Terrorist Attacks

[eyeball]

The Trade Towers were not command and control centers. Your underlying premise is B.S.

Well, it's certainly a premise that's been alluded to in many essays on the root causes behind much of today's terrorism. Symbols are often military targets, look at Saddam's statue for example.

[eyeball]

Of course now that the WTC is going to be renamed the One World Trade Center...

How freaky is that?

Edited May 5, 2010 by eyeball

[M.Dancer]

According to Eyeball....this must be a target too..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_World_Financial_Center

..Moonbat

[eyeball]

Moonbat..

Ca ca poopy head.

[ToadBrother]

Well, it's certainly a premise that's been alluded to in many essays on the root causes behind much of today's terrorism. Symbols are often military targets, look at Saddam's statue for example.

I'm not saying it wasn't a symbolic victory for Al Qaeda. But as far as threatening anything meaningful as far as the corporate world goes, it's only real effect was to cause a bit of a dip in stocks. Even if the attacks had been spectacularly more successful, say, much greater damage to the Pentagon or even heavy damage to the White House, the US government has at least since the War of 1812 worked on the premise that there might be attacks designed specifically to take out some branch of the government. The entire system, on top of checks and balances, also allows for swift replacement of officials in the case of unforeseen death or illness. Just about every major position in the United States has a formalized method of replacement, and the Executive has the power to do appointments for key cabinet positions and even, if necessary, members of the Supreme Court. Even an attack on the Capitol Building might kill many Senators and Congressmen, but the Executive's recess and emergency powers plus very flexible quorum rules means that a spectacularly effective attack would not meaningfully undermine the US government (as we've seen from the Presidential assassinations and deaths, the system is built with the notion of continuity in mind).

Even the largest banks and corporations, if, say, some dirty bomb took down most of Wall Street, would persist as they're assets and management are highly diversified and geographically spread out. There's no conceivable way, for instance, to "take out" a company like IBM or Exxon Mobil. These companies, like the US government, all have governance contingencies.

I think the 9-11 attacks in fact demonstrated the underlying strength of the US government and commercial systems. Yes, it was shocking, yes it caused great fear and uncertainty, and yet because the system is built to withstand such unforeseen events and not just topple over, even a much more spectacularly successful attack wouldn't bring the system crashing down.

[bush_cheney2004]

So where do you think the US got the money it needed to as BC put it, to continue "command and control" of the known universe after the towers fell? Wasn't it obvious that was the concept he was putting across?

The only concept BC was "putting across" was complete mocking of your silly idea alltogether. The WTC towers struggled for years to gain occupancy and were initially hated on the classic NYC skyline.

[ToadBrother]

The only concept BC was "putting across" was complete mocking of your silly idea alltogether. The WTC towers struggled for years to gain occupancy and were initially hated on the classic NYC skyline.

Ahhh, but you're not considering the hidden 33 1/3th floor where the Illuminati hung out, their evil reptilian influence spreading out everywhere. Since 9-11 they've been forced to hang out at very major golf courses, thus putting off Tiger Wood's game and mentally programming him to screw every waitress he sees.

THEY LIVE, I tell you, THEY LIVE!

[eyeball]

I'm not saying it wasn't a symbolic victory for Al Qaeda.

I know, but the fact I never said it was a tactical victory hasn't stopped you from trying to imply that I did.

[ToadBrother]

I know, but the fact I never said it was a tactical victory hasn't stopped you from trying to imply that I did.

What else could you possibly have meant by "command and control". You basically asserted that the WTC was somehow some central center of some kind. The fact is it wasn't, and never really was.

[eyeball]

What else could you possibly have meant by "command and control". You basically asserted that the WTC was somehow some central center of some kind. The fact is it wasn't, and never really was.

It's name symbolically asserted that it was and that's why it was attacked.

Edited May 5, 2010 by eyeball

[M.Dancer]

I said civilian areas not twin towers. The WTC was more than just a symbol of the economic impetus behind most of the west's determination to be in a state of hegemony however, it was much like the Pentagon, a command and control center of the empire.

It bears noting what a fruitcake you are

[eyeball]

It bears noting what a fruitcake you are

And you're still a poopy-head.

[Oleg Bach]

The bad guys are so delluded that they think they are the good guys. The good guys are so delluded that they believe being a bad guy makes things good..it's a conundrum.

[ToadBrother]

It's name symbolically asserted that it was and that's why it was attacked.

It wasn't even that. There were probably twenty other more important targets in Manhattan than the WTC. I'd wager they probably picked as much because it's easy for a suicidal novice jetliner pilot to hit. To be honest, if they'd crashed into Wall Street, right down the middle, they would have done a lot more actual damage to US and international commerce.

The one thing I've often thought since 9-11 is that Al Qaeda has a lot of insanely brave, dedicated, cunning people, but probably not very many bright ones.

[eyeball]

..it's a conundrum.

Not really when it's recalled that what I actually said is; The vast majority of the victims of 9/11 are really not that different than the majority of victims in, say...Gaza, for example. Both suffer the consequences of being collateral damage and the often unwitting and unwilling human shields for the real combatants that are embedded within civilian areas.

The confusion stems from people who insist that instead I said The vast majority of the victims of 9/11 are really not that different than the majority of victims in, say...Gaza, for example. Both suffer the consequences of being collateral damage and the often unwitting and unwilling human shields for the real combatants that are embedded within the twin towers.

I actually never mentioned the WTC, until they did at which point I and others pointed out that the World Trade Center was widely viewed as a symbol of western domination and it was clearly in a civilian area, like the Pentagon. It's not my fault there are still people who treat this like a new revelation. Billions of people can incorporate this concept into a conversation without resorting to personal attacks. I really don't know what the problem is.

Calling the WTC a command and control center is only a stretch to those who still adamantly refuse to accept that the War of Terror has always taken two to tango.

Why Symbols Become Targets

The World Trade Center represented the elite and the powerful; its tenants were household names. It was the financial hub of the country, and even, some would argue, the world.

The Pentagon, squat and sturdy, seemed an isolated and impenetrable fortress, much like the common idea of America itself. It harbored the means and plans for defending the U.S. from all attacks.

"Here in the U.S., there is a very strong emotion that these symbols are neutral or universally good. They have no questionable aspects," said Simpson.

For those who view the United States with disdain and hatred, the World Trade Center and the Pentagon are also symbols. One can be seen to represent America's pervasive cultural and economic imperialism, the other its political and military grip

.

[M.Dancer]

Some one get eyeball his meds...please...if he gets any nuttier this site will have an allergy warning.

[M.Dancer]

Not really when it's recalled that what I actually said is; The vast majority of the victims of 9/11 are really not that different than the majority of victims in, say...Gaza, for example. Both suffer the consequences of being collateral damage and the often unwitting and unwilling human shields for the real combatants that are embedded within civilian areas.

Since the majority of the victims were in the Twin towers, could you kindly explain to those who don't suffer from your peculiar psychiatric affliction what the military target was in the WTC and who the |real combatants were embedded with the civilians in the WTC.

As well, again for those of us who are not prone to the merry psychotic hallucinations you enjoy, since the victims in the WTC are so much like those in Gaza, could you remind us when the last time an airliner filled with Palestinians and was used as a guided missile to attack a commercial trade centre with no military significance?

[eyeball]

Since the majority of the victims were in the Twin towers, could you kindly explain to those who don't suffer from your peculiar psychiatric affliction what the military target was in the WTC and who the |real combatants were embedded with the civilians in the WTC.

As well, again for those of us who are not prone to the merry psychotic hallucinations you enjoy, since the victims in the WTC are so much like those in Gaza, could you remind us when the last time an airliner filled with Palestinians and was used as a guided missile to attack a commercial trade centre with no military significance?

Not kindly no. I'm kinda fed up with suffering fools gladly.

F^*k off in other words.

[M.Dancer]

I'm kinda fed up with suffering fools gladly.

Living with yourself must be a constant struggle then. At least you have your paranoid delusions to keep you company.

[eyeball]

Living with yourself must be a constant struggle then. At least you have your paranoid delusions to keep you company.

I'm not feeling too lonely at all actually. I'd bet at least a couple of billion other human beings probably feel much the same way.

[BCMan]

I can’t agree with eyeball because I haven’t figured out what he is really saying but I don’t like Dancing either.

Eyeball, the conspiracy theories of Illuminati or the scheme of one world government seems very fictional to be true. Major empires have fallen and it’s just stupid for a bunch of smart people rely on such a government.

Dancer, all you have done is bash eyeball...I can’t find anything useful you said in this thread.

Back to the topic, a violent act is not referred to as terrorism by the media if a Muslim person is not involved. US Media certainly mastered this concept which is why people have a false perception of terrorism. This is not surprising at all.

[bloodyminded]

del. post

Edited May 7, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

I can’t agree with eyeball because I haven’t figured out what he is really saying but I don’t like Dancing either.

Eyeball, the conspiracy theories of Illuminati or the scheme of one world government seems very fictional to be true. Major empires have fallen and it’s just stupid for a bunch of smart people rely on such a government.

Dancer, all you have done is bash eyeball...I can’t find anything useful you said in this thread.

Back to the topic, a violent act is not referred to as terrorism by the media if a Muslim person is not involved. US Media certainly mastered this concept which is why people have a false perception of terrorism. This is not surprising at all.

All Dancer does is bash other posters. (However, he doesn't bash me, because he doesn't read my posts.)

As for Eyeball, he holds to no theories about the Illuminati or any such thing, to my knowledge. Rather, his is an institutional critique, in which financial elites rule the world. They don't rule through any conspiracy; they rule because all systems of government very naturally collude with them. It has always been thus, or at least since the birth of the nation-state. This is how Power works, through collusions of the Powerful. It takes no conspiracy; it frequently doesn't even demand conscious attention to the collusion.

It is a slight oversimplification...but all institutional critiques must be slightly simplified when written or spoken in less than book-size; indeed, it is no different in this respect than virtually any remark we can make that invovles the complexity of human affairs.

[Sulaco]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Justice_of_Roosting_Chickens

Churchill's remarks about World Trade Center victims became the center of considerable attention and controversy in January 2005 when Hamilton College of Clinton, New York invited him to give a speech. As a result, the speech was cancelled, citing "credible threats of violence". Churchill's "little Eichmanns" drew ferverous condemnation from conservative media pundits, who called for his resignation and deemed him unfit to teach. The University of Colorado Board of Regents publicly apologized for Churchill's writings about the September 11, 2001 attacks. Following this media controversy, Churchill was investigated for academic misconduct, fired, and filed a lawsuit against CU that he won in a jury verdict but that was vacated by the judge in the case.

Heheheheh

Freedom of speech in Amerikkka

What is not mentioned by you, apparently, is that the academic misconduct consisted of severe plagarism and other acts of academic dishonesty. The firing was a result of a multi-month investigation.

But - whatever.

[Sulaco]

You're dealing with a guy who wants to stick cameras on every politician. Tinfoil hat doesn't seem to quite sum up Eyeball. I'm kinda glad he's moving towards not voting.

Hmm... that's the only idea of his that I like.