BF2S Forums Were the World Trade Center's Towers legitimate military targets ?

yes, that part of the geneva conventions was adopted in 1949. but the hague convention X deals with exactly the same issues, and has been in effect since 1907. they just copied it into the geneva conventions so that everything would be under one set of documents.

the point is that there WERE guidelines for dealing with civilians at the time all those atrocities occured. whether it is the geneva or hague conventions is only technicality. my argument still stands, countries don't obey these rules unless they find it politically convenient to do so.

Last edited by Krappyappy (2005-12-13 14:39:01)

Horseman 77 wrote:

Were the World Trade Center's  Twin Towers legitimate military targets?

Is there such a thing as a target that's off limits in this day and age?

Menachem Bagan said a  "  Terrorist is a patriot without an Air Force. "

Whether he was talking about the PLO or his own days as a Terrorist I have know Idea.

I was close to ground Zero in a Subway when both planes hit. I watched the Second tower fall From a nearby roof top. I worked at the site in the for the first few days.
I knew a few people who died there.

My feeling was The got us, I always expected it and it was a legit target.
I don't think anything is out of bounds in a War.
I just dont understand  the Glee that some people have about the event.

What are your thoughts

Of course they were viable military targets. I know a lot of people don't want to hear that, but it's the truth. Let me explain.
"The reason behind terrorists is to terrorise", and in no other situation is this shown to such a graphic and effective extent. The key to this attack, and the reasoning behind it, was to instill fear into the general public and make them think that where-ever they are they can be attacked. They will panic and put pressure on the government to fight back. The government has two choices:
1. Attack (in this case, it would seem at the immediate time of crisis to be Muslims. Beware Islamaphobia).
2. Make 'passive attacks' - trying to probe into how this situation was coming about.

Now, the US government did a fairly sensible thing in a mix of both, but they have not (beware - politicians aren't great military strategists, at least in the modern age...think of Genghis Kahn...) consolidated their position. IN the long run, it was a catastrophic failure. The public weren't satisifed with vengeance and a 'secured safety' while the attacks only brought about more hatred and sectarianism (Islamaphobia...).

Truly, the chaos caused from these bombings have had startling repercussions throughout quite a few years, and those incidents still affect decisions made today. Truly, the terrorists objectives were acheived, making this a viable military target to further their aim. They will do anything to win, and so we are practically doomed to lose - we are fighting a possessed people with one sole intent, to be left alone. If anyone has read 'The HitchHiker's Guide to the Galaxy' think of the people of Krikket and in this you will find a startling comparison. The prediciton for the future of our and their people's have a strong possiblity of having the same outcome. Whether you read it and comprehend what I mean by this comparison, I leave that up to you. Send me a PM if you want a more comprehensive version of this analysis. I really haven't the will to write in such depth anymore.

SharkyMcshark wrote:

Well, in answer to the question, they were not legitimate MILITARY targets, but as far as a target that could be struck to hurt the US, they were right up there

agreed, they were a target. theoretically anything could be a target, but a military target? No. They killed civilians, that was the goal. period. you could argue the buildings were a target, but they were just buildings holding civilian businesses, not legitimate military target or value. taking down those buildings does NOTHING to the economy if you want to argue that was their ultimate goal.

to give further evidence to what i mean, ill refer you to the two atom bombs dropped on japan. both bombs killed an incredible number of civilians, but the targets were major industrial centers and military bases, not just to kill civilians. targeting the WTC was just to kill civilians for shock value. too bad unlike all the other previous administrations Bush didn't cave after an attack and pull troops out of places. instead we put a 1/4 million troops in places they didnt really want us. OOPS!!!!! strategy backfired.

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

comet241 wrote:

SharkyMcshark wrote:

Well, in answer to the question, they were not legitimate MILITARY targets, but as far as a target that could be struck to hurt the US, they were right up there

agreed, they were a target. theoretically anything could be a target, but a military target? No. They killed civilians, that was the goal. period. you could argue the buildings were a target, but they were just buildings holding civilian businesses, not legitimate military target or value. taking down those buildings does NOTHING to the economy if you want to argue that was their ultimate goal.

to give further evidence to what i mean, ill refer you to the two atom bombs dropped on japan. both bombs killed an incredible number of civilians, but the targets were major industrial centers and military bases, not just to kill civilians. targeting the WTC was just to kill civilians for shock value. too bad unlike all the other previous administrations Bush didn't cave after an attack and pull troops out of places. instead we put a 1/4 million troops in places they didnt really want us. OOPS!!!!! strategy backfired.

All true, except that the CIA had offices in the WTC complex.  Prove that they weren't trying to disrupt intelligence.

http://www.wtc7.net/lcache/wtc7.htm

But WTC7 wasn't the target.  The planes hit WTC1 and 2.  It's not a legitimate "military" target, but it's already been pointed out that it wasn't carried out by a real military.  One of the complicating factors with the current Iran situation is that Iran doesn't fear the US attacking its civilians.  However, China and Russia would, so Iran has much better relations with them.  That's why China and Russia are opposed to sanctions against Iran.  The world knows that the US will try to bomb military targets and then drop a bunch of food.  China and Russia will bomb the shit out of everything and not worry about rebuilding.

kilgoretrout wrote:

But WTC7 wasn't the target.  The planes hit WTC1 and 2.  It's not a legitimate "military" target, but it's already been pointed out that it wasn't carried out by a real military.  One of the complicating factors with the current Iran situation is that Iran doesn't fear the US attacking its civilians.  However, China and Russia would, so Iran has much better relations with them.  That's why China and Russia are opposed to sanctions against Iran.  The world knows that the US will try to bomb military targets and then drop a bunch of food.  China and Russia will bomb the shit out of everything and not worry about rebuilding.

Uh, China and Russia are opposed to sanctions because they are allies and neighbors of Iran.

I would be surprised if the people who organised 9/11 had any idea there were any military offices or facilities in the vicinity of the World Trade Center. It was a true act of terrorism: aimed to kill large numbers of civilians in a highly symbolic fashion to demonstrate the weakness of the United States of America to potential recruits throughout the middle east. So talking of 'legitimacy' for me is a little pointless. They just got lucky that some military/intelligence facilities got nailed (apart from the Pentagon strike obviously, which could possibly be regarded as a legitimate target).

Bubbalo wrote:

The WTC towers were about as valid as Dresden.

Hey you agree, awesome.

The towers were not valid military targets, but we aren't dealing with a valid military.......that should be about the end of this thread right there.

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

The WTC towers were about as valid as Dresden.

Hey you agree, awesome.

The towers were not valid military targets, but we aren't dealing with a valid military.......that should be about the end of this thread right there.

Okay, so Israel was wrong to hit the hospital?

I think Hezzbollah was wrong to station there and the states was wrong to put the CIA there.

Ok everyone's wrong, next thread.

Bubbalo wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

Hey you agree, awesome.

The towers were not valid military targets, but we aren't dealing with a valid military.......that should be about the end of this thread right there.

The difference is, the WTC attacks were made by people with little other recourse, the Allies were winning when they bombed Dresden.................

So what, the intent and result were basically the same.  Sure Dresden was despicable, its in the past, can't do anything about it now........yawn.  Next.  Like I said, there's no point to debate about this.  Not a valid military target, but it's not a valid military. 

Dresden is a different story, if you're so sad about it and want a pick-me up, start another thread.

In a war with conscription you could argue civlians are a valid target, as you'd be targetting a source of troops.

I believe the WTC attacks were for the intimidation factor.  If they wanted the biggest bodycount possible they would of hit other targets such as crowded stadiums, or at least caught later flights.

No they weren't military targets, that's why it's called terrorism.

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

VspyVspy wrote:

No they weren't military targets, that's why it's called terrorism.

So the hospital where Hezzbollah were stationed wasn't a military target and so when Israel hit it, it was terrorism?

What are you, an anti-semite!?
jk

It wasn't a MILITARY target, but it was a target. These are terrorists who don't have values over killing innocent people, and to them it was a good target.