Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen
I have to respectfully disagree, Tiptup. The 9/11 attacks, though they dastardly killed over 3,000 innocent civilians, primarily had a very disruptive effect on the entire U.S. economy. Thus, this particular act of terrorism was not merely the type of extortion we usually ascribe to these acts (i.e., attempting to coerce political change).
I don't know if bin Laden was really that saavy, but the 9/11 attack was not merely symbolic or extortionist ... it had a true and significant detremental effect on an entire nation via attack on civilian targets.
The effect of destroying the World Trade Towers on our country was terrible, but it did not threaten our ability to continue functioning in any truly fundamental way. The attack accomplished no clear goal of war that would lead to our "defeat." It was primarily an act of murder and terrorism.
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen
Tiptup, are you in any way suggesting that attacks on civilians which actually cause a nation to sustain damage are legitimate acts of war? Please clarify, if you wouldn't mind. As the only person participating in a civil discussion on an adult basis, I would hate to put words into your mouth.
I have to respectfully disagree, Tiptup. The 9/11 attacks, though they dastardly killed over 3,000 innocent civilians, primarily had a very disruptive effect on the entire U.S. economy. Thus, this particular act of terrorism was not merely the type of extortion we usually ascribe to these acts (i.e., attempting to coerce political change).
I don't know if bin Laden was really that saavy, but the 9/11 attack was not merely symbolic or extortionist ... it had a true and significant detremental effect on an entire nation via attack on civilian targets.
The effect of destroying the World Trade Towers on our country was terrible, but it did not threaten our ability to continue functioning in any truly fundamental way. The attack accomplished no clear goal of war that would lead to our "defeat." It was primarily an act of murder and terrorism.
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen
Tiptup, are you in any way suggesting that attacks on civilians which actually cause a nation to sustain damage are legitimate acts of war? Please clarify, if you wouldn't mind. As the only person participating in a civil discussion on an adult basis, I would hate to put words into your mouth.
Yes, awhile back I said that attacks on civilians who are important to an enemy war effort would be justified so long as the war itself was justified. There's nothing innocent about a society that supports an evil war, and the greater the degree to which it supports an evil war, the more it should be targeted with appropriately measured attacks.