Wtc - A Legitimate Target?
Grendel
All that is fear... Join Date: 2002-07-19 Member: 970Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, NS2 Playtester
All that is fear... Join Date: 2002-07-19 Member: 970Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, NS2 Playtester
<div class="IPBDescription">Do please READ before replying</div> Fact:
The Western world (not just America, America is simply the richest and most aggressive) has used economic warfare to keep most of the third world in debt for over half a century. Frequently by loans made to dictators who were installed in the country in question by Western intelligence agencies and many of whom have subsequently fled taking all the money.
Fact:
The Western world has used third world countries to fight wars by proxy against both the former Soviet Union and various other communist governments. This has now changed to Muslim countries, now that Communism has proven to suck.
Fact:
The WTC contained the head offices of a large number of corporations who were either partly or directly responsible for continued economic exploitation of third world countries and the deaths of at the very least thousands if not millions of citizens of those countries.
Fact:
Thousands of civilian casualties were sustained by Afghanistan during the "War on Terrorism".
My question is this:
When did attacking a country's means of production (and the companies in the WTC produced WEALTH, the primary method of waging war in this instance) cease to be a legitimate way to exercise strategic policy? Given that a large number of people in the WTC were highly placed in financial institutions or corporations that have been directly responsible for the death of MILLIONS of moslims in Africa and Asia, why are they not legitimate military targets?
Now I know some of you will already be about to post something along the lines of "even if that were the case, what about all the people in the WTC who WEREN'T opportunistic, avaristic scum who profited off the back of human misery?"
That's beside the point. <b>When people wage wars, innocent people die.</b> Army bases have cleaners, cooks and medical personnel who aren't in the armed forces, just like the World Trade Centre. The loss of innocent life has never been a serious issue during warfare. That's why they call it warfare, rather than cuddling.
People making bombs and ammunition were considered acceptable targets during World War Two. Even people who weren't engaged in such activities were considered acceptable "collateral damage". As NemesisZero will patiently tell you, the 25,000 people killed by the RAF and USAF during the bombing of Dresden weren't soldiers. In fact, corroborated estimates put the figure at less than 1,000 military personnel killed during the bombing. So we managed to nail one actual soldier for every 24 civilian men, women and <b>children</b> (note, unlike the revenge attacks carried out by the US on Afghanistan and Iraq, precious few children could be found during the day in the WTC).
Not wearing a uniform doesn't make you guiltless or a non-military target. And surrounding yourself with human shields doesn't mean that you can't be attacked. Since the muslim world find themselves fighting a vastly more powerful and wealthy enemy, they can hardly land in Florida and fight their way on land. Striking precisely at clear military targets (The Pentagon, The WTC and almost The White House [lucky eh?]) was hardly an unreasonable act.
Half a century of campaigning and attempted reasoning with Western business has simply resulted in political interference and destabilisation, ecological disaster and strip-mining of natural resources WHILST exploiting the local work-force. If the aim of the exercise was to cause casualties, the WTC was an awful choice of target. A packed football stadium would have yielded vastly more casualties. Or a concert. Or 5th Avenue on the 4th of July. Or Times Square on New Year's Eve.
Think about that. The US got off lucky because Al Queda restricted itself to Political/Military targets. Neither Iraq, nor Sudan, nor Libya and most certainly not Afghanistan got off so easily.
There is one word for the American response to the attacks:
Terrorism.
<i>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.</i>
That is what occured in Afghanistan. The only thing that one might question is "unlawful". Well, both the UN and the Geneva convention would have things to say on that front.
I am ashamed that my government (admittedly against the will of the citizens of the UK) assisted in these operations. Also please note, this is not an attack on Americans, or America, but on the concept that somehow the attacks on other sovereign powers had any ethical justification. The timing of this post is slightly coincidental.
The Western world (not just America, America is simply the richest and most aggressive) has used economic warfare to keep most of the third world in debt for over half a century. Frequently by loans made to dictators who were installed in the country in question by Western intelligence agencies and many of whom have subsequently fled taking all the money.
Fact:
The Western world has used third world countries to fight wars by proxy against both the former Soviet Union and various other communist governments. This has now changed to Muslim countries, now that Communism has proven to suck.
Fact:
The WTC contained the head offices of a large number of corporations who were either partly or directly responsible for continued economic exploitation of third world countries and the deaths of at the very least thousands if not millions of citizens of those countries.
Fact:
Thousands of civilian casualties were sustained by Afghanistan during the "War on Terrorism".
My question is this:
When did attacking a country's means of production (and the companies in the WTC produced WEALTH, the primary method of waging war in this instance) cease to be a legitimate way to exercise strategic policy? Given that a large number of people in the WTC were highly placed in financial institutions or corporations that have been directly responsible for the death of MILLIONS of moslims in Africa and Asia, why are they not legitimate military targets?
Now I know some of you will already be about to post something along the lines of "even if that were the case, what about all the people in the WTC who WEREN'T opportunistic, avaristic scum who profited off the back of human misery?"
That's beside the point. <b>When people wage wars, innocent people die.</b> Army bases have cleaners, cooks and medical personnel who aren't in the armed forces, just like the World Trade Centre. The loss of innocent life has never been a serious issue during warfare. That's why they call it warfare, rather than cuddling.
People making bombs and ammunition were considered acceptable targets during World War Two. Even people who weren't engaged in such activities were considered acceptable "collateral damage". As NemesisZero will patiently tell you, the 25,000 people killed by the RAF and USAF during the bombing of Dresden weren't soldiers. In fact, corroborated estimates put the figure at less than 1,000 military personnel killed during the bombing. So we managed to nail one actual soldier for every 24 civilian men, women and <b>children</b> (note, unlike the revenge attacks carried out by the US on Afghanistan and Iraq, precious few children could be found during the day in the WTC).
Not wearing a uniform doesn't make you guiltless or a non-military target. And surrounding yourself with human shields doesn't mean that you can't be attacked. Since the muslim world find themselves fighting a vastly more powerful and wealthy enemy, they can hardly land in Florida and fight their way on land. Striking precisely at clear military targets (The Pentagon, The WTC and almost The White House [lucky eh?]) was hardly an unreasonable act.
Half a century of campaigning and attempted reasoning with Western business has simply resulted in political interference and destabilisation, ecological disaster and strip-mining of natural resources WHILST exploiting the local work-force. If the aim of the exercise was to cause casualties, the WTC was an awful choice of target. A packed football stadium would have yielded vastly more casualties. Or a concert. Or 5th Avenue on the 4th of July. Or Times Square on New Year's Eve.
Think about that. The US got off lucky because Al Queda restricted itself to Political/Military targets. Neither Iraq, nor Sudan, nor Libya and most certainly not Afghanistan got off so easily.
There is one word for the American response to the attacks:
Terrorism.
<i>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.</i>
That is what occured in Afghanistan. The only thing that one might question is "unlawful". Well, both the UN and the Geneva convention would have things to say on that front.
I am ashamed that my government (admittedly against the will of the citizens of the UK) assisted in these operations. Also please note, this is not an attack on Americans, or America, but on the concept that somehow the attacks on other sovereign powers had any ethical justification. The timing of this post is slightly coincidental.
Comments
Grendel, I never quite thought about it that way. I spent time thinking more along the lines of *paybacks an economic b!tch, eh* for the WTC attacks. We used wealth to fight them so they struck back to stop the flow of wealth.
Before you go and bombard Grendel for trivializing the 9/11 stuff, remember that American soldiers have been responsible for plenty of non-combat deaths in Afghanistan. Far more then 3,000.
An eye for an eye leaves every man blind.
Grendel, I thank you for putting a new spin on an old topic.
Btw I thought the casualty figures for the Dresden firestorm was closer to 80,000? In any case Western nations are no stranger to terrorism having used it extensively in World War Two. They should not have been surprised when it was turned around and used back at them.
The Americans shouldn't feel "what did we do to deserve this". However, I dont agree that they shouldnt strike back.
Your freedoms, your wealth and your influence comes from the misery of others. Now the miserable are fighting back. Why change our tactics now? We have the higher ground, extreme military power and influence. Lets crush the miserable and continue.
It was the first time <b>this</b> generation saw an act of 'war' happen on their ground, people dying in their country, instead of on some far away place, fighting for somebody else.
Personally, I believe Al Queda actually focused on 'honourable' targets, they kept the fight clean. They attempted to destroy the White House and the WTC, they succeeded in the WTC.
I don't agree with what they did, but I sure as hell don't agree with what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I fully agree with you, Grendel.
But wars start with declarations and are fought with armies. Taking the (at the very least 'problematic') relations between First and Third World and then proceed to declare a kind of 'general war' is doing the word injustice, because such a 'war' doesn't have to stick to the Conventions, because no weapon, be it conventional, unconventional, financial, or a nutrient, can (and will) be not used, because it's not limited to a closely definable number of combatants, and because neither sides population can even hope to raise objections because it's fought covertly and on at least on one side by an isolated extremist minority.
The WTC can't be a legitimate target: No army attacked, no declaration had been put forth (war can't be declared by a single person), and none of the innocents knew of their role in this 'war', as the people producing ammo or living in big German cities during WW2 knew (there were incredible mass movements into villages surrounding the cities; people got at least a chance).
This reasoning can of course also be used on the general 'War on Terrorism', but two wrongs don't make a right.
Al Quaeda terrorists used the capitalist domination of the USA as an excuse to kill americans. Sure , the passenger of the crashed boeings weren't the most innocent and unfortunate people , but they weren't the worst oppressors either. The difference between the "terrorists" and the "civilized world" is that the former don't need the later's enormous quantities of expensive hardware to cause loads of casualties...
Though I find it lame and coward to slam filled planes into buildings , I don't feel <i>particulary</i> sad for the victims. The US govt managed to enforce a worldwide grieving for a few thousand people , while millions victims can die silently. What makes me upset is that this govt exploits the death of its own people to produce patriotism , and the rest of the world is supposed to accept this and shut up.
The Western world (not just America, America is simply the richest and most aggressive) has used economic warfare to keep most of the third world in debt for over half a century. Frequently by loans made to dictators who were installed in the country in question by Western intelligence agencies and many of whom have subsequently fled taking all the money.
Fact:
The WTC contained the head offices of a large number of corporations who were either partly or directly responsible for continued economic exploitation of third world countries and the deaths of at the very least thousands if not millions of citizens of those countries.
Fact:
Thousands of civilian casualties were sustained by Afghanistan during the "War on Terrorism".
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow.
I never thought of it that way.
But you know what the sad thing is? The public <b>don't know</b> about these things.
If you did a survey of the public, and asked them why they thought Bin Laden attacked the WTC, what do you think they'd say? They probably don't even know. Why? Because the media doesn't want you to know that your country (i.e, most western countries) has been screwing third-world countries over for a long time.
Until recently, I thought that the Al-Quaieda were an extremeist religious group, and we're simply out to kill as many "infidels" as they could, but what you've said makes far more sense; attacking the WTC was like bombing a munitions factory, or an army barracks.
The public are kept in the dark because they can sleep easier at night with the knowledge that their brave soldiers are in Iraq hunting nasty "terrorists" as we speak (well, type, but you know what I mean), certain in the knowledge that THEY are the wronged party.
This is why I want to be on the first colony ship to the moon; earth sucks.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->America was shocked cause this was the first time casualties were on their soil.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In actuality, it was the second greatest loss of life in America's history, on American soil. To find the biggest you have to go all the way back to the Civil War. .
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Thousands of civilian casualties were sustained by Afghanistan during the "War on Terrorism".<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Had planes not been crashed into buildings, none of them would have lost their innocent lives. No bombs or munitions were manufactured in the WTC. The WTC was neither a political or military target. By your reasoning, I can go destroy the local grocery store because it is muslim owned and they are sending money to Al Queda
If your religion states that murder of people not of your religion is acceptable, then it's your interpretaion of your religion that is a problem.
BTW I didn't shed a single tear for victims in the Pentagon, and I truly believe that the flight heading for the White House was shot down by an American fighter. The whole "Let's Roll" story was a convienent cover story. I have friends that worked very close to the WTC. One of them walked, rather ran, from his office to see an entire jet engine in the street infront of his office. There was no debris found or shown (to my knowledge) near the pentagon. Had that plane hit the White House I would have been saddened by the loss of the history connected with the building, but nothing more.
The WTC was not a valid target by any stretch of the imagination. Having been here in NYC the day of the attack, and lived here all my life; having seen office supplies drifting down in my neighborhood (some 15 miles away from ground zero), like some surreal evil snowfall, I will never believe it was a valid target. My house smelled like a campfire for a week afterward. A pall of smoke covered the city for almost 2 weeks afterward.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->When people wage wars, innocent people die. Army bases have cleaners, cooks and medical personnel who aren't in the armed forces, just like the World Trade Centre. The loss of innocent life has never been a serious issue during warfare. That's why they call it warfare, rather than cuddling.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Every last one of those people assume that risk by working in a military establishment.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Not wearing a uniform doesn't make you guiltless or a non-military target. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Earning money in the United States does not make you a military target either.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The WTC contained the head offices of a large number of corporations who were either partly or directly responsible for continued economic exploitation of third world countries and the deaths of at the very least thousands if not millions of citizens of those countries.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By this logic, blowing up the residence of these same people, could also be considered a valid milatry target. I mean, the Corporate President <i>is</i> there.
In my opinion, the rest of the world got off "lucky" that the US was attacked.
<!--emo&:angry:--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif'><!--endemo-->
Even though you do state that the economic means used to wage war on the communist/ arab countries were an indirect form of warfare, and as valid tactics as a bombing run, unlike an infantry column or a bomber, compainies are not designed to kill. Rather, they are put together for the common good of those involved, making money for themselves. Selfishness, perhaps, is the worst of their sins. The corporations that did in fact carry out the so called 'acts of war' did so while being payed by government contracts. They did not decide to use their own resources to inflict damage on foregin countries, where would the profit be? Destroying an entire country's infrastructure at the expense of your own finite funds is not an intellignet way to provide well being for investors. The companies were not waging war.
AS such, the employees, the executives, the secretaries, can not be equated to soldiers, pilots, or even quartermasters. They never had the option to choose wether to kill, wether to take from other countries. They take jobs because in this society, you need a job to provide for your family and loved ones. They were not murderous, heartless killers, they were providers, targeted because they represented an economic system that was different, and a culture that was disagreeable with theirs.
And who was the man who declared teh war, who called the attack? As Torak stated, a religious radical who lives in a cave. Not only that, but a hippocrite. Islam is, despite common perception, mainly a peaceful religion. Usama, for whatever reason, chose to deal a blow to our culture in the worst way possible. By striking down thousands of innocent civilians. Like it or not, he picked the tallest building in an urban area, and directed his men to fly planes into them. Not once but twice. He had no authority to do so, he had no religious jsutification, he was simply acting as the head of a faction. And when his goals could not be completed through conventional means, he turned to man's most primal, brutish, and horrendus instincts.
In actuality, it was the second greatest loss of life in America's history, on American soil. To find the biggest you have to go all the way back to the Civil War. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I corrected myself later in that reply by stating "that this generation has seen".
But yeah, there've been deaths on American soil before, but the way I see it, the 'current' American generation has never seen terror/war up close, this shocked them greatly when it actually happened.
I understand the logic, but I've think you've traced the cord too far back to the wall. First of all, you cannot hold citizen's responsible for the government's actions, they are trying to sustain their families, and most of all, not everyone agrees with their government's decisions.
Also, by the same theory, you would be a valid target even though your intentions are completely against your government's decisions.
In addition, please keep in mind, they chose to attack the WTC during day, when there would be the maximum amount of civilians, so they weren't doing it to destroy the just the two towers.
You may disagree, but intentionally killing civilians is <i>never</i> acceptable, <i>never</i>
Excellent point.
IF the WTC was destroyed at night, or on a weekend night, when it was sparsely populated, I <i>might</i> be inclined to believe it was a military target.
So because they work in the US, and the money went to pay taxes, and the government used those taxes for a number of things, including supporting dictators... they are legitimate targets? That logic means that every US citizen is considered fair game. Hell, McDonalds is a symbol of US power. Lets kill the teenagers who work there. Hey, I work at a themepark. They're places of excess. What do you say we let the terrorists cap me, huh?
I'm getting pretty tired of all this American Hate on these forums. I'm fine with a policy debate, but when you attempt to justify killing civillans for a political gains, when you proclaim an all consuming hatred for a country's freely elected leader... that crosses the line.
America isn't perfect, nothing is. But its damn better than the alternative.
IF it were a military target, this would be no different than using people as human sheilds, which has been known to happen, hence the people in the building have no relation to the validity of the building as a military target.
What he left out and I would like to point out, is that even when we bomb targets and kill civilians, the targets we bomb have some sort of military value. Even though Grendal pointed out that the WTC generates wealth, and if wealth was the target then the bombing was legit, a closer look at what the WTC actually was would reveal how inappropriate it was to bomb it. Every singe company that occupied that building had off-site backup of their entire operations because of the first bombings in the early 90s. Second, these companies were back to full force within a few days of the attacks. This means that it really was an act of terror that served no other purpose but to intimidate the victims.
Grendel, would you consider a car bomb at a large bank a legitimate way to wage war as well? Same diff.
At least in a legitamate war people know its comming man. BTW the aniversary is only 3 days away I hope you pay close attention to the TV and radio on that day Gren.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
In direct contrast, I feel that the citizens ARE responsible for their governments actions in a republic like ours. Additonally, it is their <i>obligation</i> to maintain the checks and balances within this nation, and when necessary, remove the government and/or the members of government that threaten our liberty, and sustain an equilibrium of control and freedom in this nation.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><i>What country before ever existed a century & a half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. </i> -- Thomas Jefferson<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Simply, it is our duty as citizens of this nation to keep close watch on our leaders and their actions and be vigilant in that duty. So many things have occurred since the current administration came to power that directly threaten the civil liberties of our citizens that at times it is amazing that there has been no revocation of the president's affronts to freedom.
As far as the WTC and its legitimacy as a target, I have always felt somewhat cynical any time a US citizen decries the death of civilians. The incendiary bombing of Tokyo in WWII killed over one <i>million</i> Japanese, and the vast majority of those were anything but military in nature. Yes, that was a declared war, but when 90% of the deaths in a campaign are civilian, that's not collateral damage, that's total war. What happened in NYC was tragic, and for many, nothing more than a story to tell or a statistic in a history almanac. Anyone that wishes to say that a private citizen of a nation can't wage war legitimately then denies the legitimacy of any American at the time of our Revolution. They deny the legitimacy of the French patriots of the French Revolution. The deny the legitimacy of any warlord the US has done business with in Afghanistan. The size of the following does not lend itself to legitimacy, it just makes the group far more amenable to world interests to demonstrate that it's a <i>significant</i> portion of the minority group instead of some "splinter" group. Well, here's some news for you: there are many nations in which the MAJORITY passionately and fervently dislikes or hates the United States and would fight us if they could. Grendel brings up a decent perspective on a subject, and refreshingly innovative in its approach. Great thread, great posts for the most part.
The corporations and the senior management of those corporations are the ones that are engaging in economic "terrorism" (since it's not actually openly declared) on various third world nations. A strike at the WTC <b>was</b> a strike at many of the people <i>directly responsible</i> for the deaths of foreign citizens.
Some of you seem to be under the misapprehension that governments run countries and corporations do what they are told. I would urge you to examine your legal system and your taxation system and to follow the careers of your politicians to discover just how vastly inaccurate a world view this is.
Your comments that the fact that the WTC is not a military target based on the fact "civilians" work there chose to ignore my initial underlining of the fact that civilians are a justifiable military target, based on the work they carry out. If that work contributes to the deliberate undermining of political stability, health-care, logistics and human rights of foreign nations, it becomes a justifiable military target. This is something every single army in the history of warfare has been 100% on-board with, the USAF as much as anyone else.
The concept that the Afghanistan men, women and children, the bakers, the schoolteachers, the mothers, the holy men, the artists and musicians, who died in screaming agony with razor sharp munitions in their eyes and intestines, who watched their children, their brothers, their parents dying and rotting away without medical care were somehow justifiable casualties, yet some of the richest people on earth in the WTC weren't, astounds me.
Directors of companies and senior staff of trans-national corporations <b>make decisions every day that they know will result in the death of people</b>. They just don't care because they know that the people who suffer from their decisions don't have the power to strike back. Well, this time they found a way.
Wars are not just fought on battlefields. After Vietnam and the cold war, I'd have thought this fact would be apparent to most people. In fact you don't win a war by killing the enemy. You win a war by destroying their ability to fight back. This can be by attacking their productive means, their chain of command, or their <i>will</i> to fight.
The attack on the World Trade Centre achieved all three of those objectives to varying degrees. Most importantly to Al Queda, it made a lot of people <b>aware that a war was being fought</b>. That was the primary objective. The only difference between terrorism and warfare is the ability of the combatants to engage in open conflict.
Finally, to respond to the concept that profiting from other people's death and suffering isn't warfare, I'd initially say, "duh?". After that, I'd suggest that you go and look at the reason for every single war in the history of mankind and find out why they happened. It usually boils down to debts involving telegraph poles, or something similar.
Wars aren't generally fought over ethical standpoints. They are fought over money or to get re-elected, which boils down to the same thing.
I'm not suggesting in the slightest that the attack was morally justified because I don't think war ever is. Sometimes however, it is necessary to get a point across. The reasons for the war and who is fighting and for what, I'll be quite happy to discuss on another thread. My point here is that by choosing to end the lives of millions of people in other countries, you make yourself a target. When you knock someone to the ground, you cannot reasonably expect them to hit you in the face. Sometimes, your nuts are all they can reach. If Al Queda could have destroyed Fort Bragg and Edwards Air Force base, you bet they would have.
There's an adage in policework, "follow the money."
I did a degree which focused on some of these wrong-doings. Depite most of the degree being a bunch of tree-hugging hippy crap, it did serve to open my eyes on a few subjects.
I also went to school with politicians and people who serve as CEOs of these type of corporations. If you choose not to believe me or choose not to research the above for yourself, feel free to disregard what I have said.
The information is freely available on the net and at Company House (or your equivalent in your country of origin). I'm no more going to present a dossier of evidence to you of corporate wrong-doing and exploitation than I would spend time justifying my belief that water is composed of 2 hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom.
I guess Al Queda attacked out of spite, or because they were drunk? Like some kind of international hazing?
For those of you who like a little humour along with your incisive political commentary, I suggest you take a butcher's hook at the following link:
<a href='http://www.mtcp.co.uk/' target='_blank'>The Mark Thomas Comedy Product</a>.
For those of you outside of the UK, Mark Thomas is a stand-up comedian and political activist who spends his time tirelessly fighting corporate injustice and the everyday crushing of civil liberties that those powerful enough to not have to follow laws engage in on a daily basis.
EDIT
Sorry Grendel. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->
/EDIT
So sum up Grendel's argument: because mulitanational corpoations and not foreign governments are the reasons for horrible living conditions (which terrorism is rooted in), the companies and employees in the WTC are legitimate targets.
Couple problems...
1. You're assuming that corporations are the problem. Corporations are the solution. More 'sweatshops' = more jobs = more competition for workers = better jobs = more money = more local buisness = more competition for jobs = more money =... and so on. This is happeneing slowly on a global scale and is the ONLY way poverty can be solved. Proof? The American indust. rev. It is a slow and painful process, but its the only one that works. Multianational corporations do bad stuff. The problem is that foreign governments are not democracies, so the people have no voice to force the government to protect their INALIENABLE rights. That is the responsibilty of the government. The responsibility of coporations is to return a profit.
2. Terrorism is not based in poverty. All of the 9/11 hijackers came from middle class families (several from secular houses as well.) Also, Bin Laden is from a family of billionares. Anti-Capitalist hippies use the Poverty=Terror argument only to advance their own agenda. Why are terror supporting nations in control of the most valuable commodity in the world? They should run the show! They don't, not because of western exploitation, but becasue they reject democracy and capitalism.
gg
So sum up Grendel's argument: because mulitanational corpoations and not foreign governments are the reasons for horrible living conditions (which terrorism is rooted in), the companies and employees in the WTC are legitimate targets.
Couple problems...
1. You're assuming that corporations are the problem. Corporations are the solution. More 'sweatshops' = more jobs = more competition for workers = better jobs = more money = more local buisness = more competition for jobs = more money =... and so on. This is happeneing slowly on a global scale and is the ONLY way poverty can be solved. Proof? The American indust. rev. It is a slow and painful process, but its the only one that works. Multianational corporations do bad stuff. The problem is that foreign governments are not democracies, so the people have no voice to force the government to protect their INALIENABLE rights. That is the responsibilty of the government. The responsibility of coporations is to return a profit.
2. Terrorism is not based in poverty. All of the 9/11 hijackers came from middle class families (several from secular houses as well.) Also, Bin Laden is from a family of billionares. Anti-Capitalist hippies use the Poverty=Terror argument only to advance their own agenda. Why are terror supporting nations in control of the most valuable commodity in the world? They should run the show! They don't, not because of western exploitation, but becasue they reject democracy and capitalism.
gg <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1) I'm not making any statement with regards to the validity of their claim, merely their basis for choosing targets. A column of armoured vehicles in Iraq remain a valid military target even if the entire reason for invasion is bogus. Argue the point. Responsibility does not lie merely in the hands of the government, otherwise by that logic anyone involved in the extermination of jews outside of Hitler's cabinet is innocent of wrong-doing. If that's your point, fine, I respect it even if I disagree with it.
2) Terrorism isn't entirely based in poverty, I would agree. But the two are linked. Just because someone believes in a cause does not mean that they actually have to be a part of the people being subjugated. I'd point to NORAID as a good example of that. And the vast majority of people involved on the lower end of terrorism are relatively poor. Certainly, the upper echelons aren't, that's why they got into the business, to get rich. See how it all comes back to a desire for wealth?
No one knew about Oil in the Persian Gulf until after World War II. If they had, I guarantee you a map of the world would look very different today. Look how it's changing already.
2. I agree that the WTC was a good target for the terrorists. It was not valid in the military sense though. It was a symbol of American economic power and of American prosperity. The responsibility applies to citizens, but only if they had some active role in what was currently happening. Camp gaurds, registered Nazis, and those who helped Hitler get into power share responsibility, each to different degrees of course.
3. The supporters of terrorism are generally poor, true. They view terrorism as a method to attack those who are responsible for their position in life, to which Western civ can be blamed as a whole. That does not justify terrorism though. The arab world would be infinitely better shape if they devoted their energy into self improvement and cultural revival rather than terrorism. Forgive and look forward is a western principle, so it isn't likely to happen.