NationStates Jolt Archive

I've noticed several people in a recent thread saying the above line, and I don't see the logic in it. The WTC towers were populated entirely by civilians.

If you think that WTC was a legitimate target, surely you must also think that Hiroshima was, that Vietnam was, that Baghdad was, etc... otherwise you're just a hypocrite aren't you?

It was a legitimate target, but for different reasons than those for which it was targeted. So not legitimate in terms of the attacks.

The only people who could think the World Trade Centre was a legitimate target are terrorists and their supporters. No terrorist act is legitimate, despite what these barbarians believe.

It was obviously a legitimate target. They didn't hit it by accident. They wanted to hit it. So yes, it was a REAL (legitimate) target.

Duh. WTF do you actually mean?

the destruction of the world trade center was an act of terrorism not an act of war.

terrorists target civilians. the desired result is fear.

it was the most successful act of terrorism ever. as such, it was an appropriate target. its not right to use the word "legitimate" for an inherently illegitimate act.

Define "Legitimate target"

Define "Legitimate target"
In this context, I mean a morally acceptable target, rather than a legally accepted one.

1,2,3,4 I declare a semantics war.

For some people the WTC was a "legitimate target" when using the definition to mean "by chosing that target, did the terrorists achieve their goals".
For some people It is not a "legitimate target" when using the definition to mean "Killing people to achieve a goal is correct"

The part in italics is a different argument altogether. Either bloodshed is valid, and it's valid against all enemies; or bloodshed is valid but only against combatants; or it's never valid.

The big problem here is too many people think 9/11 was not valid, but killing truckloads of Iraqis are. Thus it's only a problem when people they know or relate to die.

Too much of the theory "Kill them all, god will know his own."

It was obviously a legitimate target. They didn't hit it by accident. They wanted to hit it. So yes, it was a REAL (legitimate) target.

Duh. WTF do you actually mean?

That's what I was thinking. Not only did the WTC have the capabilities of holding a heck of a lot of people. It also had a large impact on the World'
s economy. Which tells me not only was it an act of war on America but also an act of war on the World. The people murdered in the WTC were from all walks of life throughout the entire world.

I do think that the terrorists poorly timed the strike. It could have been a hell of a lot worse if it happened during the regular hours of operations.

In this context, I mean a morally acceptable target, rather than a legally accepted one.

whose morality?

for a terrorist its very moral to attack the great satan in his homeland.

for the rest of the world no its not moral.

In this context, I mean a morally acceptable target, rather than a legally accepted one.


Then no. The Pentagon and USS Cole as military targets were, though.

None of those were acceptable targets, IMO. If it was an army attacking them in wartime, then they would all be acceptable. But the terrorists just hit the WTC to kill as many civilians as possible, and even if they attacked a military base for that end it makes it an illegitimate target.

Yes, anything is a legitimate target if it is your enemies. I feel that anything that could help your enemy should be destroyed utterly. If your own nation could gain from bombing hospitals, schools, entire cities, or ports it should be done. Terrorists bombed the trade center towers because they were a symbol and they had many people in them. It was not a terrible blow but it brought fear to the hearts of the majority of Americans which was its intention.

Yes, anything is a legitimate target if it is your enemies. I feel that anything that could help your enemy should be destroyed utterly. If your own nation could gain from bombing hospitals, schools, entire cities, or ports it should be done. Terrorists bombed the trade center towers because they were a symbol and they had many people in them. It was not a terrible blow but it brought fear to the hearts of the majority of Americans which was its intention.
Wow, violate rules of war much?

I've noticed several people in a recent thread saying the above line, and I don't see the logic in it. The WTC towers were populated entirely by civilians.

If you think that WTC was a legitimate target, surely you must also think that Hiroshima was, that Vietnam was, that Baghdad was, etc... otherwise you're just a hypocrite aren't you?Doesn't a World Trade Center specifically exist to further exploit people around the globe, and especially in the Third World and the Middle East (by endorsing the governments there that keep their populations in poverty and misery)?

None of those were acceptable targets, IMO. If it was an army attacking them in wartime, then they would all be acceptable. But the terrorists just hit the WTC to kill as many civilians as possible, and even if they attacked a military base for that end it makes it an illegitimate target.Ignoring who actually has the higher moral ground in striking first here, a military target is preferable to a civilian one.

Ignoring who actually has the higher moral ground in striking first here, a military target is preferable to a civilian one.
Certainly preferable, but not necessarily legitimate. I think I'm avoiding the question here, anyway, since the whole definition of terrorism is illegitimate.

Certainly preferable, but not necessarily legitimate. I think I'm avoiding the question here, anyway, since the whole definition of terrorism is illegitimate.

Depends on your definition of terrorism. Were the actions of resistance movements across occupied Europe in the Second World War terroristic, and if so, illegitimate? What of the Iraqi resistance?

I don't think "terrorism" is always illegitimate. If it involves the targeting of civilians, it is. However, if someone planted a bomb in order to kill Kim Jong Il or other senior leaders of that regime, i'd consider it a legitimate attack.

Depends on your definition of terrorism. Were the actions of resistance movements across occupied Europe in the Second World War illegitimate? What of the Iraqi resistance?

I don't think "terrorism" is always illegitimate. If it involves the targeting of civilians, it is. However, if someone planted a bomb in order to kill Kim Jong Il or other senior leaders of that regime, i'd consider it a legitimate attack.
Well, the intention of an assassination of Kim wouldn't be to cause terror, presumably? Personally, I go by terrorism involving the targeting of civilians.

Wow, violate rules of war much?

Rules of war should not exist. War should not be fair. War is to save, protect, or expand a nation at minimal cost to your own people. I think we would be far better off without them.

I've noticed several people in a recent thread saying the above line, and I don't see the logic in it. The WTC towers were populated entirely by civilians.

If you think that WTC was a legitimate target, surely you must also think that Hiroshima was, that Vietnam was, that Baghdad was, etc... otherwise you're just a hypocrite aren't you?

Your logic and comparisons are fundamentally flawed.

WTC was a financial center which made it a target, this is undeniable--a legitamite military target it was in all pragmatic sense of the statement, its potential damage to the enemy(us) was fargreater then a few thousand people and bricks and mortar--it was a direct strike on the Economy.

Under the International RUles of War was it a legitamite target--I do not believe it was.

Would I have attacked it? Absolutely.

Hiroshima was chosen for reason I can not comment on directly as I am not 100% clear on them--it was however a CITY not a set of buildings---comparison not applicable.

But, I would venture to say that no under International RUles of War and morally speaking it s not a legitamite target(dpending on the level of military build up with in Hiroshima mind you)

But again--pragamatically, I would have attacked absolutely.
Nagasaki as well, not Tokyo so as there would remain a central government to sign the Surreander when I was done.

As for Vietnam...your comparing attack a set of buildings to an entire Nation? Are you high? Eat too much granola this morning? I know, KNOW plenty of Vietnamese and Hmongs who suffered underthe Communist regine and can not--to this day return to their country under fear of Execution...so spare me your infantile opinion on the morality of Vietnam.
Comparison to attacking a couple of buildings--asinine.

Baghdad--wow.
Ignoring the fact the war with IRAQ was wrong(as in poorly executed) Baghdad was completely a legitamite target///first it wasnt destroyed by bombs, nor nuked, it was invaded.
Precise military installations and the Government were targeted...the Government is always a Legit target--always even if it is completely civilian, that is like saying Washington DC or the Pentagon are not Legit targets.
Again--it is a CITY not a couple of buildings, no comparison.

How about you go and get some real examples of comparable attacks---they do indeed exist, it might demonstrate you took the time to consider your question as opposed to pulling things from your butt you obviously have no understanding of and simply wont admit that, and put the word hypocrit away until you know what you are talking about, because if you are using your ignorance as a platform for calling people hypocrits well...you see where that is headed.

Well, the intention of an assassination of Kim wouldn't be to cause terror, presumably?

Sure, it could - not so much an assassination of Kim himself, but if one of the higher-ups in the North Korean military were shot, it would scare the government just a bit. I'm certain the North Koreans would label it as an act of terrorism.

Personally, I go by terrorism involving the targeting of civilians.

I generally do also. Hence why I consider military targets legitimate. But then, what other name is there for actions such as the attack on the USS Cole?

Well, the intention of an assassination of Kim wouldn't be to cause terror, presumably? Personally, I go by terrorism involving the targeting of civilians.

Most people do, if the bomber was targeting Kim it would be a guerilla attack, directed at teh military leader, certainly not terrorism....one could say the Same forthe American President as he is the top military leader of the nation technically.

Rules of war should not exist. War should not be fair. War is to save, protect, or expand a nation at minimal cost to your own people. I think we would be far better off without them.

Thats only an easy stance to take if you're winning. Otherwise its just stupid

Depends on your definition of terrorism. Were the actions of resistance movements across occupied Europe in the Second World War terroristic, and if so, illegitimate? What of the Iraqi resistance?

I don't think "terrorism" is always illegitimate. If it involves the targeting of civilians, it is. However, if someone planted a bomb in order to kill Kim Jong Il or other senior leaders of that regime, i'd consider it a legitimate attack.

i think it was decided long ago by those who think about these things that its the target that determines the legitmacy not the status of the group doing it.

a resistance or rebel group is engaging in terror when they target civilians and is engaging in legitimate action when it targets government or military personelle.

What I don't understand is that on certain occasions, terrorists have condemned our government and strongly voiced against our government, then why are they continually determined to target civilians? They do NOT play by the rules. They obviously fear the Military and that is why I guess they target the civilians and murder the civilians. Most of the Iraqi civian murders are by the terrorists and insurgencies.

i think it was decided long ago by those who think about these things that its the target that determines the legitmacy not the status of the group doing it.

That's my personal belief too. I was just throwing in a practical example.

a resistance or rebel group is engaging in terror when they target civilians and is engaging in legitimate action when it targets government or military personelle.

Well then, we agree.

Wow, violate rules of war much?
Rules of war do not apply to Terrorists, spies, or insurgents of any other kind.

And the WTC was a legitimate target in the sense that it isn't a violation of the rules of war (once again, Insurgencies do not have to abide by them.) Morraly, it was right for them. Allah told them to. Everyone else was appaled and terrified. (hence the name, terrorists.)

Hiroshima was chosen for reason I can not comment on directly as I am not 100% clear on them--it was however a CITY not a set of buildings---comparison not applicable.

Weapon factories were the reason for Hiroshima (I think.)

How about you go and get some real examples of comparable attacks---they do indeed exist,
Timothy McVeigh's Oklahoma city bombing? That was moral to him.



Well then, we agree.
to expand on your definition,
ter·ror·ism (těr'ə-rĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
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.


Modern Language Association (MLA):
"terrorism." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 03 Dec. 2006. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism>

also,

terrorism


Acts of violence committed by groups that view themselves as victimized by some notable historical wrong. Although these groups have no formal connection with governments, they usually have the financial and moral backing of sympathetic governments. Typically, they stage unexpected attacks on civilian targets, including embassies and airliners, with the aim of sowing fear and confusion. Israel has been a frequent target of terrorism, but the United States has increasingly become its main target. (See also September 11 attacks, Osama bin Laden, Hezbollah, and Basque region.)

terrorism." The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005. 03 Dec. 2006. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism>

I've noticed several people in a recent thread saying the above line, and I don't see the logic in it. The WTC towers were populated entirely by civilians.

If you think that WTC was a legitimate target, surely you must also think that Hiroshima was, that Vietnam was, that Baghdad was, etc... otherwise you're just a hypocrite aren't you?
Who are you asking? The people in the buildings and their countrymen or the people who perpetrated the attacks? Nobody seems to want to hear this, but legitimacy in this case is not an open and shut case--it all depends on the perspective of who you ask. To most Americans, the WTC was not a legitimate target--but to al Qaeda, it was, even if that legitimacy was largely wrapped in symbolism.

Doesn't a World Trade Center specifically exist to further exploit people around the globe, and especially in the Third World and the Middle East (by endorsing the governments there that keep their populations in poverty and misery)?

Um, what are you smoking?

Rules of war should not exist. War should not be fair. War is to save, protect, or expand a nation at minimal cost to your own people. I think we would be far better off without them.

Careful, now. By that thinking, the entire Middle East should be a sheet of glass to get rid of all the terrorist training camps, the governments that support them, never mind the deaths of millions of innocents for no other reason than being born there.

Luckily, no sane person would advocate that.

Who are you asking? The people in the buildings and their countrymen or the people who perpetrated the attacks? Nobody seems to want to hear this, but legitimacy in this case is not an open and shut case--it all depends on the perspective of who you ask. To most Americans, the WTC was not a legitimate target--but to al Qaeda, it was, even if that legitimacy was largely wrapped in symbolism.

Excellent Statement.

Terrorists do not count civilians as civilians, any member of an opposing group is considered a fair target. The objective is terror and revenge for being slighted in some manner or other. The greater the perceived fear, revenge, and reaction from the enemy the more legitimate the target appears to them. The key is maximum political reaction for minimal cost. The idea is that Americans support aggression because they pay taxes to the American government... Go figure.

What is more effective? A landmark or some military installation. These are TERRORists, not rebels.

Also, it's World Trade Center. We wouldn't spell a specific place in the Ireland as Center.

I dunno. Ask the CIA.

can some one tell me:
a) how many people were killed in the WTC
b) how many afghan / iraqui civillians have been killed so far?

the answer to that should give some idea of the relative legitimacy of the targets

whose morality?

The NS poster answering the question.

Then no. The Pentagon and USS Cole as military targets were, though.
I agree. Though even then there is the question of whether the war was declared.


I don't think "terrorism" is always illegitimate. If it involves the targeting of civilians, it is. However, if someone planted a bomb in order to kill Kim Jong Il or other senior leaders of that regime, i'd consider it a legitimate attack.
If it doesn't target civilians, then how can it be terrorism?

Rules of war should not exist. War should not be fair. War is to save, protect, or expand a nation at minimal cost to your own people. I think we would be far better off without them.
No we wouldn't. That's why they were written in the first place.

[QUOTE=The Nazz;12029823]Who are you asking?/QUOTE]
You.

The NS poster answering the question.


oh well then, it was completely immoral

not only for the loss of life inside the wtc, the pentagon and the passengers in the airplanes.

also in the deaths of the terrorists on the planes who thought it was going to be a hijack not a suicide mission

the people of afghanistan who were killed or their loved ones killed, their livelihoods destroyed as a result of the retaliation of these attacks.

and even the people of iraq who wouldnt have had to suffer through a war that never would have been approved if we werent still shellshocked from fear and loss when it was proposed.

bin laden cared nothing for the lives of those people, he only wanted to strike a blow against america and prove himself to be the big dog of radical islam.

Who are you asking?
You.
I don't have an answer, because I'm not a participant in the conflict. But I can certainly see how--disturbing as it is to me--the WTC could be considered a military target by a group like al Qaeda. I don't know how I'd feel were I in that situation.

I don't have an answer, because I'm not a participant in the conflict. But I can certainly see how--disturbing as it is to me--the WTC could be considered a military target by a group like al Qaeda. I don't know how I'd feel were I in that situation.
How could it be a military target?

How could it be a military target?

Two ways. First of all, you're dealing with asymmetrical warfare. al Qaeda cannot hope to win open battles--they don't have the manpower, the equipment, the logistics. So they have to find ways to hit high value targets with relatively few losses. The WTC had two values as a military target. For starters, a successful attack against it affects the American psyche, and in that way, it was astoundingly successful. Perhaps not as successful as the Hiroshima a-bomb, because that was bigger, but similar in type.

The second had to do with its placement at the center of the financial system in the US--not the governmental one, but the private one. Wall Street was shut down for about a week afterward, and if they'd gotten really lucky, might have shut it down longer, which would have had significant ripples on the economy as a whole.

But the first example is the stronger one--in asymmetrical warfare, the goal is less to show actual gains and more to change perception, and if that's what you're trying to do, you go for symbolic targets. In an actual war between two major countries--say the US and China, for example--even though the White House would not be the center of activity, the Chinese would still try to destroy it. Why? It wouldn't change our military capability to respond, after all. But it would make a symbolic difference.

I don't have an answer, because I'm not a participant in the conflict. But I can certainly see how--disturbing as it is to me--the WTC could be considered a military target by a group like al Qaeda. I don't know how I'd feel were I in that situation.

Are you saying that the targeting civilians is a military target?

I'm not sure I you can claim that. For one, the people murdered in the WTC weren't in any battlefield. They weren't armed. They were going on about their everyday lives.

2ndly, al-Queda is NOT a recognized military force by anybody. They are Muslim Extremists, terrorists. They do NOT wear a standard Military Uniform. They are Not part of any military force of any Nation therefore they can not legitimately have military targets.

You should be very disturbed in what you just stated. They attacked innocent civilians not soldiers. I don't see how anybody in their right minds can put a claim on the WTC being a military target. Pentagon, YES. WTC, hell NO. al-Queda are nothing more than murderers who target civilians due to their fear of the Military. Anybody's military.

Was the World Trade Centre a legitimate target on 11/9/2001

Thank you for using proper notation.

Two ways. First of all, you're dealing with asymmetrical warfare. al Qaeda cannot hope to win open battles--they don't have the manpower, the equipment, the logistics. So they have to find ways to hit high value targets with relatively few losses. The WTC had two values as a military target. For starters, a successful attack against it affects the American psyche, and in that way, it was astoundingly successful. Perhaps not as successful as the Hiroshima a-bomb, because that was bigger, but similar in type.

The second had to do with its placement at the center of the financial system in the US--not the governmental one, but the private one. Wall Street was shut down for about a week afterward, and if they'd gotten really lucky, might have shut it down longer, which would have had significant ripples on the economy as a whole.

But the first example is the stronger one--in asymmetrical warfare, the goal is less to show actual gains and more to change perception, and if that's what you're trying to do, you go for symbolic targets. In an actual war between two major countries--say the US and China, for example--even though the White House would not be the center of activity, the Chinese would still try to destroy it. Why? It wouldn't change our military capability to respond, after all. But it would make a symbolic difference.

Your view of "American psyche" is different than my views. I viewed it as putting a temporary shockwave through Americans, Ultimately stirring up a Hornets Nest.

To attack civilians is in NO WAY a military target. In order to have a military target, you must have the military present. They targeted the American People (WTC) and our government (Pentagon) The larger of the 2 targets was the "Civilian Target". As for attacking the Civilian target they attempted to put a major hurting economically, not only the USAs economy but the World's.

Anyways, it still doesn't make any sense how the intentionally targetted civilians justifies a "military" target.

No. Targeting civilians is wrong and nothing better than murder, and those that intentionally target civilians are murderers that should be regarded as no better than serial killers.

No. Targeting civilians is wrong and nothing better than murder, and those that intentionally target civilians are murderers that should be regarded as no better than serial killers.

Well, if it were unintentional targeting, it wouldn't really be targeting at all.

Are you saying that the targeting civilians is a military target?

I'm not sure I you can claim that. For one, the people murdered in the WTC weren't in any battlefield. They weren't armed. They were going on about their everyday lives.

2ndly, al-Queda is NOT a recognized military force by anybody. They are Muslim Extremists, terrorists. They do NOT wear a standard Military Uniform. They are Not part of any military force of any Nation therefore they can not legitimately have military targets.

You should be very disturbed in what you just stated. They attacked innocent civilians not soldiers. I don't see how anybody in their right minds can put a claim on the WTC being a military target. Pentagon, YES. WTC, hell NO. al-Queda are nothing more than murderers who target civilians due to their fear of the Military. Anybody's military.
You missed my point. My point is that legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder. It's an abstract idea, undefinable outside the mind of the person doing the legitimizing. Nothing anyone says could ever make that attack legitimate to you, because of your position in relation to it, and that's fine. I'm making no moral judgment about your point of view. But from the point of view of a member of al Qaeda, the WTC was absolutely a legitimate target.

Well, if it were unintentional targeting, it wouldn't really be targeting at all.

Well, no. It's meant to narrow it down from accidental deaths from things like collateral damage; not that collateral deaths are okay, but they are not the same as a terrorist attack.

Anyways, it still doesn't make any sense how the intentionally targetted civilians justifies a "military" target.
Tell it to the people who ordered the bombing of Dresden. Or Hiroshima. Or Tokyo after the firebombing.

Tell it to the people who ordered the bombing of Dresden. Or Hiroshima. Or Tokyo after the firebombing.

in the documentary "fog of war" robert mcnamara (who as in on the firebombing of tokyo and dozens of other japanese cities as well as the dropping of the nuclear bombs) said that general curtis lemay (who ordered all of those things) told him that if they had lost the war they would have been tried and convicted as war criminals.

Tell it to the people who ordered the bombing of Dresden. Or Hiroshima. Or Tokyo after the firebombing.

You do remember Pearl Harbor, don't you? The American death toll reached 2,403 with 1,178 injured.

It was Japan that forced our hand and pushed us to get involved in WWII. I have no sympathy for the Japanese of the WWII era.

in the documentary "fog of war" robert mcnamara (who as in on the firebombing of tokyo and dozens of other japanese cities as well as the dropping of the nuclear bombs) said that general curtis lemay (who ordered all of those things) told him that if they had lost the war they would have been tried and convicted as war criminals.
Exactly. And that's my point--legitimacy is conferred by the people involved in the decision making, and there will inevitably be disagreements betwen people depending on how they're affected by the outcome.

You do remember Pearl Harbor, don't you? The American death toll reached 2,403 with 1,178 injured.

It was Japan that forced our hand and pushed us to get involved in WWII. I have no sympathy for the Japanese of the WWII era.I'm not asking you to have sympathy for them. I'm pointing out that attacking civilian populations is nothing new.

And with Dresden, the Allies firebombed a POW camp--that had their own men as prisoners in it.

Two ways. First of all, you're dealing with asymmetrical warfare. al Qaeda cannot hope to win open battles--they don't have the manpower, the equipment, the logistics. So they have to find ways to hit high value targets with relatively few losses. The WTC had two values as a military target. For starters, a successful attack against it affects the American psyche, and in that way, it was astoundingly successful. Perhaps not as successful as the Hiroshima a-bomb, because that was bigger, but similar in type.

You don't need to explain how it was a legitimate target to al-Qaeda and their sympathisers, but I would like to know how anyone else could consider it legitimate.

You also didn't explain how it was a military target as the Pentagon was.

Was the World Trade Centre a legitimate target on 11/9/2001

Thank you for using proper notation.
As a European that is the notation I use. 9/11 is the standard American notation. It's just different, not wrong.

I've noticed several people in a recent thread saying the above line, and I don't see the logic in it. The WTC towers were populated entirely by civilians.

If you think that WTC was a legitimate target, surely you must also think that Hiroshima was, that Vietnam was, that Baghdad was, etc... otherwise you're just a hypocrite aren't you?

"Terrorism" is best described as a form of psychological warfare. It is used (most often by people who don't consider themselves terrorists) because it allows a small number of people with limited resources to achieve a result greater then the actual damage inflicted. The goal of 9/11 was not just to raze a building and kill a bunch of people, it was to prove that America wasn't untouchable and that it's citizens could be killed in their country, anywhere, any time. The paranoia, the unrest, the economic dive, the subsequent crunch of our Civil Rights and the dissent it caused, and loss of credibility from two "failed" wars could all be seen as part of the "victory" won on 9/11.

Because citizens were attacked as well as a military target (the Pentagon), they made the point that NO ONE is safe. Since then, we've played into their hands. Psychological manipulation and warfare is as much a Science as therapy is. They applied a stimulus and got a specific result, fear.

Put it together! Group A (Islamic Terrorists) performs Act of Terror X (9/11) resulting in fear of Group A (Islamophobia). Everything else follows suit.

Pragmatically speaking, it was a perfectly legitimate target and a clear victory. We've been playing into their hands ever since.

Sure it was. Because all Americans are evil, and every one that dies had previously committed atrocities against the people of this world. Therefore, anything that kills Americans is justified.

You don't need to explain how it was a legitimate target to al-Qaeda and their sympathisers, but I would like to know how anyone else could consider it legitimate.

You also didn't explain how it was a military target as the Pentagon was.

It wasn't, but I've never said it was. What I said was it was a legitimate target if you're a member of al Qaeda, and I pointed out that in past wars, targets have been chosen regardless of their military value, and that the same will be the case in the future. Like I said, the White House would be a far more symbolic target than a militarily necessary one.

No. Targeting civilians is wrong and nothing better than murder, and those that intentionally target civilians are murderers that should be regarded as no better than serial killers.

You're only a serial killer if you kill members of your own country.

If you kill people who aren't members of your own country, you're a hero. It's the way teh world works

besides, WTC was a controlled demolition, not a terriost attack.

Wow, violate rules of war much?

In war there is only one rule: There is no rules.

Legit. targets include: military bases, government buildings, financial targets, symbolic structures and so on.

As the WTC was a financial target, then one can assume it was a legit. target.

In war there is only one rule: There is no rules.


Im not too far from you, like 2 hrs to the west ;)


and yes, there are rules in war. Geneva Convention?

"When you have to kill a man it costs nothing to be polite."

I've noticed several people in a recent thread saying the above line, and I don't see the logic in it. The WTC towers were populated entirely by civilians.

If you think that WTC was a legitimate target, surely you must also think that Hiroshima was, that Vietnam was, that Baghdad was, etc... otherwise you're just a hypocrite aren't you?
The WTC is a Legitimate Target.

but it's not a Legitimate Military Target.

It wasn't, but I've never said it was. What I said was it was a legitimate target if you're a member of al Qaeda, and I pointed out that in past wars, targets have been chosen regardless of their military value, and that the same will be the case in the future. Like I said, the White House would be a far more symbolic target than a militarily necessary one.*nods in agreement*
the orignal question is "Was the World Trade Centre a legitimate target on 11/9/2001?" yes, it's a ligitimate target, a School is a ligitimate target, so is a mall or a home or even a person. but some were arguing on the WTC being a MILITARY target. Which it isnt.

Oh and the White House is where our national leader resides, so it is a military target. That would include Buckingham Palace, even Air Force One or any residence/transport of a national leader.

and yes, there are rules in war. Geneva Convention?I believe only those Nations that signed the Geneva Convention is forced to uphold it. Non Nationally supported groups (Al Qaeda and groups) and Nations who didn't sign are not bound my it.

From a military standpoint it was a stupid target. The terrorists had a very slight chance of causing chaos in the stock markets! The best targets for starting a war are the ones that would aid in the retaliation. It was the best target in the minds of the terrorists because they obviously don't give a shit about their own people!

A better target would have been the New York Stock Exchange. Less of a symbol, but annihilating Wall Street would have caused instant economic chaos.

However, it was not legitimate. Prior to 9/11, what was Al-Qaeda's excuse for attacking the US? 'The US was occupying Saudi Arabia' - a reference to US troops stationed there AT THE REQUEST OF THE SAUDI GOVERNMENT. Please. No attack on the US would have been justified by that, no matter what the target. The IRS would have been a legitimate target for separate reasons, but the US response would not be a War on Terror - instead, Osama would have been awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom;) .

From a military standpoint it was a stupid target. The terrorists had a very slight chance of causing chaos in the stock markets! The best targets for starting a war are the ones that would aid in the retaliation. It was the best target in the minds of the terrorists because they obviously don't give a shit about their own people!
It was a symbolic target. The WTC was the tallest building in the biggest city in the US--it was a symbol of the power of the US. What too many people are assuming is that there was a real attempt to disrupt the US in a significant way. I don't think there was. I think it was a way of showing the world that the US wasn't untouchable. And it certainly succeeded as far as that's concerned.

Careful, now. By that thinking, the entire Middle East should be a sheet of glass to get rid of all the terrorist training camps, the governments that support them, never mind the deaths of millions of innocents for no other reason than being born there.

Luckily, no sane person would advocate that.

Trust me, that is not the option of least cost. If this was done, there would be a huge worldwide depression. The rest of the world would freeze out America. When the world finally escapes out of the depression, China, and the EU will be the economic powerhouses of the world, and the US would no longer be a Superpower, let alone the world's only superpower.

"Terrorism" is best described as a form of psychological warfare. It is used (most often by people who don't consider themselves terrorists) because it allows a small number of people with limited resources to achieve a result greater then the actual damage inflicted. The goal of 9/11 was not just to raze a building and kill a bunch of people, it was to prove that America wasn't untouchable and that it's citizens could be killed in their country, anywhere, any time. The paranoia, the unrest, the economic dive, the subsequent crunch of our Civil Rights and the dissent it caused, and loss of credibility from two "failed" wars could all be seen as part of the "victory" won on 9/11.

Because citizens were attacked as well as a military target (the Pentagon), they made the point that NO ONE is safe. Since then, we've played into their hands. Psychological manipulation and warfare is as much a Science as therapy is. They applied a stimulus and got a specific result, fear.

Put it together! Group A (Islamic Terrorists) performs Act of Terror X (9/11) resulting in fear of Group A (Islamophobia). Everything else follows suit.

Pragmatically speaking, it was a perfectly legitimate target and a clear victory. We've been playing into their hands ever since.

Anyone with a half a brain should know that Americans are dieing everyday. Anyone with a half a brain would know that being a Free and Open society has many vulnerabilities. This isn't anything new and the Terrorists only proved that their murderous bastards who like to target unarmed civilians.

I don't think bin Laden expected us to go to war in Afghanistan either. We are on the hunt for terrorism both international and domestic. They will either be destroyed on sight or if we capture them they will be imprisoned. This is the messege we're passing to the terrorists. I think the zero-tolerance attitude towards terrorism is the right attitude.

The WTC is a Legitimate Target.

but it's not a Legitimate Military Target.

This is what I was thinking from the beginning. I believe one of my first posts mentioned it was a legitimate target and then someone tried to claim it to be a military target which I completely disagreed with.

either all targets are legistimate targets, or none are legitimate targets. either way it doesn't matter much.

For terrorists the WTC buildings were an ideal target.

They were not a legitimate military target by any decent standards.

However the US government has legitimised them post facto by declaring
pre-emptive attacks legitimate.

For me, I despise anyone who promotes or attempts to legitimise such acts.

Im not too far from you, like 2 hrs to the west ;)


and yes, there are rules in war. Geneva Convention?

The Geneva Convention is somewhat shit. I agree with the rules about treating enemy wounded and prisoners, but not attacking civilians is bull.
We set them up after WW2 to ensure nothing like the firebombing of German cities would ever happen to America. yes, the World Trade Center was a legit target, Berlin was a legit target, and so was Hiroshima.

2ndly, al-Queda is NOT a recognized military force by anybody. They are Muslim Extremists, terrorists. They do NOT wear a standard Military Uniform. They are Not part of any military force of any Nation therefore they can not legitimately have military targets.

By that definition, no rebel, resistance, or guerrilla group can ever have a legitimate military target.

Where then, does it leave such people as, for example, those Danes who fought the German occupation during World War II? Was their resistance not legitimate? Were none of their targets, either German troops or Danish collaborators, valid?

No terrorist act is legitimate, despite what these barbarians believe.

See, I tend to disagree.
The attack against the Twin Towers was wrong and can not be justified, but imagine if they won this War on Terror (unlikely I know) and instigated a Islamic Dictatorship. Would it still be wrong for us to take up arms against them through the only means aviable- terrorism? (See V for Vendetta for further study)

Was the World Trade Centre a legitimate target on 11/9/2001?

Most definately. If the terorrists had flown into the building a few hours earlier when it was unoccupied the majority of the worlds population would probably have cheered them on.

However, the fact that they waited until it was filled with civilians takes away this sympathy.

To summarise: the building was. The people in it weren't.

The WTC is a Legitimate Target.

but it's not a Legitimate Military Target.
If it is not a military target, then it is not legitimate. It is mass murder.

If it is not a military target, then it is not legitimate. It is mass murder.
Ever heard the term Civilian Target?

And just because something is a Legitimate target, does not mean that it also cannot be mass Murder. you hit a Legitimate Military target duing peacetime using civlian filled transports, it's still mass murder.