<!--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 agree that the WTC was a good target for the terrorists<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The WTC was a good target for what the terrorists were after.
A body count.
This was not an attack on corporations that were indirectly oppressing them. Please. a) bin laden could care less about his "people". This is his personal vindetta, and in fact he has brought MORE pain to the middle eastern people and 3rd world countries than would have ever come to them (indirectly or not) if he hadn't organized this.
b) I don't buy this "He was striking targets that keep the 3rd world countries down" BS. You will likely find NO measureable improvement in the 3rd world countries by striking the targets they struck. None. If that was his goal, then he was not successful. Which is fine because it was not his goal. He accomplished what he tried to do: kill as many Americans as possible. Rather than doing it himself (something one man cannot do), he did it by manipulating gullible and desperate religious fanatics, playing on religion to justify himself to these willing kamikazi's. And now he sits back in hiding where he's always been, while we strive to appease the outcry of our own citizens and struggle to give them some solace, all the while doing more harm than good. That was his purpose: to stir **** up between america and the middle east. And we're doing ourselves in falling for it. Do this enough and he won't have to fight america, he'll get the world to do it for him.
GrendelAll that is fear...Join Date: 2002-07-19Member: 970Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, NS2 Playtester
As I pointed out in my original post, clearly Al Queda's intention was NOT to kill as many Americans as possible. To point this out, I listed several ways in which he could have killed large numbers of civilians.
Do read the post you are arguing against please.
Regardless, you are still failing to answer the question.
I'd like you to respond by detailing to me in a credible fashion why people who make policy decisions that kill are not viable military targets. Most of the comments so far seem to be along the lines of "they don't wear uniforms" which is a highly simplistic world-view, or "so what if they are responsible?" which just dodges the question.
I suppose what I'm really asking you is to think about the fact that you aren't bothered by wealthy citizens causing the deaths of others for personal profit.
Bin Laden just didn't get up one day and say "Wow, I hate America". His supporters didn't either. They were pushed into this mode of thinking by a combination of the actions of American governments and American companies. A person who is willing to give their life for a cause has to have a very powerful driving force behind his or her conviction. Hence, it is self evidant that some things America and American corperations did caused a heck of a lot of resentment. Bin Laden and his followers loathe America and American corperations, and this hatred didn't come from no-where.
Al Quaeda is very sure of one thing: they are fighting back. Their attacks are retaliation for the actions of American governments and American corperations. The first shot, so Al Quaeda believes, was fired by the US. There has to be a reason for them thinking this way. A probable answer is that it is true.
Prior to September 11, the US government did not believe they were fighting a war, but Al Quaeda and other terrorist groups believed that a war had been going on for years. The embassy bombings in Africa and Bin Laden's repeated statements issuing declarations of total war against the US were proof that he and his followers believed a war was being fought. Just beause one side in a conflict believes that there is no war does not make such thinking true. From Al Quaeda's POV, the US started this war decades ago. That the US chose not to accept that they had started a conflict, or that no conflict was occuring, does not make them less of a target. Americas actions and the actions of the corperations it embraces convinced Al Quaeda that America was fighting against them. They decided to hit back. And in total war, anything and everything is a target.
No Ryo no, this cant be. We're back on the same side again.
I got a pm about what I said on the other thread about crushing the Iraqi's, and basically it was pointing out the inconsistency of my posts in the religious topics compared to my brutal opinions on the Iraqi's. I had a good think about it and while I always try and separate Religion from Politics, there is no way of dodging that my Iraqi stance if pure hypocracy. So I'm backing down from that, we really shouldnt be crushing the Iraqi's simply because they are stupid.
But back on topic. Absolutely correct. Ladin had repeatedly called for Jihad, war, death and destruction against the Americans. War had been declared, its just one side happened to be blissfully ignorant of the others capabilities and thus ignored the threat.
However, these people are extremists. You cant just be nicer to them now and say sorry and then it will be all good. They dont want the war to be over, they arent peace loving people that the US provoked into fighting back. They are a gang of vicious and cunning savages who need to be hunted down and neutralised.
After 1948 when the Israeli's won their war for nationhood, they tried to get along with the Palestinians, they really did. The world poured aid down on the Palestinians, tried to shift them from their camps and get them to help themselves back onto their feet.
And they downright refused to help themselves, prefering to remain miserable and keep the hate alive rather than make the best of it.
Was the WTC legit? Yes. Does that make the terrorists themselves anymore legit? NO!
<!--QuoteBegin--Ryo-Ohki+Sep 10 2003, 08:48 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Sep 10 2003, 08:48 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Al Quaeda is very sure of one thing: they are fighting back. Their attacks are retaliation for the actions of American governments and American corperations. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Wrong. The late support of the palestinian cause was an excuse to increase Al Quaeda's audience. Theses fundamentalists never fought capitalism (Bin Laden himself is one of worst mafiosi corporation leader around ; remember , he also was the leader of the Talibans defeating the Red Army in Afghanistan) , they fought the liberal way of life (allowing alcohol , sex outside marriage and religious diversity) , and the reason of their hatred towards America is that US troops are still occupying "holy ground" , Saudi Arabia , and now Iraq...
Imho we are lucky that the current "fundamentalist" Bush govt. doesn't cooperate with terrorists anymore , they just have so many common interests...
<!--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-->Do read the post you are arguing against please.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I DID read the post, as exhaustive as it was. I still stand by my points, and I still don't think attacking civilians was a legitimate target in this case. I'm not defending the things america does, however striking these targets did nothing to help 3rd world countries by "striking the corporations" that "keep them down". And, as mentioned, these targets were not struck at night, or on a weekend. Bin laden wanted a killcount and thats what he got. And thats what made the WTC a good target.
You can't say that they clearly did not want a killcount simply because they didn't strike a different target that, in your opinion, would be "better". Do you not see the obvious holes in that statement? Thats not a rock solid foundation to base an argument on bud.
GrendelAll that is fear...Join Date: 2002-07-19Member: 970Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, NS2 Playtester
<!--QuoteBegin--Stakhanov+Sep 10 2003, 12:10 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Stakhanov @ Sep 10 2003, 12:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Imho we are lucky that the current "fundamentalist" Bush govt. doesn't cooperate with terrorists anymore , they just have so many common interests... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You have heard of Columbia?
Some of you are taking this the wrong way..Grendel <b>isn't</b> saying killing all those people was right, he's talking about if it was really an act of terrorism, or rather an act of war. And I actually agree, if you don't have an army to fight with, guerrilla warfare is all you can do.
<!--QuoteBegin--Grendel+Sep 10 2003, 02:22 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Grendel @ Sep 10 2003, 02:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Stakhanov+Sep 10 2003, 12:10 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Stakhanov @ Sep 10 2003, 12:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Imho we are lucky that the current "fundamentalist" Bush govt. doesn't cooperate with terrorists anymore , they just have so many common interests... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You have heard of Columbia? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> uh ? No , I meant that American govts stopped working with Al Quaeda since they turned against them.
Well we've done alot of things that seem like a good idea at the time and then it comes back to bite us in the butt <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--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-->But to you, is there a difference between guerilla warfare and terrorism? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well there's not much differance between warfare and terrorism. Both are forms of organised conflict. The differance between terrorism and guerilla warfare is the same as the differance between Freedom Fighters and Terrorists. It's all based on viewpoint. The nation that is being attacked sees it's opponants as terrorists, the people supporting the other side see their forces as freedom fighters or guerillas. Same fecal matter, differant odor <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Imho WTC was just as justified target as Afghanistan for USA. Al Qaeda targeted a certain part of USA(corporations) and killed some civilians with WTC. USA targeted a certain part of Afghanistan(Al Qaeda) and killed Al Qaeda as well as some civilians. USA just prolly did more damage than Al Qaeda but that's offtopic now, most important thing was that the mourning families(who are btw sueing officials and Boeing over 9/11) were comforted with a bloody revenge.
Hence I don't see the difference of USA's terrorism and Al Qaedas terrorism. Both want to do good for their own people, at any cost.
Note: Al Quaeda was founded with the intention of removing any non-muslimic troops from Saudi-Arabia, which includes Mecca and thus the holiest place in the Islamic universe. This and the fact that he profited from capitalism himself does however not necessarily mean that Bin Laden isn't fighting American corporations with all feriocity he can muster, too; America and everything that belongs to it is of the devil, after all...
<!--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-->There's an adage in policework, "follow the money."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's a lot of valid points for why Al Queda could attack the towers, but it makes me a bit nervous, because many of the same logical connections would justify the United States annihilating Saudi Arabia in response.
Theres a story that in the philippines when islamic terrorists were attacking general pershings garrison. He captured them, had them dig their own graves, and then were shot with bullets dipped in pig blood. They were then buried with pig guts poured in their graves. He let one prisoner to survive to tell the others.
There were no more attacks on us from islamic terrorists in the philippines for 50 years.
In todays world, with mass media and everyone having information at their fingertips, I doubt something like this would fly; effective or not. In addition, this is also sometimes considered an urban myth, no one is sure if pershing really did that or not.
Still though, I sometimes wonder what the effect would be if we picked up the remains of the terrorists from 9/11 and buried them in pigskin on national TV.
There's a lot of valid points for why Al Queda could attack the towers, but it makes me a bit nervous, because many of the same logical connections would justify the United States annihilating Saudi Arabia in response. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I have no doubt that intelligence estimates covering precisely that situation have passed Bush's desk.
This sounds a little bit too much like Michael Moore there Grendal.
How can the WTC become a legitimite target, especially when the weapons used to attack the towers, were indeed filled with many people who were simply just up for a plane ride.
Our attacks on Afghanstian were justfied in every way. We didn't go knocking at their door and pointlessly drop bombs on them, they brought the war to us FIRST, which is NOT a good thing, as we should have fished them out before, but alas, we shoot missiles at a tooth paste factory so a president can take the peoples minds of his little sex scandal.....
We live in a Capitlistic society, and while that does encourage some greed, many of your accusations against those corporations are old, sterotypes brought up in newspaper editorals by blatent liberals across the nation. The corporations may get a little out of hand, but they aren't *as* evil as some people make them out to be. Hell, if it weren't for them, I wouldn't have had a job, as crappy as it is.
<!--QuoteBegin--Burncycle+Sep 10 2003, 03:55 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Burncycle @ Sep 10 2003, 03:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> True. You haven't won much if you sacrifice what you stand for to acheive victory.
On the other hand, unorthodox tactics requires equally unorthodox tactics to counter it, or we'll continue to take hits with little progress <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Exactly. We shouldn't be playing the good guy anymore, I'm to the point where if someone so much as gives us a funny look, we should bomb them to hell... Well, not THAT far, but yea.
For crying out loud when will you Americans realise. You have fingers in a LOT of pies. Just about every policy decision you people make can have fatal consequences for someone somewhere.
I'd really hate to see the bodycount of US foreign policy decisions and shifts. The terrorists werent sitting in Iraq one day when one of em stood up and said - "Geez I'm bored, we need a good Jihad to get us out of this rut, why not America?"
You never get to see the impact that your decisions have because Americans are notoriously ignorant of the world around them.
The American meddling in other nations affairs is common knowledge. Chile and Israel to name two.
Its the same as in the First and Second WW. The Americans were supplying the enemies of Germany with weapons and ammunition. Yet they couldnt understand why the Germans would continue with dastardly attacks on their merchant convoys.
My enemies friend is my enemy. And apart from its international meddling, America is also the supporter of the Jews. And so with every bomb that falls in palestine the terrorists think - "damn Jews, and damn Americans for supplying them".
You asked for it. You cannot mess with other nations and simply expect that they wont respond simply because your general population is blissfully ignorant of the meddling of its Government.
EDIT And I feel this also deals with the myth that the Americans are any better. So why not give these terrorists something to fear? Bury them with pigs blood. Send them to hell. The higher moral ground means little when you are counting the bodies.
<!--QuoteBegin--Xzilen+Sep 11 2003, 01:12 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Xzilen @ Sep 11 2003, 01:12 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> This sounds a little bit too much like Michael Moore there Grendal. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> And how's that a bad thing?
<!--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-->How can the WTC become a legitimite target, especially when the weapons used to attack the towers, were indeed filled with many people who were simply just up for a plane ride.
Our attacks on Afghanstian were justfied in every way. We didn't go knocking at their door and pointlessly drop bombs on them, they brought the war to us FIRST, which is NOT a good thing, as we should have fished them out before, but alas, we shoot missiles at a tooth paste factory so a president can take the peoples minds of his little sex scandal.....<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
OK, now slow down. The WTC attacks were <i>not</i> organized by the Taliban. They were organized by a man who was offered refuge by the Taliban, true, but 'they' did <i>not</i> carry out the strikes. According to the logic that someone allowing an enemy into their country has "brought the war to us", the first nuke should've landed in Switzerland, which clearly allowed Nazi Germany to secure its gold there.
<!--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-->We live in a Capitlistic society, and while that does encourage some greed, many of your accusations against those corporations are old, sterotypes brought up in newspaper editorals by blatent liberals across the nation. The corporations may get a little out of hand, but they aren't *as* evil as some people make them out to be. Hell, if it weren't for them, I wouldn't have had a job, as crappy as it is.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is there anything you can back that "stereotypes brought up in newspaper editorals by blatent liberals" up with? I'm honestly getting fed up with this constant political paranoia: Something doesn't fit in your opinion? It's got to be propaganda by the other side. Life isn't that easy, fellas.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Sep 11 2003, 03:33 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Sep 11 2003, 03:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Is there anything you can back that "stereotypes brought up in newspaper editorals by blatent liberals" up with? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> It would be nice at least if grendel documented his accusations. It may be satisfying academically to assume that they're true and see what the logical result is, but I for one have been staying out of this because these premises are pretty nebulous. "economic warfare" isn't exactly a well defined term. As near as I can tell Burger King and McDonalds do that everyday with the scores listed every fifteen minutes in annoying ads. If that doesn't fit under the definition of "economic warfare" then someone really needs to spell it out for me.
I'll have to agree that I'd appreciate an elaboration by Grendel. I know a fair share of 'warefare-like' corporate policies, such as the medical companies with patents on AIDS-meds refusing African countries the right to manufacture cheap meds with the same ingredients to tend to their populations, but a more sophisticated backing of the argument would indeed be helpful.
Thousands of people died in those towers and you post THIS!!! I had many friedns lose family members in those towers for no reason. If a man gos to work filing legislature he does not expect to die or even get hurt. There is no excusing the actions of the terrorists on September 11th at all. Civilian casualties are an unavoidable fact in any war but never should a civilian center be the TARGET for the attack. If a person gets caught in a crossfire is it the soldier's fault he dies? No. If a soldier breaks into a house and slaughters them than yes. Have you ever paintballed? I often get hit by my own team or after I've been hit and walking away from the field. People don't mean to hit me but they do because it's unavoidable.
Re-read the very first post (and maybe take the time to read the rest, too, cause you apparently didn't), and you'll notice that Grendel specifically states that this is not meant as a justification of the attacks, but as general criticism towards modern war praxis on both sides.
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. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> OMG are you serious? Are you really serious? We do trade with foreign countries that may have used sweatshops to make the goods. Do you cause that to happen because of it? We do not own or have any knowledge where the goods we buy comefrom exactly. If I buy bananas from a company in Brazil called Fair Weather that uses slave labor AM I TO BLAME BECAUSE I CAN'T KNOW THAT? Crush the miserable eh Marine01? If a group of people atttacked and killed a large number of people in your country what would you government do? It would strike back. If someone shoots you with a gun once and you don't die they'll shoot you again. If a terrorist attacks a country and isn't struck back what do you think he'll do?
ok. the average american citizen doesnt rape wealth from the poor. sadly this is not the case in the average american corporation (well i shouldnt say average). what i mean to say is, just beacause you hae no knowledge of it, doesnt neccesarily mean its not going on. you think the wealthy dont look out for their interests? that they are just holding their money in banks letting interest grow? not actively 'doing over' people who are far away (read, 'that dont matter'). the point is american citizens and american corporations are not the same thing, dont take this personally, i dont think hes trying to blame you in particular. im gunna stop here, but you get the point.
Yes you're right that doesn't mean it's not happening. My question was how can you stop it if you don't know whats happening? You could cripple your business and possibly theirs for no reason r maybe you're doing it cause they're practices are not fair? You can't tell so you assume that they don't use unfair practices so you can give money to your employees, employers, yourself, and all the people at the potentially innocent company out there.
Comments
The WTC was a good target for what the terrorists were after.
A body count.
This was not an attack on corporations that were indirectly oppressing them. Please.
a) bin laden could care less about his "people". This is his personal vindetta, and in fact he has brought MORE pain to the middle eastern people and 3rd world countries than would have ever come to them (indirectly or not) if he hadn't organized this.
b) I don't buy this "He was striking targets that keep the 3rd world countries down" BS. You will likely find NO measureable improvement in the 3rd world countries by striking the targets they struck. None. If that was his goal, then he was not successful. Which is fine because it was not his goal. He accomplished what he tried to do: kill as many Americans as possible. Rather than doing it himself (something one man cannot do), he did it by manipulating gullible and desperate religious fanatics, playing on religion to justify himself to these willing kamikazi's. And now he sits back in hiding where he's always been, while we strive to appease the outcry of our own citizens and struggle to give them some solace, all the while doing more harm than good. That was his purpose: to stir **** up between america and the middle east. And we're doing ourselves in falling for it. Do this enough and he won't have to fight america, he'll get the world to do it for him.
Do read the post you are arguing against please.
Regardless, you are still failing to answer the question.
I'd like you to respond by detailing to me in a credible fashion why people who make policy decisions that kill are not viable military targets. Most of the comments so far seem to be along the lines of "they don't wear uniforms" which is a highly simplistic world-view, or "so what if they are responsible?" which just dodges the question.
I suppose what I'm really asking you is to think about the fact that you aren't bothered by wealthy citizens causing the deaths of others for personal profit.
Al Quaeda is very sure of one thing: they are fighting back. Their attacks are retaliation for the actions of American governments and American corperations. The first shot, so Al Quaeda believes, was fired by the US. There has to be a reason for them thinking this way. A probable answer is that it is true.
Prior to September 11, the US government did not believe they were fighting a war, but Al Quaeda and other terrorist groups believed that a war had been going on for years. The embassy bombings in Africa and Bin Laden's repeated statements issuing declarations of total war against the US were proof that he and his followers believed a war was being fought. Just beause one side in a conflict believes that there is no war does not make such thinking true. From Al Quaeda's POV, the US started this war decades ago. That the US chose not to accept that they had started a conflict, or that no conflict was occuring, does not make them less of a target. Americas actions and the actions of the corperations it embraces convinced Al Quaeda that America was fighting against them. They decided to hit back. And in total war, anything and everything is a target.
I got a pm about what I said on the other thread about crushing the Iraqi's, and basically it was pointing out the inconsistency of my posts in the religious topics compared to my brutal opinions on the Iraqi's. I had a good think about it and while I always try and separate Religion from Politics, there is no way of dodging that my Iraqi stance if pure hypocracy. So I'm backing down from that, we really shouldnt be crushing the Iraqi's simply because they are stupid.
But back on topic. Absolutely correct. Ladin had repeatedly called for Jihad, war, death and destruction against the Americans. War had been declared, its just one side happened to be blissfully ignorant of the others capabilities and thus ignored the threat.
However, these people are extremists. You cant just be nicer to them now and say sorry and then it will be all good. They dont want the war to be over, they arent peace loving people that the US provoked into fighting back. They are a gang of vicious and cunning savages who need to be hunted down and neutralised.
After 1948 when the Israeli's won their war for nationhood, they tried to get along with the Palestinians, they really did. The world poured aid down on the Palestinians, tried to shift them from their camps and get them to help themselves back onto their feet.
And they downright refused to help themselves, prefering to remain miserable and keep the hate alive rather than make the best of it.
Was the WTC legit? Yes. Does that make the terrorists themselves anymore legit? NO!
Wrong. The late support of the palestinian cause was an excuse to increase Al Quaeda's audience. Theses fundamentalists never fought capitalism (Bin Laden himself is one of worst mafiosi corporation leader around ; remember , he also was the leader of the Talibans defeating the Red Army in Afghanistan) , they fought the liberal way of life (allowing alcohol , sex outside marriage and religious diversity) , and the reason of their hatred towards America is that US troops are still occupying "holy ground" , Saudi Arabia , and now Iraq...
Imho we are lucky that the current "fundamentalist" Bush govt. doesn't cooperate with terrorists anymore , they just have so many common interests...
I DID read the post, as exhaustive as it was. I still stand by my points, and I still don't think attacking civilians was a legitimate target in this case. I'm not defending the things america does, however striking these targets did nothing to help 3rd world countries by "striking the corporations" that "keep them down". And, as mentioned, these targets were not struck at night, or on a weekend. Bin laden wanted a killcount and thats what he got. And thats what made the WTC a good target.
You can't say that they clearly did not want a killcount simply because they didn't strike a different target that, in your opinion, would be "better". Do you not see the obvious holes in that statement? Thats not a rock solid foundation to base an argument on bud.
You have heard of Columbia?
But to you, is there a difference between guerilla warfare and terrorism?
You have heard of Columbia? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
uh ? No , I meant that American govts stopped working with Al Quaeda since they turned against them.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well there's not much differance between warfare and terrorism. Both are forms of organised conflict. The differance between terrorism and guerilla warfare is the same as the differance between Freedom Fighters and Terrorists. It's all based on viewpoint. The nation that is being attacked sees it's opponants as terrorists, the people supporting the other side see their forces as freedom fighters or guerillas. Same fecal matter, differant odor <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Hence I don't see the difference of USA's terrorism and Al Qaedas terrorism. Both want to do good for their own people, at any cost.
/Rambling rant
This and the fact that he profited from capitalism himself does however not necessarily mean that Bin Laden isn't fighting American corporations with all feriocity he can muster, too; America and everything that belongs to it is of the devil, after all...
There's a lot of valid points for why Al Queda could attack the towers, but it makes me a bit nervous, because many of the same logical connections would justify the United States annihilating Saudi Arabia in response.
Theres a story that in the philippines when islamic terrorists were attacking general pershings garrison. He captured them, had them dig their own graves, and then were shot with bullets dipped in pig blood. They were then buried with pig guts poured in their graves. He let one prisoner to survive to tell the others.
There were no more attacks on us from islamic terrorists in the philippines for 50 years.
In todays world, with mass media and everyone having information at their fingertips, I doubt something like this would fly; effective or not. In addition, this is also sometimes considered an urban myth, no one is sure if pershing really did that or not.
Still though, I sometimes wonder what the effect would be if we picked up the remains of the terrorists from 9/11 and buried them in pigskin on national TV.
You haven't won much if you sacrifice what you stand for to acheive victory.
On the other hand, unorthodox tactics requires equally unorthodox tactics to counter it, or we'll continue to take hits with little progress
There's a lot of valid points for why Al Queda could attack the towers, but it makes me a bit nervous, because many of the same logical connections would justify the United States annihilating Saudi Arabia in response. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have no doubt that intelligence estimates covering precisely that situation have passed Bush's desk.
How can the WTC become a legitimite target, especially when the weapons used to attack the towers, were indeed filled with many people who were simply just up for a plane ride.
Our attacks on Afghanstian were justfied in every way. We didn't go knocking at their door and pointlessly drop bombs on them, they brought the war to us FIRST, which is NOT a good thing, as we should have fished them out before, but alas, we shoot missiles at a tooth paste factory so a president can take the peoples minds of his little sex scandal.....
We live in a Capitlistic society, and while that does encourage some greed, many of your accusations against those corporations are old, sterotypes brought up in newspaper editorals by blatent liberals across the nation. The corporations may get a little out of hand, but they aren't *as* evil as some people make them out to be. Hell, if it weren't for them, I wouldn't have had a job, as crappy as it is.
Anyways, I kind of got off topic, but yea...
You haven't won much if you sacrifice what you stand for to acheive victory.
On the other hand, unorthodox tactics requires equally unorthodox tactics to counter it, or we'll continue to take hits with little progress <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly. We shouldn't be playing the good guy anymore, I'm to the point where if someone so much as gives us a funny look, we should bomb them to hell... Well, not THAT far, but yea.
I'd really hate to see the bodycount of US foreign policy decisions and shifts. The terrorists werent sitting in Iraq one day when one of em stood up and said - "Geez I'm bored, we need a good Jihad to get us out of this rut, why not America?"
You never get to see the impact that your decisions have because Americans are notoriously ignorant of the world around them.
The American meddling in other nations affairs is common knowledge. Chile and Israel to name two.
Its the same as in the First and Second WW. The Americans were supplying the enemies of Germany with weapons and ammunition. Yet they couldnt understand why the Germans would continue with dastardly attacks on their merchant convoys.
My enemies friend is my enemy. And apart from its international meddling, America is also the supporter of the Jews. And so with every bomb that falls in palestine the terrorists think - "damn Jews, and damn Americans for supplying them".
You asked for it. You cannot mess with other nations and simply expect that they wont respond simply because your general population is blissfully ignorant of the meddling of its Government.
EDIT And I feel this also deals with the myth that the Americans are any better. So why not give these terrorists something to fear? Bury them with pigs blood. Send them to hell. The higher moral ground means little when you are counting the bodies.
And how's that a bad thing?
<!--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-->How can the WTC become a legitimite target, especially when the weapons used to attack the towers, were indeed filled with many people who were simply just up for a plane ride.
Our attacks on Afghanstian were justfied in every way. We didn't go knocking at their door and pointlessly drop bombs on them, they brought the war to us FIRST, which is NOT a good thing, as we should have fished them out before, but alas, we shoot missiles at a tooth paste factory so a president can take the peoples minds of his little sex scandal.....<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
OK, now slow down. The WTC attacks were <i>not</i> organized by the Taliban. They were organized by a man who was offered refuge by the Taliban, true, but 'they' did <i>not</i> carry out the strikes. According to the logic that someone allowing an enemy into their country has "brought the war to us", the first nuke should've landed in Switzerland, which clearly allowed Nazi Germany to secure its gold there.
<!--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-->We live in a Capitlistic society, and while that does encourage some greed, many of your accusations against those corporations are old, sterotypes brought up in newspaper editorals by blatent liberals across the nation. The corporations may get a little out of hand, but they aren't *as* evil as some people make them out to be. Hell, if it weren't for them, I wouldn't have had a job, as crappy as it is.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is there anything you can back that "stereotypes brought up in newspaper editorals by blatent liberals" up with? I'm honestly getting fed up with this constant political paranoia: Something doesn't fit in your opinion? It's got to be propaganda by the other side.
Life isn't that easy, fellas.
It would be nice at least if grendel documented his accusations. It may be satisfying academically to assume that they're true and see what the logical result is, but I for one have been staying out of this because these premises are pretty nebulous. "economic warfare" isn't exactly a well defined term. As near as I can tell Burger King and McDonalds do that everyday with the scores listed every fifteen minutes in annoying ads. If that doesn't fit under the definition of "economic warfare" then someone really needs to spell it out for me.
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. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
OMG are you serious? Are you really serious? We do trade with foreign countries that may have used sweatshops to make the goods. Do you cause that to happen because of it? We do not own or have any knowledge where the goods we buy comefrom exactly. If I buy bananas from a company in Brazil called Fair Weather that uses slave labor AM I TO BLAME BECAUSE I CAN'T KNOW THAT? Crush the miserable eh Marine01? If a group of people atttacked and killed a large number of people in your country what would you government do? It would strike back. If someone shoots you with a gun once and you don't die they'll shoot you again. If a terrorist attacks a country and isn't struck back what do you think he'll do?
you think the wealthy dont look out for their interests? that they are just holding their money in banks letting interest grow? not actively 'doing over' people who are far away (read, 'that dont matter').
the point is american citizens and american corporations are not the same thing, dont take this personally, i dont think hes trying to blame you in particular.
im gunna stop here, but you get the point.