Greg2003

Exactly, if Al Qaeda believes it's doing god's work and US believes its doing god's work, then what's the difference? Even if we don't characterize it as god's work, but just as justified acts of violence to achieve morally just outcomes, then again, what's the difference?

Misso

One could just as well argue that Al Qaida (assuming they did it) was not so much targeting civilians as they were targeting symbols of the US: the WTC towers and the Pentagon. Civilian casualties are, in this scenario, "collateral damage". To my knowledge, Al Qaida's goal is to destroy the USin it's current form, like it was the US's goal to destroy Iraq in it's then current form. It is, as a result of lack of real motives, debatable wheter the goal of the WTC attack was merely to cause civilian casualties. If the attack was with the sole intention of killing civilians, why did Al Qaida attack the Pentagon (which killed relatively few people) and not a set where there would have been more civilian casualties?


Just because something's called war doesn't mean it can't be terrorism. Using the state as an excuse cannot mask the fact that this war in Iraq was terrorism, and nothing more than that.

Gurdur

While I agree with Trientalis (I'm nowhere near as anti-American as super-sensitive Americans here believe), Misso here has made an extremely good point ----

since that was exactly the reasoning the USA used when it bombed the Serbian national radio/TV station, killing several civilians in the process.


______________

P.S: I was and am all for intervention in the Balkans; I just feel that that one particular bombing was over the top.

Mageth

None. He's dead already.

trientalis

Excellent points, Misso and Gurdur, but another quibble occurs to me. If the point of the exercise was to damage symbols of the US (i.e. the buildings themselves), why the use of civilian airliners and why attack during the day when those structures would be full of civilian workers and visitors? If one solely wanted to remove the buildings and civilian casualities were to be minimized, why not attack at night when the occupancy would be lowest?

As I say, you've got an excellent point regarding the use of violence for strategic and military purposes, and I agree that our bombing of the Serbian radio station was unacceptable (btw, can you suggest sources on that one---why on earth would a radio station be considered a valid target?), but the way the WTC attack was carried out still makes me think that maximizing civilian casualties was a major, if not THE major, purpose of the action.

Gurdur

Oh, I most certainly agree with you, trientalis;

Misso's point was that it could be argued that way, not that in fact it was so intended; and I was showing how it could be argued that way using another example.

Certainly, I believe that Al-Qaida went out to deliberately kill civilians, as well as attack a symbol;

certainly, I do not believe the Americans bombed the Serbian radio/TV station HQ just to kill civilians --- they simply wanted to stop the Serbian TV broadcasts, and they were willing to accept causing "collateral damage" in doing so.

My sources on the Serbian TV bombing were the usual news sources; there was a thread on it here at on time.
Much later tonight, or tomorrow, I'll make the effort of digging out the news archives items and the old thread for you.

Buddrow_Wilson

HMIWJK? I'm guessing almost all of them. There are a small number of christians in the country.

Kat_Somm_Faen

Now please let me know did Al Qaeda issue a press release on how much rejoicing was when they killed those people!

Please do not make little strawmen out of Al Qaeda's intentions. I admit I am no expert on terrorism but the best picture I can get from all the documentaries and news sources is that Al Qaeda is trying to protect Islam. They are not out there to kill people. They seem to be intent on saving the Islamic World from the infuelnce of the Great Satan. Movies, TV, radio, free love, architecture, economy you name it - these people feel that the Islamic way of life and the Islam itself is threatened by the "bad influences" on honest, pious, God-obiding muslims. You see a movie and they see a poster for sinning against Allah. You see an American base on Arabian soil they see the filthy infidels on sacred land of Mohammad.

They are strict, and I repeat STRICT followers of Koran and they, the very same way you make calculations about Serbian TV, make calculations about US. They see those 3000 people as a worthy price to pay for ridding Allah's green Earth of sin. They too, just like us, see a greater cause overriding the loss of life. While USA may seek democracy they seek that God's will be done. As much of the American public, they see themselves as inherently good and someone that is good can not be so bad, can they? You do believe in good intentions of US govenrment and some/most/all in the Muslim world see themselves as such... they just want A - is that sooooo evil, I ask you?

How are they different? Both want a higher goal and both see victims as a small price to pay for it... That is the core of the issue. Believe me that US Army has/had projections on numbers of casualties within American forces and Iraqis ( both civilian and armed forces ). Be sure they General Staff had the "worst case" scenario on the table presented to GW and the policy makers. They roughly knew what would happen - that is the job of the CIA and NSA. That is the job of the inteligence services. But those were also the risks and casualties they were willing to take. Remeber they saw the WORST CASE scenario and still decided that is the risk they are willing to take hence they were prepared to pay THAT price! And the worst case scenario projections will not be seen by the general public. Low American casualties are just icing on the cake. No1 looked at zero casualty projections and said "Lets hope for the best and go with it."

Further, you ask why did they chose civilian aircraft? Believe me if they had acces to B-2s they would have used those. They simply used the best weapon of opportunity that presented itself. If they could hijack a B-2 with a full compliment of bombs - what do you think would have they used that instead? That was a crime of opportunity and they are not in a position to chose. Also, a day raid has the most propaganda impact. They know they have one chance of using a specific method of attack and they make the most of it. They have no delusions that they can pull of another 9/11 and therefore they want to maximize the effect. If you had one shot of doing something - would you make it count? I thought as much. Is US Airforce had 1 day to bomb Serbia and not months - what would have they done? And after all they did bomb many a hospital and civilian area...

Some viewing material :

http://www.srpska-mreza.com/library/...ATO-shame.html

http://www.sramota.com/nato/aleksina...aleksinac1.jpg Its very specific... I see nothing but houses...

Please feel free to look around. Note how many civilian areas were hit. And please do remember that there is always some sinister plot that can be used to explain why...

In essence the same picture are available about Iraq but you will never see them being broadcast by "embedded reporters". And remeber that in all of those instances Saddam was hiding behind civilian shields... yeah right. Him and his 568829 body doubles.

azidhak

9/11 was just part of the Al-Quaidan "Shock and Awe" tactics. I hope Bust, after he is president, takes a trip to Belgium, where he may not leave for oh say twenty years...
Haakon

B34RZ0R

Well first I would have to believe in Jesus to think he would kill Iraqies (sp?) and then if I did.. oh nevermind

to qoute one poster on this topic:
"One quibble: Al-Qaeda knowingly and purposely targeted civilians, aka noncombatants, when they attacked the World Trade Center. As far as I know, the purpose of our attacks in Iraq was not to kill civilians"

I don't see this as a quibble as I believe BushyBush knew full well that the Iraqi army would bow down before an obviously superior military force (which we have been led to believe they did). With that assumption made then all of the washington warmongers knew full well that they would probobly end up killing more innocents than militants. Bush is a silly Christian fool/child with one hand on the bible and the other on the big red button (ok mild rant there). I know that I will wear my new INTERNATIONAL TERRORIST T-Shirt with pride (yeah the one with a pic of dubbya in the middle). I just don't like that if I travel to another country they will think 'hes from the US.. that bastard" I know anti-American sentiment is rising and I hate to say; rightfully so! I am ashamed that 'war' was waged in OUR NAMES!!! Thats my two bits...

Be Well

*Bear*