan.*
Maj. Wallace Cole Hogan, 40, Fla.*
Jimmie Ira Holley, 54, Lanham, Md.*
Angela Houtz, 27, La Plata, Md.*
Brady K. Howell, 26, Arlington, Va.*
Peggie Hurt, 36, Crewe, Va.*
Lt. Col. Stephen Neil Hyland, 45, Burke, Va.*
Robert J. Hymel, 55, Woodbridge, Va.*
Sgt. Maj. Lacey B. Ivory, 43, Woodbridge, Va.*
Lt. Col. Dennis M. Johnson, 48, Port Edwards, Wis.*
Judith Jones, 53, Woodbridge, Va.*
Brenda Kegler, 49, Washington, D.C.*
Lt. Michael Scott Lamana, 31, Baton Rouge, La.*
David W. Laychak, 40, Manassas, Va.*
Samantha Lightbourn-Allen, 36, Hillside, Md.*
Maj. Steve Long, 39, Ga.*
James Lynch, 55, Manassas, Va.*
Terence M. Lynch, 49, Alexandria, Va.*
Nehamon Lyons, 30, Mobile, Ala.*
Shelley A. Marshall, 37, Marbury, Md.*
Teresa Martin, 45, Stafford, Va.*
Ada L. Mason, 50, Springfield, Va.*
Lt. Col. Dean E. Mattson, 57, Calif.*
Lt. Gen. Timothy J. Maude, 53, Fort Myer, Va.*
Robert J. Maxwell, 53, Manassas, Va.*
Molly McKenzie, 38, Dale City, Va.*
Patricia E. (Patti) Mickley, 41, Springfield, Va.*
Maj. Ronald D. Milam, 33, Washington, D.C.*
Gerard (Jerry) P. Moran, 39, Upper Marlboro, Md.*
Odessa V. Morris, 54, Upper Marlboro, Md.*
Brian Anthony Moss, 34, Sperry, Okla.*
Ted Moy, 48, Silver Spring, Md.*
Lt. Cmdr. Patrick Jude Murphy, 38, Flossmoor, Ill.
Khang Nguyen, 41, Fairfax, Va.*
Michael Allen Noeth, 30, New York, N.Y.*
Diana Borrero de Padro, 55, Woodbridge, Va.*
Spc. Chin Sun Pak, 25, Lawton, Okla.*
Lt. Jonas Martin Panik, 26, Mingoville, Pa.*
Maj. Clifford L. Patterson, 33, Alexandria, Va.*
Lt. J.G. Darin Howard Pontell, 26, Columbia, Md.*
Scott Powell, 35, Silver Spring, Md.*
(Retired) Capt. Jack Punches, 51, Clifton, Va.*
Joseph John Pycior, 39, Carlstadt, N.J.*
Deborah Ramsaur, 45, Annandale, Va.*
Rhonda Rasmussen, 44, Woodbridge, Va.*
Marsha Dianah Ratchford, 34, Prichard, Ala.*
Martha Reszke, 36, Stafford, Va.*
Cecelia E. Richard, 41, Fort Washington, Md.*
Edward V. Rowenhorst, 32, Lake Ridge, Va.*
Judy Rowlett, 44, Woodbridge, Va.*
Robert E. Russell, 52, Oxon Hill, Md.*
William R. Ruth, 57, Mount Airy, Md.*
Charles E. Sabin, 54, Burke, Va.*
Marjorie C. Salamone, 53, Springfield, Va.*
Lt. Col. David M. Scales, 44, Cleveland, Ohio*
Cmdr. Robert Allan Schlegel, 38, Alexandria, Va.*
Janice Scott, 46, Springfield, Va.*
Michael L. Selves, 53, Fairfax, Va.*
Marian Serva, 47, Stafford, Va.*
Cmdr. Dan Frederic Shanower, 40, Naperville, Ill.*
Antoinette Sherman, 35, Forest Heights, Md.*
Don Simmons, 58, Dumfries, Va.*
Cheryle D. Sincock, 53, Dale City, Va.*
Gregg Harold Smallwood, 44, Overland Park, Kan.*
(Retired) Lt. Col. Gary F. Smith, 55, Alexandria, Va.*
Patricia J. Statz, 41, Takoma Park, Md.*
Edna L. Stephens, 53, Washington, D.C.*
Sgt. Maj. Larry Strickland, 52, Woodbridge, Va.*
Maj. Kip P. Taylor, 38, McLean, Va.*
Sandra C. Taylor, 50, Alexandria, Va.*
Karl W. Teepe, 57, Centreville, Va.*
Sgt. Tamara Thurman, 25, Brewton, Ala.*
Lt. Cmdr. Otis Vincent Tolbert, 38, Lemoore, Calif.*
Willie Q. Troy, 51, Aberdeen, Md.*
Lt. Cmdr. Ronald James Vauk, 37, Nampa, Idaho*
Lt. Col. Karen Wagner, 40, Houston, Texas*
Meta L. Waller, 60, Alexandria, Va.*
Staff Sgt. Maudlyn A. White, 38, St. Croix, Virgin Islands*
Sandra L. White, 44, Dumfries, Va.*
Ernest M. Willcher, 62, North Potomac, Md.*
Lt. Cmdr. David Lucian Williams, 32, Newport, Ore.*
Maj. Dwayne Williams, 40, Jacksonville, Ala.*
Marvin R. Woods, 57, Great Mills, Md.*
Kevin Wayne Yokum, 27, Lake Charles, La.*
Donald McArthur Young, 41, Roanoke, Va.*
Lisa L. Young, 36, Germantown, Md.*
Edmond Young, 22, Owings, Md.*

Oh, and you can get their profiles on this site: (so long as they have a * next to their name)

http://www.september11victims.com/september11victims/victims_list.htm

I'll rise to the bait. It's just daft to look at it isolation. It's like me saying, you know when that bomb killed all those civilians, well it killed one military guy, so, ignoring the civillians, it was a good thing!

Yes, you might argue that the people on the plane were collateral, but I have at least some vague suspicion that the military generally doesn't see it as a 'bonus' if they kill innocents, whereas Al Qaida probably makes it their secondary goal (after attempting to attack symbols).

Anyway, I don't really know enough about the situation on the ground (and in the air) in Iraq and Afghanistan to know whether the coalition forces attempt to minimize casualties to an acceptable level or not. I don't think many people do know. I hope there's some sort of internal mechanism to determine this in the military though.

What does worry me is when people say that we should say, just bomb flat places like Falluja. I point out that there are innocent people there. And then the response usually is something like 'they all hate us anyway' or 'they support terrorists'. Now to me, it seems that an approach like that is, for one thing, probably how the terrorists think. And that to me begins to suggest that that sort of thinking is beginning to couch it in terms of an actual war, not just an anti-terrorism operation. And then it becomes less and less that the terrorists are just terrorists, but they're more and more enemy soldiers.

Now I'm not saying that this line of thinking is necessarily wrong (I'm not saying it's right either). We may well have to think about this as an actual war with them and us to achieve the goals of the leaders of those countries. What I am saying is that we seem to be in a grey area between the two. People can't really decide if it's a war or more of a police action.

If it's a war then sure, innocent and semi-innocent Iraqi civilians may well be a legitimate target, but then we have to accept that we can't claim any moral high ground and hope that we, as civilians, aren't targets. If it's not a war, then we need to be careful to expect the kind of security action we'd expect our police forces to do in our own country.

Well, actually, that's not really a convincing argument even to me. Heck, there's plenty of room for grey in this. I just thought I'd throw that out there though.

(BTW, I was moderately in favour of the invasion of Iraq, but I didn't really feel that was part of the war on terrorists. I hoped (and still hope) that Iraq would emerge as a prospering democracy with good civil rights.)

Military target vs. Civillian target...seriously, do you have some sort of learning disability?

Besides, as someone else pointed out, "civillians die in war that is a fact".

So, do you consider any military operation that kills civilians as a terrorist attack? Why is it not a legitimate tactic to use civilian planes to take out military targets, but it is legitimate to use military planes to take out civilian targets?



Well, because those military planes aren't targeting any civilians, there are militant targets, and sadly, civilians can be killed in the process, which is unfortunate. The Al Queda did commit a terrorist attack against the pentagon and to say it is justified as a miltary action is just stupid.

So, do you consider any military operation that kills civilians as a terrorist attack? Why is it not a legitimate tactic to use civilian planes to take out military targets, but it is legitimate to use military planes to take out civilian targets?

Well... I just think that maybe starting out with civilian deaths guaranteed makes it a terrorist operation. One military goal should be to minimize civilian deaths.

That's an interesting point. While the Twin Towers were clearly civilian targets, they were a major part of the military-industrial-complex. Still, it seems to me that it was an unmistakeable terrorist attack -- but I still see a major difference between the attack on the WTC and the one on the Pentagon.

What major difference do you see? Do you not accept that it was part of the same plan? Yes, they used different planes, but that's like saying one F-18 attacking 1 building could be different than another. :p

If the same people planned and executed both attacks, than their attack was not solely to attack military targets. Therefore they would be termed terrorists.

Is there a reason my responses are ignored texas?

Ok, ok, I see the problem.
Since al-Qaeda is not an actual state it can not be at war.
Since it can not be at war, it can not have an honest military target.(I realize this is symantecs)
al-Qaeda being a terrorist orginization only commits acts of terrorism.
No matter what the target is it is not "legit", because al-Qaeda is not "legit".
That is the only answer I see.

So how can the US be in a "War on Terror" then? War doesn't just have to be between states/nations. It can be between a nation and a group of people.

Al-Qaeda attacking something like the US Cole would be attacking a military target. Attacking the Twin Towers would be attacking a civilian target.

Spc. Craig Amundson, 28, Fort Belvoir, Va.*
Lt. Col. Canfield D. Boone, 54, Clifton, Va.*
Sgt. 1st Class Jose Orlando Calderon-Olmedo, 44, Annandale, Va.*
Lt. Cmdr. Eric Allen Cranford, 32, Drexel, N.C.
Capt. Gerald Francis Deconto, 44, Sandwich, Mass.*
Lt. Col. Jerry Don Dickerson, 41, Durant, Miss.*
Capt. Robert Edward Dolan, 43, Alexandria, Va.*
Cmdr. William Howard Donovan, 37, Nunda, N.Y.*
Cmdr. Patrick S. Dunn, 39, Springfield, Va.*
Lt. Cmdr. Robert Randolph Elseth, 37, Vestal, N.Y.*
Capt. Lawrence Daniel Getzfred, 57, Elgin, Neb.*
Maj. Wallace Cole Hogan, 40, Fla.*
Lt. Col. Stephen Neil Hyland, 45, Burke, Va.*
Sgt. Maj. Lacey B. Ivory, 43, Woodbridge, Va.*
Lt. Col. Dennis M. Johnson, 48, Port Edwards, Wis.*
Lt. Michael Scott Lamana, 31, Baton Rouge, La.*
Maj. Steve Long, 39, Ga.*
Lt. Col. Dean E. Mattson, 57, Calif.*
Lt. Gen. Timothy J. Maude, 53, Fort Myer, Va.*
Maj. Ronald D. Milam, 33, Washington, D.C.*
Lt. Cmdr. Patrick Jude Murphy, 38, Flossmoor, Ill.
Spc. Chin Sun Pak, 25, Lawton, Okla.*
Lt. Jonas Martin Panik, 26, Mingoville, Pa.*
Maj. Clifford L. Patterson, 33, Alexandria, Va.*
Lt. J.G. Darin Howard Pontell, 26, Columbia, Md.*
Lt. Col. David M. Scales, 44, Cleveland, Ohio*
Cmdr. Robert Allan Schlegel, 38, Alexandria, Va.*
Cmdr. Dan Frederic Shanower, 40, Naperville, Ill.*
Sgt. Maj. Larry Strickland, 52, Woodbridge, Va.*
Maj. Kip P. Taylor, 38, McLean, Va.*
Sgt. Tamara Thurman, 25, Brewton, Ala.*
Lt. Cmdr. Otis Vincent Tolbert, 38, Lemoore, Calif.*
Lt. Cmdr. Ronald James Vauk, 37, Nampa, Idaho*
Lt. Col. Karen Wagner, 40, Houston, Texas*
Staff Sgt. Maudlyn A. White, 38, St. Croix, Virgin Islands*
Lt. Cmdr. David Lucian Williams, 32, Newport, Ore.*
Maj. Dwayne Williams, 40, Jacksonville, Ala.*



You bring up an interesting point -- a alarming number of the people on that plane were current military personal. I wonder why they weren't able to do what the civilians on-board the fourth plane (allegedly) were able to do.

You bring up an interesting point -- a alarming number of the people on that plane were current military personal. I wonder why they weren't able to do what the civilians on-board the fourth plane (allegedly) were able to do.
*sigh*

You didn't possibly mistake my last list of the victims of the Pentagon crash with the victims of AA Flight 77?

Paul Ambrose, 32, Washington, D.C.*
Yeneneh Betru, 35, Burbank, Calif*
Mary Jane (MJ) Booth, 64, Falls Church, Va.*
Bernard Curtis Brown, 11, Washington, D.C.*
Suzanne Calley, 42, San Martin, Calif.*
William Caswell, 54, Silver Spring, Md.*
Sarah Clark, 65, Columbia, Md.*
Zandra Cooper, Annandale, Va.*
Asia Cottom, 11, Washington, D.C.*
James Debeuneure, 58, Upper Marlboro, Md.*
Rodney Dickens, 11, Washington, D.C.*
Eddie Dillard, Alexandria, Va.*
Charles Droz, 52, Springfield, Va.*
Barbara G. Edwards, 58, Las Vegas, Nev.*
Charles S. Falkenberg, 45, University Park, Md.*
Zoe Falkenberg, 8, University Park, Md.*
Dana Falkenberg, 3, of University Park, Md.*
James Joe Ferguson, 39, Washington, D.C.*
Wilson "Bud" Flagg, 63, Millwood, Va.*
Darlene Flagg, 63, Millwood, Va.*
Richard Gabriel, 54, Great Falls, Va.*
Ian J. Gray, 55, Columbia, Md.*
Stanley Hall, 68, Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif.*
Bryan Jack, 48, Alexandria, Va.*
Steven D. Jacoby, 43, Alexandria, Va.*
Ann Judge, 49, Great Falls, Va.*
Chandler Keller, 29, El Segundo, Calif.*
Yvonne Kennedy, 62, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia*
Norma Khan, 45, Reston, Va.*
Karen A. Kincaid, 40, Washington, D.C.*
Dong Lee, 48, Leesburg, Va.*
Dora Menchaca, 45, of Santa Monica, Calif.*
Christopher Newton, 38, Anaheim, Calif.*
Barbara Olson, 45, Great Falls, Va*
Ruben Ornedo, 39, Los Angeles, Calif.*
Robert Penniger, 63, of Poway, Calif.*
Robert R. Ploger, 59, Annandale, Va.*
Lisa J. Raines, 42, Great Falls, Va.*
Todd Reuben, 40, Potomac, Maryland*
John Sammartino, 37, Annandale, Va.*
Diane Simmons, Great Falls, Va.*
George Simmons, Great Falls, Va.*
Mari-Rae Sopper, 35, Santa Barbara, Calif.*
Robert Speisman, 47, Irvington, N.Y*
Norma Lang Steuerle, 54, Alexandria, Va.*
Hilda E. Taylor, 62, Forestville, Md*
Leonard Taylor, 44, Reston, Va.*
Sandra Teague, 31, Fairfax, Va.*
Leslie A. Whittington, 45, University Park, Maryland.*
John D. Yamnicky, 71, Waldorf, Md.*
Vicki Yancey, 43, Springfield, Va.*
Shuyin Yang, 61, Beijing, China*
Yuguag Zheng, 65, Beijing, China*

In a quick scan, there were also two nationals of China, and one of Australia.

Part of the "criteria" for a terrorist attack is intent. Being able to label the Allied bombing campaign in WWII, for example, relies on the intention of terrorizing the civillian population. With that being said, the argument for the Pentagon attack being "terror" would rely on it's intent, which would be reinforced with it's connection to other attacks, which clearly were intended for civillian areas.

So how can the US be in a "War on Terror" then? War doesn't just have to be between states/nations. It can be between a nation and a group of people.

Al-Qaeda attacking something like the US Cole would be attacking a military target. Attacking the Twin Towers would be attacking a civilian target.
No, it would be a criminal act.
War on terror?
How about a War on Insecurity?
How about a War on depression?
How about a War on Drugs?

Yes WAR is between two or more states if you are going to be technical.
You could even go so far as to say a group seeking autonomy(al-Qeada is not).
We are not in a WAR against Terrorism, we are actually doing a global crack down.
We are fighting crime.
Second I was trying to answer texas's question as to why the Pentagon attack was terrorism and an Airstrike is not.

Ok, ok, I see the problem.
Since al-Qaeda is not an actual state it can not be at war.
Since it can not be at war, it can not have an honest military target.(I realize this is symantecs)
al-Qaeda being a terrorist orginization only commits acts of terrorism.
No matter what the target is it is not "legit", because al-Qaeda is not "legit".
That is the only answer I see.

Now this is interesting -- but in brings things into a very murky light. First of all, a State is defined by having a monopoly on force in a region. This means that whoever controls the military normally runs things in a country. While al-Qaeda doesn't have a military in any traditional sense, it certainly does have a complex command structure and many highly trained operatives. Are their actions unjustifiable simply because there are not more of them? If so, how many memebers would they have befor they were recognized as a military? To make matters worse, the CIA is not a state, but revelations from the Iran-Conta scandal have brought to light the fact that the CIA does go to war (or atleast attack) other nations without the approval of Congress. Does this make every action of the CIA a terrorist attack? Something to consider.

*sigh*

You didn't possibly mistake my last list of the victims of the Pentagon crash with the victims of AA Flight 77?



Not at all, I was just wondering out loud... why is it that the plane with dozens of military guys wasn't able to avert the terrorist when a group of civilians on another plane were? It just seems a little odd, don't you think?

Not at all, I was just wondering out loud... why is it that the plane with dozens of military guys wasn't able to avert the terrorist when a group of civilians on another plane were? It just seems a little odd, don't you think?
erm, no. I think you just looked up something wrong. It'll get spammy and the mods will get pissed at me if I point the REAL passenger deaths to you.

This thread makes me sick.

Well... I just think that maybe starting out with civilian deaths guaranteed makes it a terrorist operation. One military goal should be to minimize civilian deaths.

Yes, I agree -- but how many civilans have to die to change an attack from a terrorist operation into a military strike? Where do you draw the line?


What major difference do you see? Do you not accept that it was part of the same plan? Yes, they used different planes, but that's like saying one F-18 attacking 1 building could be different than another. :p

Yes, if one plane attacks a military base and another attacks a hospital, then I see a major difference.

If the same people planned and executed both attacks, than their attack was not solely to attack military targets. Therefore they would be termed terrorists.

So, what is the ratio between civilian targets and military targets where it shifts from collateral damage into terrorism?

Now this is interesting -- but in brings things into a very murky light. First of all, a State is defined by having a monopoly on force in a region. This means that whoever controls the military normally runs things in a country. While al-Qaeda doesn't have a military in any traditional sense, it certainly does have a complex command structure and many highly trained operatives. Are their actions unjustifiable simply because there are not more of them? If so, how many memebers would they have befor they were recognized as a military? To make matters worse, the CIA is not a state, but revelations from the Iran-Conta scandal have brought to light the fact that the CIA does go to war (or atleast attack) other nations without the approval of Congress. Does this make every action of the CIA a terrorist attack? Something to consider.
Oh, make no mistake I am not talking about justification.
I am simply talking about the difference between a terrorist act, and a Legal military act.
Morality, I want no part of, it itself is too murky a subject on these matters.
Killing, no matter how much it may be needed is never moral.
As far as the CIA, not every action, merely every aggressive action taken by the CIA without express permission from the ruling body. If it is apporved it would not be called an act of terrorism.
However since we have laws in place that forbid the sanctioning of such activity- it becomes illegal clandestine activity-if I did it it would be terrorism.

Most of these arguements are symantecs, anyone with any sense knows that, they deal with legal issues.
FOr what it is worth however I dont thnk this thread has to be reduced to flaming unless that is all one can think of, which would be a sad testimonial.

Yes, I agree -- but how many civilans have to die to change an attack from a terrorist operation into a military strike? Where do you draw the line?

hehe... i think it's supposed to go the other way. more civilians moves it into the realm of terrorism. But I don't know where to draw the line. To me it's more how possible it would have been to stop the civilian deaths.

Yes, if one plane attacks a military base and another attacks a hospital, then I see a major difference.

I think a problem we're having here is that I'm viewing it from the whole attack standpoint, not individual targets. If you deal with individual targets, then yes, the Pentagon was a military target and the Twin Towers were civilian targets. Can we agree there? :)

So, what is the ratio between civilian targets and military targets where it shifts from collateral damage into terrorism?

Personally, I think the distinguishing characteristic is more the intent. If the intent is civilian deaths, then it was a terrorist act. If the intent was military deaths, but civilians died (and not excessively) then it's a military attack.

Personally, I think the distinguishing characteristic is more the intent. If the intent is civilian deaths, then it was a terrorist act. If the intent was military deaths, but civilians died (and not excessively) then it's a military attack.

The thing about 9/11 is there were three targets: The World Trade Center (coperate power elite) The Pentagon (the military) and the Capital Building (the government)

Now, some have suggested that the 'intent' was to kill civilians for nothing more than the sake of creating a sense of panic in Americans, then that was done -- but, if you look at the three targets you might notice something different is taking place.

The Iron Triangle of the Military-Industrial Complex was a term President Eisenhower used to describe the merging of wealthy industrialist with political power and military might. Basically, when you look at mega-corporations like Boeing, Halliburtion, Raytheon and the Carlyle Group -- and mega-billion dollar government contracts to build weapons for war -- what you're seeing is the culmination of what happens in the WTC, the Pentagon and the Capital Building.

So, the intent may very well have been to disrupt the Military-Industrial Complex, and the killing of civilians was an unfortunate reality they couldn't get around.

Now, it is very obvious that the Military-Industrial Complex is the single winner from the 9/11 attacks -- so it just goes to show that no matter what you do, you can't control the outcome.

Well... I just think that maybe starting out with civilian deaths guaranteed makes it a terrorist operation. One military goal should be to minimize civilian deaths.
I must remind you of the bombing raid on the restaurant in Baghdad shortly before the ground war began last year. Senior officials were rumoured to be meeting there. Civilian casualties were guaranteed, military casualties were not.

In the event, only civilians were present.

The line between state military and state terrorist action really can become blurred sometimes.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and although some people have questioned the suitability of this thread, it is being kept open.

Legit target. If you are at war, have declared war and you wear uniforms etc etc.
Not if you don't make any declaration or if you do not identify your self.

I must remind you of the bombing raid on the restaurant in Baghdad shortly before the ground war began last year. Senior officials were rumoured to be meeting there. Civilian casualties were guaranteed, military casualties were not.

In the event, only civilians were present.

The line between state military and state terrorist action really can become blurred sometimes.


Never said the military followed my dictates. ;)

And I don't necessarily think that bombing a cafe by a large military power makes it a military act. Sometimes America can act like terrorists. The line does become blurry, a bit too blurry for me to feel comfortable making a call.

why becasue it was cowardly murder or is that not enough for you, like sucide bombing are okay in New Grande
im not really sure suicide bombing is more cowardly than dropping cluster bombs in residential areas from a bomber

Ok, ok, I see the problem.
Since al-Qaeda is not an actual state it can not be at war.
Since it can not be at war, it can not have an honest military target.(I realize this is symantecs)
al-Qaeda being a terrorist orginization only commits acts of terrorism.
No matter what the target is it is not "legit", because al-Qaeda is not "legit".
That is the only answer I see.

Legitimate war if you are a state, terrorism if you are not? Who says what makes a state? If Osama declared that his bedroom was the Independent Homestead Of Osama's Bedroom, would that have made it OK?

Legit target. If you are at war, have declared war and you wear uniforms etc etc.
Not if you don't make any declaration or if you do not identify your self.

So you aren't a terrorist if you have a uniform? Ok, the soldiers of The Independent Homestead Of Osama's Bedroom all wear robes. Whitish, or muddy. And Osama is very much identified. So he can sit in his bedroom in his robes and fire missiles into the Bronx, and that will be war, not terrorism.

I'm confused. The "attack on the Pentagon" was not an act of terrorism, unless you use the "new improved" American defenition of terrorism.

But the hijacking and destruction of a civilian aeroplane was and act of terrorism. As was the destruction of the two towers.

The Pentagon was and is a valid military target. A civilian aeroplane is not.

I'm confused. The "attack on the Pentagon" was not an act of terrorism, unless you use the "new improved" American defenition of terrorism.

But the hijacking and destruction of a civilian aeroplane was and act of terrorism. As was the destruction of the two towers.

The Pentagon was and is a valid military target. A civilian aeroplane is not.

lol... now we're going to divorce the method used to attack the Pentagon from the attack itself? :p

All 3 attacks were part of 1 large attack. If 1 part was a terrorist act, then the whole thing is.

I'm confused. The "attack on the Pentagon" was not an act of terrorism, unless you use the "new improved" American defenition of terrorism.

But the hijacking and destruction of a civilian aeroplane was and act of terrorism. As was the destruction of the two towers.

The Pentagon was and is a valid military target. A civilian aeroplane is not.
But what if you can't do one without the other? Like that restaurant in Baghdad where some officials might have turned up? Or a Hamas militant stuck in a traffic jam? Like I said, when you know you have to strike a civilian target in order to have a chance at striking a military one, the worm can of double standards is opened.

Legitimate war if you are a state, terrorism if you are not? Who says what makes a state? If Osama declared that his bedroom was the Independent Homestead Of Osama's Bedroom, would that have made it OK?
Yes, that would have made it legit. It would still be wrong. As most wars can be but at least it would be legitamate.

What do you consider a military tactic that indescriminatly bombs heavly populated civilian areas?

Remember a little war called World War II? We (USA) dropped atom bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. That was a military tactic. It was done more to save lives then to take lives. If we didn't use those bombs 100x or more people would have died. To invade Japan would have been VERY hard because every jap would fight and die for the emperor which would also mean the deaths of more American soldiers. What the terrorists did was not to save lives, but to destroy lives. Their only goal was to kill as many people as possible.

But what if you can't do one without the other? Like that restaurant in Baghdad where some officials might have turned up? Or a Hamas militant stuck in a traffic jam? Like I said, when you know you have to strike a civilian target in order to have a chance at striking a military one, the worm can of double standards is opened. If you can't do the one thing without the other you either:

1) Don't do it
2) Find someone who can.

Simple. You don't kill innocents to get at the guilty. You don't.

The United States of America never officially declared war on Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or Iraq, for that matter. :rolleyes:

Well I would agree with that, Bungeria. Kinda difficult for me to criticise the terrorists' methods when I see half the West using the same tactics.

Well I would agree with that, Bungeria. Kinda difficult for me to criticise the terrorists' methods when I see half the West using the same tactics.

That's an excellent point, as well, in which I never quite looked at it that way before.

Since the US was already at war with al-Quaeda, wasn't this a legitimate military target?
No, because they used hijacked civilian planes. They were quite deliberately killing civilians.

I also don't consider al-Qaeda to be able to legally declare war like a country can. So yeah, it was an illegitimate terrorist attack.

Oh God, I'm not even going to further touch this one. Are you trying to associate the U.S. with terrorism?
I don't agree with the thread starter, but yes, the US is associated with terrorism. I'm not talking about bombs officially dropped by the USAF.

I'm talking about the constant terrorist campaigns against the likes of Cuba (from 1959 onwards), Central American countries (mostly 80s, everyone knows about this) and anyone else whose actions have a smattering of socialism.

I don't agree with the thread starter, but yes, the US is associated with terrorism. I'm not talking about bombs officially dropped by the USAF.
I'm talking about the constant terrorist campaigns against the likes of Cuba (from 1959 onwards), Central American countries (mostly 80s, everyone knows about this) and anyone else whose actions have a smattering of socialism.
What was "terrorists" about them? It was part of the fight against communism and the communists dictators. A fight which led to the liberation of Eastern Europe and the German reunification. It led to the end of the Soviet Union.
Europe owes much to the US - like saving it from its biggest threats: Nazi-Germany and Soviet Russia.
Europe is a better place now - also those countries.

It was part of the fight against communism and the communists dictators.

Who did we think we were by declaring Communism was a bad thing?

What was "terrorists" about them? It was part of the fight against communism and the communists dictators. A fight which led to the liberation of Eastern Europe and the German reunification. It led to the end of the Soviet Union.
Europe owes much to the US - like saving it from its biggest threats: Nazi-Germany and Soviet Russia.
Europe is a better place now - also those countries.The ends do not justify the means. "Terrorism" is a defenition of means, not ends. Yes, the world is better now that Nazi Germany and the USSR have fallen. But that does not excuse the CIA terrorist involvment in, for example, Pinochet.

The only semi-coherrant case for the ends justifying the means I have heard came from the Jesuits, and last I checked the US administration do not start their documents AMDG.

Who did we think we were by declaring Communism was a bad thing?
Under Stalin about 20 million people where killed. Not a bad thing? Under Pol Pot 2 million Kambodians were killed. Not a bad thing?
The Soviet Union hold Eastern Europe occupied up until 1989/94 and refused the nations and their peoples to chose the governments by themself. They installed communists regimes in those countries. Not a bad thing?
They crashed popular uprisings in East Germany in 1953, in Hunary in 1956 and in Czechoslovakia in 1968. Not a bad thing?
They stated the Breshnew doctrine (in 1968) explicitly stating the supremacy of the USSR over Eastern Europe and the Warsaw pact (which was in fact the case since 1945). Not a bad thing?
The answer is clear: It was a very bad thing. And I´m thankful to the US for standing firm against it in defending Western Europe against communism and to show a policy of strength against the Soviet Union and their vasalls around the world. That contributed greatly to the final collapse of the Eastern block and the liberation of Central and East Europe.

Under Stalin about 20 million people where killed. Not a bad thing? Under Pol Pot 2 million Kambodians were killed. Not a bad thing?
The Soviet Union hold Eastern Europe occupied up until 1989/94 and refused the nations and their peoples to chose the governments by themself. They installed communists regimes in those countries. Not a bad thing?
They crashed popular uprisings in East Germany in 1953, in Hunary in 1956 and in Czechoslovakia in 1968. Not a bad thing?
They stated the Breshnew doctrine (in 1968) explicitly stating the supremacy of the USSR over Eastern Europe and the Warsaw pact (which was in fact the case since 1945). Not a bad thing?
The answer is clear: It was a very bad thing. And I´m thankful to the US for standing firm against it in defending Western Europe against communism and to show a policy of strength against the Soviet Union and their vasalls around the world. That contributed greatly to the final collapse of the Eastern block and the liberation of Central and East Europe.Whats does Stalin, Pol Pot, or any of these places have to do with communism? They weren't communist, never called themselves communist and never would have become communist. The only people who call them communist is the misinformed western media. You might make a case for calling them socialist and they were certainly command economies, but that doesn't make them communist.

The ends do not justify the means.
Well that is true. However one also needs to look at the alternatives in each situation. I don´t say that the US always took the right decision. But overall the American policy was correct. Standing firm against a dictatorship is the right thing - and offering help if finally changes accour (which happened in Russia in the end of the 1980s).
The world is a better place because of a policy of strength.

Whats does Stalin, Pol Pot, or any of these places have to do with communism? They weren't communist, never called themselves communist and never would have become communist. The only people who call them communist is the misinformed western media. You might make a case for calling them socialist and they were certainly command economies, but that doesn't make them communist.
They were leaders of communists parties and would call themself communists. You are talking semantics. Communism is an illusion which is not even reachable. That would be like a paradise on earth. Therefore "socialism" (as "transitional period (as Marx put it) was applied. Though they were communists.

Since they weren't supporters of democracy, they can't have been communists. Not semantics, at least not any more than any argument is semantics. But I think we're off topic.

If it was al-Qaeda then they were already in the middle of a war with the US. The attack on the Pentagon would be legitimate since the Pentagon is where the military plans their anti-al-Qaeda attacks.

I'm not saying that I agree with al-Qaeda (or even that they were behind the attack on the Pentagon) but if they were responsible for the attack on the Pentagon then I don't see as how it is "terrorism"

Because they were non-state actors. It's terrorism when you aren't representing a state that is at war. Since there was no legal declaration of war (the "War" on terrorism is rhetoric, like the "War" on drugs), that makes it terrorism. It's a legal definition, you wingnut. Also, the rules of war forbids causing DELIBERATE harm to civilians. The U.S. "war" on terrorism didn't enter into a military operational phase until after the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Prior to that it was, like the drug "war", a primarily law-enforcement operation.

Your suggestion is akin to that of supporters of the Palestinian cause who state that bombing Israeli schools is legitimate because, with Israel's mandatory military service, they will be soldiers AT SOME POINT.

Also, we should note that the Pentagon houses the Department of Defense, which employs civilians, not just the military.

Because they were non-state actors. It's terrorism when you aren't representing a state that is at war. Since there was no legal declaration of war (the "War" on terrorism is rhetoric, like the "War" on drugs), that makes it terrorism. It's a legal definition, you wingnut. Also, the rules of war forbids causing DELIBERATE harm to civilians. The U.S. "war" on terrorism didn't enter into a military operational phase until after the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Prior to that it was, like the drug "war", a primarily law-enforcement operation. But the USA hasn't made a legal declaration of war against Iraq or Afghanistan. Are they terrorist actions too?

Since they weren't supporters of democracy, they can't have been communists. Not semantics, at least not any more than any argument is semantics. But I think we're off topic.
Karl Marx didn´t see parlamentarian democracy and the burgeois liberal society as the end of history but the "dictatorship of the proletariat". Democracy did not belong in his vocabulary. In his view the economy and the "productive forces" are moving history. A very materialistic world view actually. I don´t agree with it.
And any attempt to implement it turned into a more or less totalitarian dictatorship. So there is obviously something wrong with that concept. On thing is the wrong perception of humans. They are seen as selfless and good. That is why such a thing like cheques and balances doesn´t exist in that theory. The result is of course tyranny. If power is absoute it gets abused. That is a simple experience of history. Sometimes more (Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin) sometimes less (Franco).
But if there is not a system of cheques and balances that is the inevitable result.

But the USA hasn't made a legal declaration of war against Iraq or Afghanistan. Are they terrorist actions too?
The US acted in self-defense against Afghanistan due to the attack of Al-Quida which had its headquarter in Afghanistan.
The US had launched an ultimatum against both countries.
So, it was made clear to them what they have to do. They declined.

Karl Marx didn´t see parlamentarian democracy and the burgeois liberal society as the end of history but the "dictatorship of the proletariat". Democracy did not belong in his vocabulary. In his view the economy and the "productive forces" are moving history. A very materialistic world view actually. I don´t agree with it.
And any attempt to implement it turned into a more or less totalitarian dictatorship. So there is obviously something wrong with that concept. On thing is the wrong perception of humans. They are seen as selfless and good. That is why such a thing like cheques and balances doesn´t exist in that theory. The result is of course tyranny. If power is absoute it gets abused. That is a simple experience of history. Sometimes more (Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin) sometimes less (Franco).
But if there is not a system of cheques and balances that is the inevitable result. True. But then Karl Marx made (at least) one major error in his logic. Possibly the most important part of communism is the public ownership of the means of production. Public ownership.

Public ownership does not mean "owned by the state", it means "owned by the people". The only administrative body which can manage all the means of production is the government, since if any other body tried it it would become the government in fact if not name. The only way the government can be owned by the people is if it is a democracy. If you have the government managing the means of production without being a democracy (like in the USSR) you get an authoritarian command economy. Instead of CEOs or aristocracy owning the means of production, you get a new elite who, like all the other elites, just want power and privilege.

If you have the government managing the means of production without being a democracy (like in the USSR) you get an authoritarian command economy. Instead of CEOs or aristocracy owning the means of production, you get a new elite who, like all the other elites, just want power and privilege.
But you need an elite, since not all people are as qualified as the others. People are different. Marx didn´t believe in the division of power. But the result of that is the concentration of power. And the concentration of power is a dictatorship. Marx was therefore absolutely right to call it the "dictatorship of the proletariat". Admittedly it was executed by "the party". But how else? That development was due to the theory.
Also: governments have a tendency that they want to take control. Given that leeway leds to disaster. Historic experience.
Furthernmore: A market economy works a commando-economy doesn´t work. Supply and demand can only be met via the market mechanism of free prices. Without that the economy goes down.

Since the US was already at war with al-Quaeda, wasn't this a legitimate military target?
There was nothing wrong with it.

why becasue it was cowardly murder or is that not enough for you, like sucide bombing are okay in New Grande
Puh. Collataral damages. You can't make an ommlette without breaking a few eggs.

But you need an elite, since not all people are as qualified as the others. People are different. Marx didn´t believe in the division of power. But the result of that is the concentration of power. And the concentration of power is a dictatorship. Marx was therefore absolutely right to call it the "dictatorship of the proletariat". Admittedly it was executed by "the party". But how else? That development was due to the theory. Well yes, you need an elite. What you do not need is a hereditary or even life-interest elite. Which is what they had in the middle ages, what they had in the USSR and what we have today.
Also: governments have a tendency that they want to take control. Given that leeway leds to disaster. Historic experience.Thats why I like the Swiss model a lot, it prevents this to a very large extent.
Furthernmore: A market economy works a commando-economy doesn´t work. Supply and demand can only be met via the market mechanism of free prices. Without that the economy goes down. Oh yes, the free market really 'works'. Canadian water shipped to Norway, Norweigan water shipped to Canada, and hundreds of millions dying of thirst in the less developed countries. The problem of scarcity can be met in a large number of ways, and a command economy can be very nearly as self-regulating as a free market economy.

Well yes, you need an elite. What you do not need is a hereditary or even life-interest elite. Which is what they had in the middle ages, what they had in the USSR and what we have today..
No, we don´t have that today. There are people going up into the elite and people from the elite who fall out of it. That is a huge difference to the times before.

Thats why I like the Swiss model a lot, it prevents this to a very large extent...
I think it gives a lot leeway to populism and people who are playing the fear-factor (anti-UN, anti-EU, anti-NATO).
Oh yes, the free market really 'works'. Canadian water shipped to Norway, Norweigan water shipped to Canada, and hundreds of millions dying of thirst in the less developed countries. The problem of scarcity can be met in a large number of ways, and a command economy can be very nearly as self-regulating as a free market economy.
No, command economy never works in the long-run. The only times where it can be necessary are times of war (real big wars). But outside of it it just doesn´t work. And therefore we see a development globally towards a free market economy. And that is good.

If you really want to discuss the pros and cons of a democratic command economy, then I'll start a thread about it tomorrow at around noon GMT. This is neither the thread nor the time to do it, since the thread is about terrorism and I am going home in half an hour.

But honestly I would like to have this discussion with you, you seem to have some clue what you re talking about anyway.

And we do have a hereditary elite. Do you think that Rupert Murdoch's kids won't have power? His grandkids? Do you think the Kennedy clan has just as much power as the average John Smith? Sure, people come and go from the elite all the time, and that was true in the middle ages as well. But once you have money and power, you can be sure your kids will too, unless you screw up.

And on Switzerland, I think that their system is good, but since their rich-and-powerfull are about as right wing as you can get (bankers, the lot of them) I'm not surprised they are staying out of the EU and don't trust the UN very much.

And we do have a hereditary elite. Do you think that Rupert Murdoch's kids won't have power? His grandkids? Do you think the Kennedy clan has just as much power as the average John Smith? Sure, people come and go from the elite all the time, and that was true in the middle ages as well. But once you have money and power, you can be sure your kids will too, unless you screw up..
That is wrong. In the Middle Ages it belonged on your birth. The "blue blood" was the determining factor. Zero chance to climb the social ladder. That is in itself a democratic and captialists concept - being able to climb the social ladder. 19 th century - associated with the begin of capitalism and the end of feudalism (from a continental Europe perspective).

And on Switzerland, I think that their system is good, but since their rich-and-powerfull are about as right wing as you can get (bankers, the lot of them) I'm not surprised they are staying out of the EU and don't trust the UN very much.
The government wanted in the EU in the early 1990s. The people voted against it. The government wanted to join the UN in 1985. The people voted against it. They tried again in 2000. A small majority voted for it. So in 2002 Switzerland became the 190 th member of the UN.
Switzlerand even participated with humanitarian aid and soldiers on UN missions in the 1990s. So they are also considering their isolationistic policy. They have also signed several treaties with the EU (regarding free trade, travel, traffic, capital gains tax, e.g.).

Going back to topic.
Terrorism is a form of "fighting". It is more designed to create fear and effects than actually damage things. In that sense it may be possible to distinguish it from guerilla warfare.
That can also be argued for the case of Iraq. The attacks on pipelines can be considered guerilla warfare while the cruelty of the beheadings only serves one purpose. Creating fear.

If you really want to discuss the pros and cons of a democratic command economy, then I'll start a thread about it tomorrow at around noon GMT. This is neither the thread nor the time to do it, since the thread is about terrorism and I am going home in half an hour.
Democratic command economy seems to be a contradiction on itself. Like democratic dictatorship.
Well - I may look at it when I´ve time in the next days (like Wednesday afternoon).

if youre going to have a debate on the subject, i think it's important to first define "terrorism" and "war." then figure out who's doing what.
_______________
ter·ror·ism
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

war
n.
1.
a. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
b. The period of such conflict.
c. The techniques and procedures of war; military science.
________________________

it seems that the defining factor of terrorism is the intent of intimidation. if the US fires a missile at a weapons factory, for example, but it ends up being a school, i don't think it qualifies as terrorism since the intent was not to psychologically intimidate the enemy (regardless of the result).

It seems to me that the Al-Queda attack on the pentagon (in junction with the WTC attack) was purely of intimidation. they didnt expect to hinder the US from attacking them by taking out a small piece of the pentagon; it was designed to scare the shit out of us.

also, let us note that war and terrorism are not mutually exclusive. "legit attacks" aren't the issue.

Because they attacked our country...dipshit.

It's terrorism when you aren't representing a state that is at war.
you can make up your own definitions all you want...but you are only convincing yourself.

ter·ror·ism : the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.

http://webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=terrorism&x=14&y=11

it seems that the defining factor of terrorism is the intent of intimidation. if the US fires a missile at a weapons factory, for example, but it ends up being a school, i don't think it qualifies as terrorism since the intent was not to psychologically intimidate the enemy (regardless of the result).True, that would be criminal negligence and manslaughter, not terrorism.

Maybe one of the most idiotic things about the planes hitting the pentagon is the fact that it was OUR planes that flew into it. I guess the security guards at the airports were off on coffee break or something.

Under Stalin about 20 million people where killed. Not a bad thing? Under Pol Pot 2 million Kambodians were killed. Not a bad thing?
The Soviet Union hold Eastern Europe occupied up until 1989/94 and refused the nations and their peoples to chose the governments by themself. They installed communists regimes in those countries. Not a bad thing?
They crashed popular uprisings in East Germany in 1953, in Hunary in 1956 and in Czechoslovakia in 1968. Not a bad thing?
They stated the Breshnew doctrine (in 1968) explicitly stating the supremacy of the USSR over Eastern Europe and the Warsaw pact (which was in fact the case since 1945). Not a bad thing?
The answer is clear: It was a very bad thing. And I´m thankful to the US for standing firm against it in defending Western Europe against communism and to show a policy of strength against the Soviet Union and their vasalls around the world. That contributed greatly to the final collapse of the Eastern block and the liberation of Central and East Europe.

http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/nunestimor.html If you read that and then say that governments can not terrorize, you have no brain.
Oddly enough, this is not in US text books. Information control, anyone?

If it was al-Qaeda
Yes it was Al-Qaeda

Can you prove that?


then they were already in the middle of a war with the US.
On September 11, 2001 at about 9:00 EST, yeah the war began.

Actually, that is impossible. A war begins with a declaration - September the 11th was an act of terrorism, not a declaration of war.


The attack on the Pentagon would be legitimate since the Pentagon is where the military plans their anti-al-Qaeda attacks.
But that was BEFORE the war triggered did the Pentagon was attacked. Thus, Al-Qaeda struck before the U.S. did anything to them.

Untrue, they struck after many years of very strange relations, one minute the US is selling them arms, then next it's raining them on their heads.


I'm not saying that I agree with al-Qaeda
Duh

<subtle hint>Well, no, you're right. Why would anyone agree with religious maniacs such as they?</subtle hint>


(or even that they were behind the attack on the Pentagon)
Yes, because Osama Bin Laden isn't enough

In which case, you have just contradicted your own argument - if Osama isn't enough, how can it be Al-Queda who struck the Pentagon? Thus, Al-Qaeda struck before the U.S. did anything to them.


but if they were responsible for the attack on the Pentagon then I don't see as how it is "terrorism"
You must be blind then. It's so obvious.

How is it obvious? Back up your statement with an argument. The Pentagon, unless absolutely everything I've ever heard about it is untrue, is a military building, correct? Attacking a military building is not an act of terrorism. it may not be very wise, considering the strength of the US military, but it is pre-emptive to a declaration of war, not terrorism.

As war has been practiced in the 20th Century, both the Pentagon and World Trade Center were military targets. The Pentagon is the headquarters of the strongest military in the world that is hunting Al Queda after Al Queda began launching attacks against American military and civilian personnel in Africa and Yemen. The World Trade Center attack inflicted hundreds of billions of dollars worth of damage to the US and Western economies.

The use of civilian hostages trapped aboard aircraft is what makes 9/11 an atrocity by nearly all definitions. The Al Queda attacks against US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya were not against military targets even under the Koran (not supposed to attack diplomats for one thing).

Under the rules of war (and yes, there are some) Al Quada is not a state, therefore, it cannot legally go to war, and it ranks alongside of the pirates of the 16th - 19th Centuries as far as its lack of rights under any law you care to name.

Private individuals who used to commit attacks on transportation vehicles (ships) were considered pirates and the enemies of all and subject to summary justice if caught.

the attacks on civilians guilty of nothing more than dancing in a hotel, or working at the same (the attack in Indonesia last year) wouldn't qualify as attacking a military target either.

So all in all, Al Queda and its ilk have no rights worthy of respect

You, my friend, are a terrorist. How do I justify this? You agree with what terrorists are doing, this makes you a terrorist the same way that if you agree with what a racist of a homophobe is doing makes you a racist or a homophobe.

Im so tired of hearing anti-American shit. If this wasn't the internet I'd put an assbeatin down on the next idiot that says anything about the US

Oh God, I'm not even going to further touch this one. Are you trying to associate the U.S. with terrorism?

Wouldn't be very hard.
The UN condemned the U.S. for terrorism with Nicaragua in 1986.

That's just the straight up truth. However, I could also list a hundred examples of the US tied up with terrorism. After all, the definition of terrorism, as defined by the United States, is :the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature...through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear". Unfortunately we can not use that definition, because it also applies to us. So we conveniently change the definition, so that it is only terrorism when it is AGAINST us.

Shall I run through the list of terrorist regimes the US supported/supports?
How about past terrorist acts? How about both?
Here's from the top of my head, you can look up the facts and sources if you want, it's not exactly secret:
Countries:
Israel
Turkey
Iraq
Iran
Afghanistan (before and after invasion)
Chile
Argentina
Nicaragua
Honduras
Panama
El Salvador
Guatemala
Pakistan
Saudi Arabia
Tujikistan
Turkmenistan
Vietnam
Peru
Cuba
Yemen
Indonesia
How about some direct US terrorist acts:
Al Shifa
Iraq
Afghanistan
CIA bombing of Muslim Mosque in Beirut
Nicaragua
Vietnam

Ummmm......yah. I think you could associate the US with terrorism. Perhaps that's why the US voted AGAINST the UN resolution condemning all terrorism. 1986.
Perhaps that's why they oppose the UN criminal court in the Hague.
Perhaps that's why they use their Security Counsel veto to shoot down any investigation into such matter, like the Israel/Palestine conflict.
Perhaps that's why they are the ONLY nation condemned by the UN for terrorism.

Yah, I think you could probably make a case against the US for terrorism.

You, my friend, are a terrorist. How do I justify this? You agree with what terrorists are doing, this makes you a terrorist the same way that if you agree with what a racist of a homophobe is doing makes you a racist or a homophobe.

Im so tired of hearing anti-American shit. If this wasn't the internet I'd put an assbeatin down on the next idiot that says anything about the US

If I'm a terrorist, so are you. You agree with what the US is doing/has done, which is plain terrorism. So therefore, you are a terrorist according to yourself.

You, my friend, are a terrorist. How do I justify this? You agree with what terrorists are doing, this makes you a terrorist the same way that if you agree with what a racist of a homophobe is doing makes you a racist or a homophobe.

Im so tired of hearing anti-American shit. If this wasn't the internet I'd put an assbeatin down on the next idiot that says anything about the US

Well pardon us for wanting to engage in an actual discussion on this topic. :rolleyes:

I don't believe Texastambul ever said they agreed and supported the terrorists. It's a legitimate question to ask. The Pentagon was a military target, not necessarily a terrorist attack.

A war begins with a declaration.Really? *eyesRolling*

You, my friend, are a terrorist.ok, whatever :rolleyes:

Wouldn't be very hard.
The UN condemned the U.S. for terrorism with Nicaragua in 1986.

That's just the straight up truth. However, I could also list a hundred examples of the US tied up with terrorism. After all, the definition of terrorism, as defined by the United States, is :the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature...through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear". Unfortunately we can not use that definition, because it also applies to us. So we conveniently change the definition, so that it is only terrorism when it is AGAINST us.

Shall I run through the list of terrorist regimes the US supported/supports?
How about past terrorist acts? How about both?
Here's from the top of my head, you can look up the facts and sources if you want, it's not exactly secret:
Countries:
Israel
Turkey
Iraq
Iran
Afghanistan (before and after invasion)
Chile
Argentina
Nicaragua
Honduras
Panama
El Salvador
Guatemala
Pakistan
Saudi Arabia
Tujikistan
Turkmenistan
Vietnam
Peru
Cuba
Yemen
Indonesia
How about some direct US terrorist acts:
Al Shifa
Iraq
Afghanistan
CIA bombing of Muslim Mosque in Beirut
Nicaragua
Vietnam

Ummmm......yah. I think you could associate the US with terrorism. Perhaps that's why the US voted AGAINST the UN resolution condemning all terrorism. 1986.
Perhaps that's why they oppose the UN criminal court in the Hague.
Perhaps that's why they use their Security Counsel veto to shoot down any investigation into such matter, like the Israel/Palestine conflict.
Perhaps that's why they are the ONLY nation condemned by the UN for terrorism.

Yah, I think you could probably make a case against the US for terrorism.

It must be nice to think the world is all black and white

Lets start with the UN, would it exist is President Roosevelt (of the US) had not insisted on it. Can you name the specific resolution condemning the US for Terrorism? I have read the 1986 Resolution, it was very specifically aimed at the US by nations supported by the Soviet Union for political purposes.. have you read it and looked at the context?

Most of the nations you named (all basically) are not guilty of terrorism, but of oppressive acts or systematic oppresion (or were at the time). Terrorism is not the same as oppression. Naturally both are wrong, but so is war, starvation and the like.

What was the context of the oppression you named? Was the nation at the time having a civil war or something like it? Not knowing what nation you are from makes it difficult for me to name oppressive acts your nation has committed but you can bet there have been plenty of them.

The American intervention and invasion of Afghanistan was directly caused by 9/11 and wouldnot have happened without that event. Invading a country that sponsors and houses illegal (under international law) organizations that wage war is not oppression. Unless you were in the illegal organization in which case the invading nation cannot oppress those guilty of murder, only bring them to justice or at least as quick an end as it can.

Iraq, well setting aside the fact that it may go down as one of the great strategic blunders of world history, one can still make a case that it was not meant to be oppression. The fact that it is still a war there will leave that up to historians ultimately to judge, but under international law, the occupying power has the responsibility to restore order while following the guidelines of international law (no purposeful atrocities and the like)

Carpet bombing an Iraqi city with a flight of B52s that levelled everything and killed everyone would be an atrocity. A smart bomb that misses and blows up a wedding is a sad fact of war. Intent is the key.

I notice that people are gettin' pretty far off topic, so allow me to attemtp bring the discussion more or less back to the question being address.

The title of this thread is, "What was so bad about bombing the Pentagon?"
Well, I'll be, but I'd say we live in pretty cynical times where, when people die in an attack, regardless of its nature, we question whether it was right or wrong. Isn't death bad by default?

It must be nice to think the world is all black and white

Lets start with the UN, would it exist is President Roosevelt (of the US) had not insisted on it. Can you name the specific resolution condemning the US for Terrorism? I have read the 1986 Resolution, it was very specifically aimed at the US by nations supported by the Soviet Union for political purposes.. have you read it and looked at the context?

Most of the nations you named (all basically) are not guilty of terrorism, but of oppressive acts or systematic oppresion (or were at the time). Terrorism is not the same as oppression. Naturally both are wrong, but so is war, starvation and the like.

What was the context of the oppression you named? Was the nation at the time having a civil war or something like it? Not knowing what nation you are from makes it difficult for me to name oppressive acts your nation has committed but you can bet there have been plenty of them.

The American intervention and invasion of Afghanistan was directly caused by 9/11 and wouldnot have happened without that event. Invading a country that sponsors and houses illegal (under international law) organizations that wage war is not oppression. Unless you were in the illegal organization in which case the invading nation cannot oppress those guilty of murder, only bring them to justice or at least as quick an end as it can.

Iraq, well setting aside the fact that it may go down as one of the great strategic blunders of world history, one can still make a case that it was not meant to be oppression. The fact that it is still a war there will leave that up to historians ultimately to judge, but under international law, the occupying power has the responsibility to restore order while following the guidelines of international law (no purposeful atrocities and the like)

Carpet bombing an Iraqi city with a flight of B52s that levelled everything and killed everyone would be an atrocity. A smart bomb that misses and blows up a wedding is a sad fact of war. Intent is the key.

Well put

They killed fewer civilians in that plane than most US bombs do


really...... give me some hard numbers...i want dates, places, times, numbers..or are you just regurgitate a psuedo fact you heard some alterna-rock band sing about

It must be nice to think the world is all black and white.
You should know:

Lets start with the UN, would it exist is President Roosevelt (of the US) had not insisted on it. Can you name the specific resolution condemning the US for Terrorism? I have read the 1986 Resolution, it was very specifically aimed at the US by nations supported by the Soviet Union for political purposes.. have you read it and looked at the context?

First off, it was Winston Churchill who mainly assisted in creation of the UN, the first meetings of which were held in London. So yes, it would have existed. In addition, it was initially a security counsel resolution for the US to cease and desist all terrorist activities in Nicaragua, which we instead stepped up attacks. Next, the UN resolution called on ALL nations to observe international law, to which the United States voted against with Israel. Political? Both sides of the coin. We were committing terrorism and didn't want to be held for it.

Most of the nations you named (all basically) are not guilty of terrorism, but of oppressive acts or systematic oppresion (or were at the time). Terrorism is not the same as oppression. Naturally both are wrong, but so is war, starvation and the like.

Terrorism is defined as I mentioned before as: the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature...through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear"

I never claimed it to be the same as oppression; your words, not mine. I said we were guilty of supporting terrorist states. Those nations that I mentioned committed "violence or the threat of violence to attain goals that were political"; the absolute definition of terrorism. Every one of them did it. Every one of them is guilty of terrorism. Every one of them is/was supported by the United States after/during the act.

The American intervention and invasion of Afghanistan was directly caused by 9/11 and wouldnot have happened without that event. Invading a country that sponsors and houses illegal (under international law) organizations that wage war is not oppression. Unless you were in the illegal organization in which case the invading nation cannot oppress those guilty of murder, only bring them to justice or at least as quick an end as it can.
You seem to be on an oppression binge. Afghanistan had committed "violence or the threat of violence to attain goals that were political". Plain fact. Before and after.

Iraq, well setting aside the fact that it may go down as one of the great strategic blunders of world history, one can still make a case that it was not meant to be oppression. The fact that it is still a war there will leave that up to historians ultimately to judge, but under international law, the occupying power has the responsibility to restore order while following the guidelines of international law (no purposeful atrocities and the like)
What's with you and oppression? I never mentioned it. We supported Saddam Hussein financially and militarily during his terror campaign and after he assumed the throne by terrorist means. He was a terrorist, we supported him. Not only that, we gave him the weapons that allowed him to commit the terrorist acts we blamed him for.

Carpet bombing an Iraqi city with a flight of B52s that levelled everything and killed everyone would be an atrocity. A smart bomb that misses and blows up a wedding is a sad fact of war. Intent is the key.

No, it's not. It is terrorism when your plans are to coerce for political reasons. Intent has nothing to do with it. It is terrorism, plain and simple.

Now....to my point. What's his name said you couldn't link the United States with terrorism. You went through and attempted, poorly, to dissect a few examples, without attacking my point. However, I was successful in my point that not only does the United States condone terror, it commits it as well.

You should know:



First off, it was Winston Churchill who mainly assisted in creation of the UN, the first meetings of which were held in London. So yes, it would have existed. In addition, it was initially a security counsel resolution for the US to cease and desist all terrorist activities in Nicaragua, which we instead stepped up attacks. Next, the UN resolution called on ALL nations to observe international law, to which the United States voted against with Israel. Political? Both sides of the coin. We were committing terrorism and didn't want to be held for it.



Terrorism is defined as I mentioned before as: the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature...through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear"

I never claimed it to be the same as oppression; your words, not mine. I said we were guilty of supporting terrorist states. Those nations that I mentioned committed "violence or the threat of violence to attain goals that were political"; the absolute definition of terrorism. Every one of them did it. Every one of them is guilty of terrorism. Every one of them is/was supported by the United States after/during the act.


You seem to be on an oppression binge. Afghanistan had committed "violence or the threat of violence to attain goals that were political". Plain fact. Before and after.


What's with you and oppression? I never mentioned it. We supported Saddam Hussein financially and militarily during his terror campaign and after he assumed the throne by terrorist means. He was a terrorist, we supported him. Not only that, we gave him the weapons that allowed him to commit the terrorist acts we blamed him for.



No, it's not. It is terrorism when your plans are to coerce for political reasons. Intent has nothing to do with it. It is terrorism, plain and simple.

Now....to my point. What's his name said you couldn't link the United States with terrorism. You went through and attempted, poorly, to dissect a few examples, without attacking my point. However, I was successful in my point that not only does the United States condone terror, it commits it as well.

Alrighty then, lets lay it out

Terrorism, as conventionally defined (and not the dictionary definition) is an attack by a group (generally non governmental) to spread fear and intimidation or simply commit revenge.

War, as defined by Clausewitz, is simply an instrument of policy by other means. For the real world, it can be anything from the World War II (total war) to the Falklands war (limited to an area) to unconventional war (Britian vs Indonesia in the 1960s) to anything in between.

Oppression is generally defined as a government using illegal or immoral means to suppress dissent. Torture is not Terrorism but oppression under conventional meaning accepted by most people.

Churchill did not suggest the UN, Roosevelt did, just like Wilson suggested the League of Nations (although yes, the US failed to follow through on that one). Read Churchills own history of World War II for that one, for starters.

By your definition, a police officer threatening to shoot an armed criminal is a terrorist, a soldier who kills a civilian, no matter the circumstances is a terrorist, and a secret policemen who tortures a political prisoner is a terrorist.

Nope, not how most people view it.

Society makes allowances for the soldier and police officer based on INTENT and MISSION, and some societies do the same for the secret policemen.

Terrorism is an attempt to wage total war using unconventional means. If Al Quada had fielded nuclear missiles on 9/11, like for example the US or China or France, you can bet they would have used them. Then they wouldnt have been terrorists.

So I was calling you on the fact that you used Terrorism as the term of choice for activities that are considered either conventional acts of war or are normally considered acts of Oppression.

And you still haven't cited any references to back up your points

Belief does not make something true, just ask the US President

really...... give me some hard numbers...i want dates, places, times, numbers..

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=363228&page=1&pp=15

The pentagon is a valid military target.

Using hi-jacked planes filled with civillans is a war crime.

The pentagon is a valid military target.

Using hi-jacked planes filled with civillans is a war crime.Torture is a bigger War Crime.

What would be so bad about bombing your house?

Since the US was already at war with al-Quaeda, wasn't this a legitimate military target?

Bombing the Pentagon is a legitimate target yes. How they went about doing it though was a breach of the war conventions, yet since the Americans themselves have been ignoring the Geneva and Hague Conventions I suppose all bets are off. So, I would have to say yes, it was legitimate.

The operative word is "war". In a war, there are no rules of being nice. If anyone wants to take out the US, the Pentagon is one of buildings to wipe of the planet.

Alrighty then, lets lay it out

We shall

Terrorism, as conventionally defined (and not the dictionary definition) is an attack by a group (generally non governmental) to spread fear and intimidation or simply commit revenge.

I didn't say dictionary definition, I gave the definition that the United States has termed in Army manuals and everywhere else endorsed by the United States. And I also gave the definition above, your definition is of your own, and not the official. We'll use mine.

War, as defined by Clausewitz, is simply an instrument of policy by other means. For the real world, it can be anything from the World War II (total war) to the Falklands war (limited to an area) to unconventional war (Britian vs Indonesia in the 1960s) to anything in between.

Oppression is generally defined as a government using illegal or immoral means to suppress dissent. Torture is not Terrorism but oppression under conventional meaning accepted by most people.

Again, your definitions, or Clausewitz. You going to define for me how what Saddam did was illegal? Who defines illegal? I'm sorry, your definitions fit real well in your fantasy world, but for official uses, they don't mean jack.

Churchill did not suggest the UN, Roosevelt did, just like Wilson suggested the League of Nations (although yes, the US failed to follow through on that one). Read Churchills own history of World War II for that one, for starters.
I didn't say he suggested it, I said he started it. Why don't you re-read your books.

By your definition, a police officer threatening to shoot an armed criminal is a terrorist, a soldier who kills a civilian, no matter the circumstances is a terrorist, and a secret policemen who tortures a political prisoner is a terrorist.
Nope, not how most people view it.

Thank you for putting words in my mouth I never said. They are only terrorist acts when they are set out to coerce, intimidate, or instill fear for political or religious reasons. If a police officer kills the president to change the government, then yes, it's terrorism. If the police officer kills nobody associated with the government or religious institutions, it's murder.

Society makes allowances for the soldier and police officer based on INTENT and MISSION, and some societies do the same for the secret policemen.
Yes, I admit, it is intent. That intent is for political or religious reasons, as I mentioned not in my definition, but the definition given by the United States. Stop saying it's my definition, because it isn't.

Terrorism is an attempt to wage total war using unconventional means. If Al Quada had fielded nuclear missiles on 9/11, like for example the US or China or France, you can bet they would have used them. Then they wouldnt have been terrorists.

Again, your defiition. I'm sorry, that's not the defition accepted by the United States or the United Nations. Please show it to me if I'm wrong.
So Al Queda launching missiles at Washington D.C. isn't terrorism, when the goal if politically motivated? I think you've highlighted your ignorance quite well here.

So I was calling you on the fact that you used Terrorism as the term of choice for activities that are considered either conventional acts of war or are normally considered acts of Oppression.

And you were arranging your own definitions to do so. If I claim anyone who responds to such a message an idiot, and you respond, it only makes you an idiot in my mind. The truth still stands on its own; regardless of what I or you think. The official definition is where the law governs terrorism, to which the United States is responsible, to which you keep avoiding.

And you still haven't cited any references to back up your points

likewise. Although it's not exactly secret. In addition, I stated at the very beginning, I'm not about to go through and find 10,000 sources to appease you. You're a grown person, you can look them up yourself. I gave my list of nations. If you don't think the United States overthrowing the democratic government of Guatemala because the Chiquita Banana company told them to isn't terrorism, well then you need to keep reading some books.

Belief does not make something true, just ask the US President

I would, but you are guilty of the same offense. To formulate your argument, you create your own definitions. I'm sorry, but that isn't much of an argument. You are attempting to marginalize the issue. Here is what my post was about, that you keep avoiding:
The United States is a terrorist nation. It has committed terrorist acts, it has supported terrorist regimes.

Tell me. How did the United States support of Iraq during the 70's and 80's not show US support for a terrorist nation, when by the textbook definition, they were attacking for political reason? In addition, how about the United States bombing of the innocent Al Shifa factory for political reasons? (If you try to tell me that was justified, you are wrong. The US government has already admitted that the Al Shifa factory had nothing to do with Bin Laden nor was it attempting to make WMD's.)
How about the United States supporting the Bay of Pigs incident? That was for solely political means, by definition, a terrorist act. How about the United States supporting the bombing of a muslim mosque in Beirut in the 80's, which killed 80 innocent civilians for political purposes?

Please, stop marginalizing the issue to textbook definitions of "terrorism". I have supplied to you the US definition of terrorism, as well as how it fits that definition perfectly. You have lost.

tell you what Green Baronland, I will lay out my credentials and I will be happy to hear yours

I have a Bachelors Degree in History earned in 1987, and I have been reading history, specifically military history since I was 7 (1969) and I remember most of the events you are describing.

I am using the commonly held definitations most people use

You had best proof the definitions from the relevent military manuals you are citing as US Field Manuals on Low Intensity Conflict clearly define what is considered Terrorism according the the US Army, and the Rules of Land Warfare.

How exactly did Churchill start the UN...what is your specific source?

The wars cited are obvious examples of varying types of warfare practiced in the last 100 years

Under the Geneva Convention, the UN and commonly accepted traditions of warfare, a state launching a military attack using military weapons is acting under the rules of war. A non state launching a military attack regardless of its means, is not acting under the rules of war.

In the 16-19th Centuries nonstates who practiced war were considered pirates unless they had the legal sponsership of a government.

You seem to believe any use or implied use of force by the US is terrorism if it doesn't meet whatever test you have set. That is a severely simplistic world view that doesn't fit the facts.

The Facts are that yes, the US unofficially or officially depending on the situation has conducted Imperialistic actions against Latin America for much of the period of the 20th Century and occasionally in the 19th Century.

The US has looked the other way when governments we have supported have murdered and tortured civilians of those nations.

Shame on us

Isn't terrorism though, its Imperialism or criminal neglect even in some cases.

An F16 pilot who accidently hits the wrong house or intentionally hits a house he has been told is a military target is not a terrorist. He simply is in a war.

In war innocents routinely die. Its why war is horrible.

But not all war is terrorism.

That is my primary point.

So don't accuse me of living in a fantasy world unless you are willing to admit that YOU have your OWN preconceptions.

I have been respectiveful and stuck to a debate.

Generally those who are losing a debate resort to personal attacks.

I don't think I am losing.

Under the Geneva Convention, the UN and commonly accepted traditions of warfare, a state launching a military attack using military weapons is acting under the rules of war. A non state launching a military attack regardless of its means, is not acting under the rules of war. I assume you did read The Geneva Convention...at least once...specially since you did expend a lot of time studyng War and history...

yep, although there are several different versions and it seems to be cited more in the breech

the official US Field Manual on the Rules of Land Warfare is specifically from that much quoted treaty (which the US signed kind of late by the way, but did eventually sign)

tell you what Green Baronland, I will lay out my credentials and I will be happy to hear yours

I have a Bachelors Degree in History earned in 1987, and I have been reading history, specifically military history since I was 7 (1969) and I remember most of the events you are describing.

The President went to Yale and Harvard, ....woopdedoo. He's still an idiot.
Bill Gates, and hundreds of intellectuals, scholars, and revolutionaries never went to college. Doesn't matter who you've been reading or studying if you are wrong, now does it?
However, if you must know. I have received my Ph.D. in World History, and my thesis titled, "Global Terrorism in the 21st Century" was published by the Harvard Press. Not really, but I can say whatever I want now can't I?

I am using the commonly held definitations most people
You had best proof the definitions from the relevent military manuals you are citing as US Field Manuals on Low Intensity Conflict clearly define what is considered Terrorism according the the US Army, and the Rules of Land Warfare.
Gladly, here is is from the FBI:

Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)

You are not using commonly held definitions. You are using your own definition. When you present 150 million and 1 definitions of the US citizens that are all identical, then you are using a commonly held definition. However, it wouldn't matter any way. I am attempting to implecate the United States as a terrorist nation/supporter of terrorism; therefore I use their definition, which they fit. So "commonly used" is irrelevant

How exactly did Churchill start the UN...what is your specific source?
http://www.puhsd.k12.ca.us/chana/staffpages/eichman/Adult_School/us/spring/foreign_policy/1/founding.htm

it states explicitly how Churchill and Roosevelt started it together. Roosevelt wasn't alone.

The wars cited are obvious examples of varying types of warfare practiced in the last 100 years
Under the Geneva Convention, the UN and commonly accepted traditions of warfare, a state launching a military attack using military weapons is acting under the rules of war. A non state launching a military attack regardless of its means, is not acting under the rules of war.
In the 16-19th Centuries nonstates who practiced war were considered pirates unless they had the legal sponsership of a government.? You seem to believe any use or implied use of force by the US is terrorism if it doesn't meet whatever test you have set. That is a severely simplistic world view that doesn't fit the facts.

All this is again off-topic in an attempt to circumvent the issue for a chance of redemption. Nice try, I won't bite. I never mentioned wars. I mentioned state sponsors of terrorism. Hell, many of the countries in our "coalition" are terrorist nations.


The Facts are that yes, the US unofficially or officially depending on the situation has conducted Imperialistic actions against Latin America for much of the period of the 20th Century and occasionally in the 19th Century.
The US has looked the other way when governments we have supported have murdered and tortured civilians of those nations.
Shame on us
Isn't terrorism though, its Imperialism or criminal neglect even in some cases.?
Wrong, by definition, it's terrorism. It is the same terrorism that we claimed against Saddam in gassing Kurds and Iranians. It is no different. It is the same as the terrorism generated by the Israelis against the Palestinians. It's terrorism, plain and simple. You are again attempting the changing of the definition. LET ME MAKE THIS SIMPLE:
THE UNITED STATES HAS COMMITTED ACTS THAT FIT ITS OWN DEFINITION OF TERRORISM, AND SUPPORTED COUNTRIES THAT HAVE COMMITTED ACTS THAT FIT ITS OWN DEFINITION OF TERRORISM.

When you feel like arguing this fact, then maybe we'll talk. But you keep avoiding it by changing the definition or attempting to change topics. The definition is the UNITED STATES, therefore you can't change the definition when I am attempting to placate them in their own definition.

An F16 pilot who accidently hits the wrong house or intentionally hits a house he has been told is a military target is not a terrorist. He simply is in a war..?
In war innocents routinely die. Its why war is horrible. But not all war is terrorism. That is my primary point..?

If the F16 pilot's intentions were for polical or religious reasons, then it was terrorism, according to the United States definition.

So don't accuse me of living in a fantasy world unless you are willing to admit that YOU have your OWN preconceptions.

My conception is of the United States definition, which is what we're discussing. You, on the other hand, are generating your own definition; thereby creating a fantasy world.

I have been respectiveful and stuck to a debate.
Generally those who are losing a debate resort to personal attacks.
I don't think I am losing.

Nobody attacked you. Read it again. You aren't losing.....you've lost. You can't seem to address my initial topic, and instead resort to circumventing the issue and generating your own definitions. You can do a simple google search for all the reasons the United States is a terrorist nation by definition.

You'll encounter sites like this one:
http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/AmericanStateTerrorism.html

It's not a pretty site, but it's true. You can keep attempting to navigate around the issue, but you have yet to address it. Perhaps you should read your books again until you can formulate an argument.

The President went to Yale and Harvard, ....woopdedoo. He's still an idiot.
Bill Gates, and hundreds of intellectuals, scholars, and revolutionaries never went to college. Doesn't matter who you've been reading or studying if you are wrong, now does it?
However, if you must know. I have received my Ph.D. in World History, and my thesis titled, "Global Terrorism in the 21st Century" was published by the Harvard Press. Not really, but I can say whatever I want now can't I?


Gladly, here is is from the FBI:

Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)

You are not using commonly held definitions. You are using your own definition. When you present 150 million and 1 definitions of the US citizens that are all identical, then you are using a commonly held definition. However, it wouldn't matter any way. I am attempting to implecate the United States as a terrorist nation/supporter of terrorism; therefore I use their definition, which they fit. So "commonly used" is irrelevant


http://www.puhsd.k12.ca.us/chana/staffpages/eichman/Adult_School/us/spring/foreign_policy/1/founding.htm

it states explicitly how Churchill and Roosevelt started it together. Roosevelt wasn't alone.



All this is again off-topic in an attempt to circumvent the issue for a chance of redemption. Nice try, I won't bite. I never mentioned wars. I mentioned state sponsors of terrorism. Hell, many of the countries in our "coalition" are terrorist nations.



Wrong, by definition, it's terrorism. It is the same terrorism that we claimed against Saddam in gassing Kurds and Iranians. It is no different. It is the same as the terrorism generated by the Israelis against the Palestinians. It's terrorism, plain and simple. You are again attempting the changing of the definition. LET ME MAKE THIS SIMPLE:
THE UNITED STATES HAS COMMITTED ACTS THAT FIT ITS OWN DEFINITION OF TERRORISM, AND SUPPORTED COUNTRIES THAT HAVE COMMITTED ACTS THAT FIT ITS OWN DEFINITION OF TERRORISM.

When you feel like arguing this fact, then maybe we'll talk. But you keep avoiding it by changing the definition or attempting to change topics. The definition is the UNITED STATES, therefore you can't change the definition when I am attempting to placate them in their own definition.



If the F16 pilot's intentions were for polical or religious reasons, then it was terrorism, according to the United States definition.



My conception is of the United States definition, which is what we're discussing. You, on the other hand, are generating your own definition; thereby creating a fantasy world.



Nobody attacked you. Read it again. You aren't losing.....you've lost. You can't seem to address my initial topic, and instead resort to circumventing the issue and generating your own definitions. You can do a simple google search for all the reasons the United States is a terrorist nation by definition.

You'll encounter sites like this one:
http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/AmericanStateTerrorism.html

It's not a pretty site, but it's true. You can keep attempting to navigate around the issue, but you have yet to address it. Perhaps you should read your books again until you can formulate an argument.

oh please, you only are declaring yourself the winner, I don't remember any of us choosing you as such. Besides, I don't remember anybody awarding prizes either.

And just because you cite an internet source doesn't make it accurate. CBS news for example, not so long ago on their web site and in broadcast, an organization which is generally considered by most people to be reasonably accurate, had to apologize for screwing up.

Problem with the internet is that there is no accountability, rarely any citations, and generally most sites (like most people) have their own view of the world.

The US Federal Criminal Code was cited accurately, but then again, by that definition, murdering a doctor for practicing abortion is terrorism too, and so is burning down a church. But in practice it would be prosecuted as a hate crime (similiarly harsh punishment) and if the local area had the death penalty, the murder under special circumstances would be the first trial

You are basically operating on philosophical theory, not real world practice or generally accepted understanding.

So under your argument, all of the following are terrorist acts

An Israeli helicopter pilot fires a missile and blows up a car full of suspected terrorists

China fires missiles into the water between Taiwan and China in order to make the Taiwanese nervous before they have an election concerning the notion of declaring independence

A group of men and women take over a school, slaughter a number of people, and blow the place up when it is assualted.

An Argentinian Army officer arrests a college student, tortures him for days, shoots him and dumps in in the river.

An American private kicks down the door of a house in Iraq, and while his buddy watches everyone over the barrel of his M16, searches the house for weapons and arrests the adult male when one is found.

Most people are going to call the school incident terrorism, the Chinese action power politics, the Argentian incident oppression and the Iraq incident war. And the Israeli incident will be called all kinds of things including an atrocity, act of war, act of self defense or act of terrorism depending on who you ask.

But you call them all terrorism under your definitation.

the official US Field Manual on the Rules of Land Warfare is....
the official US Field Manual on the Rules of Land Warfare is not The Geneva Convention

my my Greenbaronland, you are an arguementative soul aren't you

jolt.co.uk public forums > Massive Multiplayer Online Games > NationStates > Sound & Fury > The United Nations
You know what sucks about this game......

Definitely you have a soapbox

I live in Canada and I just wanted to say this.The US pride themself on saving the world again and again.But they had lost many wars too.I mean after 9/11 US people wanted to go to war.Because they were scare.Now lot of US sloiders are dead.So they want to pull out.Which they can't.After everything they did.
The US went to war for oil.They pick on a smaller country.Who they could attack without the UN getting real mad.
When Canada wasn't a country yet.Under Bristh control (mind I can't spell)The US was in a war with England.They attack Canada hoping they would be defeat without much loss of life.We fought back wining that war.The US still say they won.The piont of that story was US did,is,and will alway attack the smaller country.In the war there in now.They said there was WMDs.Now we know there none.Don't say they attack because 9/11 they attack cause they were smaller.There other way bigger country with WMDs.But a)there no so call cause to attack and b)there stronger.My rating of the US?0 Anyway that the first time I every wrote something like this.So don't kill me.

oh please, you only are declaring yourself the winner, I don't remember any of us choosing you as such. Besides, I don't remember anybody awarding prizes either.
Number one, I just love it when people jump into the conversation without reading the discussion entirely; I'll point your trip-ups as we move along.
I am the winner if you can't prove me wrong, which you don't do.
Plus, I don't care what you think. I don't remember asking for everyone to vote, nor caring for it. My argument stands alone without contradiction, which you yourself don't contradict.

And just because you cite an internet source doesn't make it accurate. CBS news for example, not so long ago on their web site and in broadcast, an organization which is generally considered by most people to be reasonably accurate, had to apologize for screwing up.
Problem with the internet is that there is no accountability, rarely any citations, and generally most sites (like most people) have their own view of the world.
This was already mentioned. This is why I don't like to post sources. But, had you paid attention, you would have noticed that New Shinoh or whoever demanded and demanded. So I finally caved in and provided him sources. I find that you'll learn more if you read and try to identify why I said what I did and then dispute it. Someone just posting sources usually get people nowhere.

The US Federal Criminal Code was cited accurately, but then again, by that definition, murdering a doctor for practicing abortion is terrorism too, and so is burning down a church. But in practice it would be prosecuted as a hate crime (similiarly harsh punishment) and if the local area had the death penalty, the murder under special circumstances would be the first trial
No, you didn't read the definition properly. It is terrorism when it is politically and/or religiously motivated. Therefore, if your intentions were to disrupt political order or religious order, then yes, BY THE US DEFINITION it is terrorism. In addition, New Shinoh attempted the same response. Look people, it's so simple I've repeated it 3 times now.
I am asserting the United States is a terrorist nation/terrorism supporting nation. I gave them the benefit of the doubt and used THEIR definition (in most criminal cases and UN resolutions they wouldn't be so lucky). Even using THEIR definition, they are a terrorist nation. Why don't you dispute that? Because you are wrong.

You are basically operating on philosophical theory, not real world practice or generally accepted understanding.

Since when using the US definition isn't "real world practice"?

So under your argument, all of the following are terrorist acts
An Israeli helicopter pilot fires a missile and blows up a car full of suspected terrorists
by definition, yes
China fires missiles into the water between Taiwan and China in order to make the Taiwanese nervous before they have an election concerning the notion of declaring independence
by definition, yes
A group of men and women take over a school, slaughter a number of people, and blow the place up when it is assualted.
depends the reason. If they're nuts, no, if they want the government to change its policy, yes

An Argentinian Army officer arrests a college student, tortures him for days, shoots him and dumps in in the river.
If politically motivated, yes, by definition. Funny you choose Argentina, since Clinton-released CIA documents implicate the CIA in those same torturing episodes in the mid-80's

An American private kicks down the door of a house in Iraq, and while his buddy watches everyone over the barrel of his M16, searches the house for weapons and arrests the adult male when one is found.
Depends if politically or religiously motivated.

Most people are going to call the school incident terrorism, the Chinese action power politics, the Argentian incident oppression and the Iraq incident war. And the Israeli incident will be called all kinds of things including an atrocity, act of war, act of self defense or act of terrorism depending on who you ask.

But you call them all terrorism under your definitation.
Yes I do, so does the United Nations, so the the United States definition.
And for fucksake, IT'S NOT MY DEFINITION!!!
It is the definition the United States uses!!
Get it!

my my Greenbaronland, you are an arguementative soul aren't you

jolt.co.uk public forums > Massive Multiplayer Online Games > NationStates > Sound & Fury > The United Nations
You know what sucks about this game......

Definitely you have a soapbox

You act as though it's a bad thing that
1. I'm argumentative
2. I don't like the game

Plus, I wouldn't be surprised if you and New Shinoh are 1 in the same. Attempting to act like you are 2 individuals with the same point of view, but the same failed philosophy.
You both got ass-whipped by me.

Edit:
Wait a minute, here you both are in the same forum, in fact, you seem to have quite a history together. YOU ARE THE SAME PERSON.

jolt.co.uk public forums > Massive Multiplayer Online Games > NationStates > Sound & Fury > International Incidents
Imperial forces of New Shiron

You're a freakin' loser dude, get a life since you can't get a winning argument.

Number one, I just love it when people jump into the conversation without reading the discussion entirely; I'll point your trip-ups as we move along.
I am the winner if you can't prove me wrong, which you don't do.
Plus, I don't care what you think. I don't remember asking for everyone to vote, nor caring for it. My argument stands alone without contradiction, which you yourself don't contradict.


This was already mentioned. This is why I don't like to post sources. But, had you paid attention, you would have noticed that New Shinoh or whoever demanded and demanded. So I finally caved in and provided him sources. I find that you'll learn more if you read and try to identify why I said what I did and then dispute it. Someone just posting sources usually get people nowhere.


No, you didn't read the definition properly. It is terrorism when it is politically and/or religiously motivated. Therefore, if your intentions were to disrupt political order or religious order, then yes, BY THE US DEFINITION it is terrorism. In addition, New Shinoh attempted the same response. Look people, it's so simple I've repeated it 3 times now.
I am asserting the United States is a terrorist nation/terrorism supporting nation. I gave them the benefit of the doubt and used THEIR definition (in most criminal cases and UN resolutions they wouldn't be so lucky). Even using THEIR definition, they are a terrorist nation. Why don't you dispute that? Because you are wrong.



Since when using the US definition isn't "real world practice"?


by definition, yes

by definition, yes

depends the reason. If they're nuts, no, if they want the government to change its policy, yes


If politically motivated, yes, by definition. Funny you choose Argentina, since Clinton-released CIA documents implicate the CIA in those same torturing episodes in the mid-80's


Depends if politically or religiously motivated.


Yes I do, so does the United Nations, so the the United States definition.
And for fucksake, IT'S NOT MY DEFINITION!!!
It is the definition the United States uses!!
Get it!

Interesting, well tell you what, I will admit that you are convinced you are right.

By the way, before you start picking on newbies, new member that you are, you should probably know that New Kern II and New Shiron are the same person.

I just happened to be doing something else on another thread and forgot to relog under New Shiron at the time.

;)

I found your discussion in the UN Thread about how silly the game is pretty fascinating too

You act as though it's a bad thing that
1. I'm argumentative
2. I don't like the game

Plus, I wouldn't be surprised if you and New Shinoh are 1 in the same. Attempting to act like you are 2 individuals with the same point of view, but the same failed philosophy.
You both got ass-whipped by me.

Edit:
Wait a minute, here you both are in the same forum, in fact, you seem to have quite a history together. YOU ARE THE SAME PERSON.

jolt.co.uk public forums > Massive Multiplayer Online Games > NationStates > Sound & Fury > International Incidents
Imperial forces of New Shiron

You're a freakin' loser dude, get a life since you can't get a winning argument.

by the way, flaming isn't really allowed either, perhaps you should read the practices section of the board rules?

You will notice New Kern didn't defend New Shiron, but simply added a few more points.

Have a nice day :D

Interesting, well tell you what, I will admit that you are convinced you are right.

By the way, before you start picking on newbies, new member that you are, you should probably know that New Kern II and New Shiron are the same person.

I just happened to be doing something else on another thread and forgot to relog under New Shiron at the time.

;)

I found your discussion in the UN Thread about how silly the game is pretty fascinating too

Nice try newbie, but I've got several nations of my own, with several forum identities. I just don't attempt to use them against other people when defending my argument. You're a sad soul when you result to that.....

By the way, I'll take your first statement as an admition to your ignorance. :upyours:

now I understand, you are simply immature

I am going to guess you are about 20, maybe younger, have some college or are simply an extremely opinionated high school student

And absolutely certain you know everything and nobody else has a valid point of view or the possibily of knowledge.

Would that be correct?

Either way, who cares, we are both way off topic so time to either drop the discussion or get back on topic :rolleyes:

That's an interesting point. While the Twin Towers were clearly civilian targets, they were a major part of the military-industrial-complex.

Um, explain please? How were they connected to the military?

By the way, I'll take your first statement as an admition to your ignorance. :upyours:Making your point by insulting the person you're arguing with is a bad idea. Cut it out.

Unfree People
Forum Moderator

You bring up an interesting point -- a alarming number of the people on that plane were current military personal. I wonder why they weren't able to do what the civilians on-board the fourth plane (allegedly) were able to do.


I believe you misread.

Yes, let's all paint a pretty picture that we're all RIGHT when we say that only military operatives died in the Pentagon on September 11

He was pointing out that there were some military personnel within the building, but also civilian workers (secretaries and the like). His list was not a passenger manifest.

Also, blaming the victims "Gee why couldn't they do something?" is rather a silly tactic.

Um, explain please? How were they connected to the military?

only in the most general of terms... the World Trade Center was a very important part of the investment banking system, as well as the various stock exchanges.

An important economic target in Total War as practiced since 1789

I still want all the nasty terrorist bastards dead all the same though

By the way all, the Bali incident is being remembered today in Australia

The people dancing there certainly weren't economic targets

only in the most general of terms... the World Trade Center was a very important part of the investment banking system, as well as the various stock exchanges.

However, that would make it then a world, not American target. Many of the people who died in the attack were foreign nationals or working for international corporations -- for example, Deutschebank, whose building across the way from the towers was heavily damaged and rendered unfit for use.

However, that would make it then a world, not American target. Many of the people who died in the attack were foreign nationals or working for international corporations -- for example, Deutschebank, whose building across the way from the towers was heavily damaged and rendered unfit for use.

Right, but their war is against what they view as Imperialistic forces that are dividing the Middle East -- the invesment banking system finances the military-industrial complex that wages war against them. In that view, all aspects of the complex (military, capitalist institution, and government) are the same. It doesn't matter if it is American, German or Soviet owned.

Um, explain please? How were they connected to the military?

what I think:

The 9-11 attack was a symbolic one...an attention Grabber...

They attacked the Symbols of american power: The Symbol of Economic Power and.... The symbol of Military power...

They were not trying to kill a max of people...because if that was the objective...they would have crashed the planes(with a couple of Anthrax suitcases) on 4 differnt stadiums....any-given-sunday.

However, that would make it then a world, not American target. Many of the people who died in the attack were foreign nationals or working for international corporations -- for example, Deutschebank, whose building across the way from the towers was heavily damaged and rendered unfit for use.

thank you, I made that point as well somewhere in the 9/11 thread

Yep, it was an attack on the West as a whole but directed at a primarily American target (and most of the economic damage, like the severe financial losses suffered by the Travel and Airline Industries, was primarily American although that may have been an unintended bonus for them)