I’m pretty sure they struck in the morning because they knew the morning flights had fewer passengers on them, so there was less chance of a successful resistance. You’re right about landmarks, but they wanted to kill as many people as they could in the process, let’s not kid ourselves.
I don’t totally disagree with Alde here, but the attacks were on US soil and AQ has directed more than a little hatred against America. It’s not exactly hard to see why the attacks are viewed the way they are.
Ok, Step by step.
While browsing SDMB, I stumble into this thread.
While reading through the thread, I stumble into this post, in which, Liberal seems to be saying that in spite of 3,000 dead Americans we are still embracing the American entrepreneurial spirit–haha, take that terrorists.
I reply with this post, in which I basically say that, from a terrorist’s perspective, they would easily trade 3,000 dead Americans for a few Americans getting rich/richer. Heck, the people making money out of the event are probably energetic go-getters who would be making money anyway. So, in terrorist-speak, it’s a fair trade. Again, this is from the terrorist’s perspective. I don’t pretend to know exactly how a terrorist thinks, but it seems logical that they can easily accept dead Americans in exchange for other Americans making money, who would probably make money anyway, due to their enterprising savvy. This post was a counter to Liberal’s post, who seems to saying that terrorists are put off because they didn’t derail the entrepreneurial spirit. That is how I intrepret his post.
Then, your post, expressing confusion as to the “laughing” portion of my post, and expressing that not all who died in the incident were, in fact, American.
Then, my response to you, in which I give the link to post to which I was responding in my original post. I am not arguing that all who died were American; I’m quite sure many who died were not. I am arguing that the terrorists don’t make the distinction. If you live, work, sight-see in America without the intent to do great bodily or structural harm, the terrorists consider you an American, and you deserve to die. In short, yes I am agreeing with you: not all who died were actual Americans. But if a terrorist thinks you’re an American…you *are * an American.
Do you think they chose to target the World Trade Center at the beginning of the work day to cause max casualties? Or do you believe they chose to target the World Trade Center at the beginning of the work day because it was an easier target than an abandoned warehouse at two in the morning? Which leads to…
I disagree. I think the terrorists number one priority is casualties. I think they planned the event to cause max casualties. The destruction of the WTC was just a juicy bonus. They couldn’t have imagined that the WTC would have collapsed. I don’t think anybody imagined that. If so, I don’t think so many rescue workers would have been in the buildings when it fell. Stone, steel, rubber and wood do not feel the effects of terrorism, people do. Buildings can be rebuilt, individual people cannot. Which do you fear more: the loss of your house or your life? Death has the highest index of terroristic effect. But sure, why not attack American symbolism while we’re at it.
In summary:
No, not all fatalities were American.
Terrorists do not care.
I was considering the terrorist perspective when I said “3,000 Americans died.”
Death before destruction.
I believe this is a reasonable intrepretation of how the average terrorist thinks.
No, those who sent them.
I particularly like the cartoons today here.
What does “Never Again” mean exactly? With all the terrorist prevention going on, I still believe a plane taking off from O’Hare can still hit the Sears Tower dead on, it’s not that far.
Except I think you can find quotes from Bin Laden about how they chose symbolic targets. If you just want to kill people, why choose the Pentagon and try for the White House? There aren’t that many people there. It’s about their meaning. There was no need to choose between death and destruction in any case.
Actually, I agree with you here. I think I down-played the importance of target selection regarding so-called ‘symbols’ regarding 9/11.
But I also still think that death outweighs symbolism overall. Otherwise we wouldn’t have to fear CBR attacks so much. My intuition tells me that terrorists think: kill Americans first; and if we can destroy an American cathredral while killing as many as possible, well, that’s the best target. I think the nature of the attack determined the target. As crazy as it sounds, I don’t think a CBR attack was as feasible as a hi-jack aircraft attack. So if the plan is to hi-jack airplanes, let’s choose symbolic buildings in which to pilot them. But if given a choice of destroying symbolic buildings and a few thousand people vs. a CBR attack killing tens of thousands of people and destroying no symbols; I think they would choose CBR every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
True, but it’s a meme that is well and truly dead now, Bush’s policies (and particularly the Iraq debacle) haven’t just polarised America, they’ve driven a wedge between the US and the rest of the world that just shouldn’t be there.
The maximisation of casualties seems to be a consistent feature of all the Al Q inspired terrorist acts. It was, after all, one of the first indications that the Madrid bombings were Al Q rather than ETA.
You may be right. Given the opportunity to kill 10,000 people in the middle of nowhere, I imagine they’d take it. Still, the Al Qaeda plans we’ve heard of since then have involved things like targeting banks and financial centers. Again, more symbolic value there than anything else, although they would hurt the economy and kill people as well. I think they regard America not so much as a country as the physical and financial center of the great American-Jewish conspiracy against Muslims or whtaever.
What the hell is this?
I think if you include the whole quotation:
it doesn’t seem as dubious as your snip of his quotation, but dubious none-the-less. Instead of the narrow view that your snip of his quotation seems to suggest–that all Japanese are idiots–I think he is just expressing the narrow view that all the Japanese are notorious for taking photographs. As I said…dubious at best.
What’s a CBR attack?
Also, a question. I understand the towers being viewed as “symbols”. But since their demise, they’re also being heralded as miracles of architecture. Were they always regarded as such? I could be wrong, but ISTR that when they were new, many people thought they were blah and boring, at best.
And for cryin’ out loud, when JFK was killed, there wasn’t a similar market for miniatures of Dealey Plaza.
A Chemical, Biological or Radiological attack.
I see. Thank you.
That’s a simple rewrite of history.
The indication of Al Qaeda was the simultaneous detonation of multiple explosions. That had never been attempted by ETA or by any other European group. (To say that it was a consistent feature of Al Qaeda attacks in Europe means that ummmmm maybe there might need to be other Al Qaeda attacks to compare it to?
Profit and wage are not synonyms.
I wasn’t around at the time, but I think you’re right. Talking to older New Yorkers I’ve gotten the impression most people thought they were very ugly. (I don’t think anyone ever considered them pretty. They were famous for being tall and that’s about it.) People whose apartments faced the wrong way also despised the towers for blocking their view. But I guess you can’t say anything bad about them anyone. :rolleyes: While we’re on the subject, the Freedom Tower is also ugly.
What profit would that be? The sub-minimum wage prisoners get for their work assignments, which is less than a dollar per hour in some states? Or income from book, TV, magazine, or film sales, which is confiscated in some states under various Son of Sam laws and used to pay restitution for their crimes.
That ain’t profit, my friend.
Robin
I’m not talking about just Europe (where did I say that?) - and the multiple explosions are totally irrelevant (killing a lot of people is easier with multiple bombs rather than just one – “ummmmm maybe” cause and effect?)
Major Conventional Terrorist Incidents 1980s to 2000
(not of course including Bali, Madrid, 9/11, Beslan etc) the high scores all seem to be Al Q related or lone loonies (Mc Vie) and criminals (Bogota, Colombia) not organised groups.
(Possible exception, Moscow apartment bombing 1999, usually blamed on Chechen separatists - I don’t know if there was any Al Q connection back then)
The IRA only managed 29 - the most they ever killed at once in nearly three decades of terrorism - and this was the “Real IRA” or “I can’t believe it’s not the IRA” or whatever the splinter group was called, IIRC the high death-toll was put down to the inexperience and desperation of this small group
Lib: Profit and wage are not synonyms.
MsRobyn: What profit would that be? The sub-minimum wage prisoners get for their work assignments, which is less than a dollar per hour in some states? Or income from book, TV, magazine, or film sales, which is confiscated in some states […] That ain’t profit, my friend.
Sorry for continuing the hijack, but I don’t understand these objections. In many cases, incarcerated prisoners have the option of voluntarily choosing to perform jobs for pay, either for the prison administration or for private contractors. They don’t get much pay as a rule, but they are choosing to work for the pay they’re offered and aren’t forced to do so.
Fundamentally, I don’t see how that wouldn’t count as selling one’s labor for profit, same as any other job. Same as a vendor who’s hired by a souvenir manufacturer to flog NYFD hats and other 9/11 memorabilia.
Or are you suggesting that the theoretical freedom to engage in economic transactions isn’t really meaningful unless the number of options and the financial rewards exceed a certain basic minimum? That is, people aren’t really free unless they’re earning a decent living? That’s the sort of argument we liberal living-wage advocates like to make, but I never thought I’d see Lib espousing it.
I think Aldebaran’s point stands: defining freedom purely in terms of economic activity is a very inadequate concept of freedom.