Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

MikeM32 · Jul 17, 2002, 12:13 AM

I've been giving this some serious thought. What sets The attack on Pearl Harbor apart from the attacks on the World Trade Center?

If this isn't an act of war then what is it? Are we not justified in seeking retaliation for the attacks against nearly 3000 innocent people? You can believe in George W. Bush or not, but the point still remains.

Pearl Harbor was different in many ways. Why? Because the Japanese Empire attacked a military base. They attacked people that were trained to fight, and prepared to die for thier country. We were totally un-prepared for the attack. Many sailors drowned in the U.S.S. Arizona and many other miltary personnel perished. They caught us by surprise.

When terrorists flew Commercial airliners into the Twin Towers, they were not attacking military personnel. these people were going about thier daily lives. They were going to work just like they had done a countless hnumber of days before then.

These people were NOT trained to defend themselves, or in the military. These people were innocents.

Since the victems of the World Trade Center attacks weren't military, then wouldn't it sdtand to reason that the cost of life is exponential to that of Pearl Harbor?. We lost something like 2500 people in Pearl Harbor, and they say something like 3000 in the WTC attacks.

I say because those victems of the world trade center attacks were NOT military personnel, that you can take that 3000 victem number and multiply it by at least 3.

I know this country isn't perfect, but this is definitely one thing I do feel strongly about. I served my country too, and would gladly do so again.

Mike

starman · Jul 17, 2002, 12:20 AM

No argument from me. I always thought that it just goes to show just how screwed up these people are that THIS is the way they feel they have to focus their energy.

Mike

simonjames · Jul 17, 2002, 12:26 AM

I take your point Mike but personally I believe a life is a life - regardless as to whether the person had signed up and pledged their life to the defense of their country or if they were sitting at their desk in their office. IMO the death of a military person is possibly nobler but I guess no one chooses to die in situations like this. And why is a military death worth only 30% of a civilian one?

starman · Jul 17, 2002, 12:32 AM

I'm no aficionado on war, but it's generally known that you try and leave the civilians out of it. Killing 3000 civilians without warning in one shot was probably the single worst act of cowardice.

Mike

MikeM32 · Jul 17, 2002, 12:49 AM

simonjames; I'm definitely not trying to suggest that the loss of military personnel is any greater than the loss of non-military personnel.

Actually I feel the loss of those non-military people is a greater loss. These terrorists have no honor. Even the Japanese Empire of the time when Pearl Harbor was attacked had some honor. Why? because they attacked a military base, and not just some random center of innocent civilian activity.

Like I said the attack at the WTC is just as much an act of war as the attack at Pearl Harbor, if not more-so.

Mike

Captain Big Trousers · Jul 17, 2002, 12:52 AM

I thought intentionally bombing civilian areas started in WWII.

MikeM32 · Jul 17, 2002, 12:59 AM

"Intentionally bombing civilian areas" started when the cannon was invented

I have some bomb site images from WW2 that may be very enlightenning. My Father was a turret gunner in a B-25 squadron over then Fascist Italy.

All of the targets marked are train depots and bomb factories.

One of these days when I have access to a good scanner I'll post them.

Mike

CRASH HARDDRIVE · Jul 17, 2002, 01:01 AM

The Japanese in WWII at least fought as men, against other men who were truly combatants.

Terrorist *******s are just so many Ted Bundys, Jeffery Dahmers, Timothy McVeighs, Ted Kaczynskis etc. under a different garb. They all operate in the same manner- creeping around hiding from anyone their own size or bigger and pulling backhanded cowardly sneak attacks preferably against those unable to fight back. They all happen to think that because someone made them mad, because they feel someone did them wrong (their mothers, society, governments, whatever) that they can then be justified to go out and kill innocent men women and children completely at random. One set of maniacs just happens to also be suicidal and use methods that kill a lot more people all in one shot.

The Japanese Navy had a specific military target that they attacked on Dec. 7th 1941. One that could and did fight back. It was a sneak attack, pretty underhanded, but at the very least the Japanese didn�t act like a bunch of pansies too afraid to take on an actual fighting force. In fact, it took serious nads to do what they did, right or wrong.

The bunch of mass murdering cowardly scum of Sept. 11th would have killed ANYONE in their way that morning. Anyone. That's not fighting for any kind of cause- only according to the logic of an idiot. That's just murdering a bunch of people totally at random because you've got some psychotic gripe against someone else. And being too much a bunch of pussified cowards to take on a real foe.

The similarity between a total act of mass-murdering cowardice of the Sept. 11th psychos and the Pearl Harbor attack by the Japanese ends at both being obvious acts of aggression and war. Otherwise, cowards who kill anyone they can fly a plane into to don't deserve mention in any other way on the same level as actual soldiers who at least conducted themselves like men.

[ 07-17-2002, 01:03 AM: Message edited by: CRASH HARDDRIVE ]

daimoni · 01:46 PM

.

simonjames · Jul 17, 2002, 01:16 AM

So - whats your opinion of the US Airforce bombing of the Iranian parliament building killing hundreds of civilians? (early 80's I believe though I am not an expert). Eventhough the two countries were at war the USA intentionally bomb a civilian area.

Also (and this is a real question - not an anti-American stab) what are American's perceptions as to why Bush would not agree to allow US citizens to be tried by an international war crimes court? Why are Americans above International law? Australia didn't ask to be exempt. England didn't ask to be exempt - why the US? What is the American opinion on this topic?

Captain Big Trousers · Jul 17, 2002, 01:16 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by daimoni:
OK, then. I think we're all in agreement that the dudes who did the evil deeds on Sept. 11 are bad guys. Let's get 'em! Seriously.

So why not call a spade a spade and 'take out' Saudi Arabia and Pakistan? Boom. End of story. See ya. Bye-bye. For real.

Oh, but no... we're too busy propping up corrupt governments, friendly neighborhood dictators and despotic kingdoms. And then we wonder why such things happen.

Let's stop dickin' around for a change.<hr /></blockquote>See now there's an idea I can actually get behind.

daimoni · 01:46 PM

.

MikeM32 · Jul 17, 2002, 01:54 AM

CRASH as always, very well said. I think it seems we agree on these points. The WTC attacks were a much more hienous (sp?) act.

What bothers me also is the total lack of Patriotism and Nationalism since the attacks. So many people want to apologize for what we may have done wrong to those in the middle east. So many want to make America look like the "guilty party".

How can we be guilty when they kil;l almost 3000 of our people? Don't you people have any feelings? Do you even care? You can sit idly by but if you live here you need to do something about it.

It's always easy to sit back and criticize your own government and system when you feel you have nothing to contribute to it.

You all have something to contribute to it if you live in the USA. So stop whining, and start doing something about it.

Mike

CRASH HARDDRIVE · Jul 17, 2002, 02:01 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by simonjames:
So - whats your opinion of the US Airforce bombing of the Iranian parliament building killing hundreds of civilians? (early 80's I believe though I am not an expert). Eventhough the two countries were at war the USA intentionally bomb a civilian area.<hr /></blockquote>I think some people take everything to mean that the US can do no wrong. Notice if you will, the list of people I compared middle eastern mass murdering scum to, are all Americans. There are plenty of cowardly, terrorist-minded Americans too, unfortunatly. I compared them for a reason. Most Americans have something of an inate ability to recognize our own home grown varity of mass murdering nutcase for what they are. Some just have an idiotic tendancy to romanticize those that come from other places and commit acts just as brutal and even worse for some reason though.

Just playing the first grade level game of "well he did a bad thing too!" to try and get off the hook for doing something doesn't really cut it this situation. Because there are Americans (and indeed people of all nations) and even our own government/military that may have acted in the same cowardly fashion also doesn't excuse the Sept. 11th murderers one bit.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Also (and this is a real question - not an anti-American stab) what are American's perceptions as to why Bush would not agree to allow US citizens to be tried by an international war crimes court? Why are Americans above International law? Australia didn't ask to be exempt. England didn't ask to be exempt - why the US? What is the American opinion on this topic?<hr /></blockquote>I think this has been gone over thoroughly already. Many Americans happen to feel we have our own system of justice and American citizens are guaranteed the protection of not having to face double jeopardy at the hands of some 'International' court. So many people seem to think that just slapping the term 'International' on something makes it somehow automagically better and therefore above the sovereign laws and rights of our own nation. I for one don't happen to believe that. Glad others have enough sense to feel the same way, and in enough force to head off bad ideas like this.

daimoni · 01:47 PM

.

M�lum · Jul 17, 2002, 03:14 AM

I agree that the 9/11 terrorist were cowards.
But These cowards are fighting a war. They think they are on the right side of the track and that a (Holy) war is needed.

They fight with the weapons they have and as they are not a country, they don't have conventional weapons and have to improvise with daily life things turned into weapons, like airliners.
This is the most frightning detail of the whole attack, the use of non-weapons.

They are attacking the USA. In the USA its quantity that matters (the biggest, fastest, most expensive, largest, it's a typical US obsession) so they use methods that give the biggest media coverage: The most well known US symbols of power.
The civilians are details for them, like they think the Arab civilians are details for the US goverment.

[ 07-17-2002, 03:17 AM: Message edited by: M�lum ]

Shame · Jul 17, 2002, 03:21 AM

A coward is a CEO who uses government help and subsidy to grow rich and steal the resources of a poor nation.

And I think Pearl Harbor had better special effects.

cpt kangarooski · Jul 17, 2002, 03:56 AM

Mike,
There's probably a decently good way to determine whether any given attack is militaristic or terroristic in nature: which would it have made the most sense as?

For example, Pearl Harbor is clearly a military attack, because the intent was to cripple our Pacific forces (shame about the carriers), give the Japanese time to entrench themselves further, and demoralize us sufficiently that we'd agree to hand over the Pacific to the Japanese.

There's a certain degree of overlap with the demoralization thing, but bear in mind that we did the same thing with saturation bombing in Germany and Japan, including our use of nuclear weapons. Generally, these are still considered to be acts of war, not terror.

Attacking the WTC doesn't make sense as a military operation. There's no strategic value to the things, nor of the people within. And as Pearl Harbor proved, it's unwise to risk 'awakening the sleeping giant.' It makes a lot more sense as an act of terror, calculated to instill fear into the target's government and populace. After all, there hasn't been anything on that scale in nearly a year, but people are still often frightful of it. (e.g. my Mom, who didn't want to go anywhere for the 4th of July)

Again, the civilian victims aren't a deciding factor all by themselves; the British attacked Washington D.C., burning buildings to the ground during the War of 1812, and it is not felt to be terrorism. Nor was the Nazi bombing of London, nor Soviet plans that surely included the destruction of civilian institutions for military aims.

That said of course, I can to a degree understand the terrorists' choices. It seems pretty far-fetched now, but I do remember a time when people really did fear the Soviets attacking and invading the U.S. In such a 'Red Dawn' scenario, I'd have no trouble fighting as a partisan, but I wouldn't be above attacking military or civilian targets -- anything would be acceptable to drive out the occupiers.

However, as to this: <blockquote>quote:<hr />What bothers me also is the total lack of Patriotism and Nationalism....<hr /></blockquote>I can't say that I'm bothered by it at all. I'm no patriot or nationalist. I don't really even like the idea. I certainly would never support the U.S. no matter what it did; I hold it to a higher standard than a mere patriot. A patriot, after all, only demands that his country be itself. He cares little for what it actually does, or what it stands for.

Perhaps I could be described as an ideologue then, though I'm wary of falling into the trap of blindly following an ideology either -- that's yielded similarly poor results. Generally though, I'm a big fan of states that promote liberty, that are just, that are moral in certain respects... if the U.S. is within that group, that's great. If they're not, they would need to be. But if Pottsylvania exemplified the same ideals, I'd support it equally.

The U.S. is just a name, and names shouldn't inspire loyalty. I'd urge you to look deeper.

Starman--
Shit, I dunno what your standards are, but anyone who's willing to drive a plane into a building is not a coward. I don't think I could do that. I certainly don't think that it's cowardly to avoid attacking in a way that only leads to being massacred (see most of WW1 for examples) if there's an acceptable, to you, alternative.

It may not be _noble_, granted, but that's a very different thing. It wasn't noble of us either to decrypt enemy codes, or assassinate Yamamoto, or a host of other things we've done in wars. Nobility sometimes must give way to practicality.

Daimoni--
I agree that we oughtn't prop up corrupt governments. If we'd ever stuck to such a policy, it at least might've paid off with regards to Vietnam. However, that doesn't give us license to just attack whoever we think is corrupt either; the Peace of Westphalia is probably one of the greatest innovations in international relations ever. I'd kind of like to keep it.

Shame · Jul 17, 2002, 04:06 AM

Kangaroo, you say that the WTC has no military significance? Do you know why the Muslims attacked the WTC, Pentagon and also wanted to attack the White House? Because they were having a bad day? Because one man in the desert told them to and he was having a bad day?

The WTC and Wall Street in general is linked to the arms industry. Right? Now imagine those people stuck in front of computers all day, not all of them, drolling over the company shares which look enticing enough to buy and make some profit out of. Take Lockheed Martin for example. You're a stock broker who wants to make it rich and you buy and sell shares all day long. You're involved in the arms trade if you're buying those shares. You're in bed with those who bomb developing countries and sell arms to dictators whether you like it or not. In most cases stockbrokers don't give a shit. They just want the money.

The Pentagon, again, is part of that industry -- a willing part. They are the agents of the industry which help get the defense contracts from the government for the arms companies. Those Generals are a clever lot. They play the stock market. They know who is going to get the contracts before it happens and they know what shares to buy and when the share price will rise.

The White House. No explanation. Luckily the WH wasn't attacked and the WH could easily be inhabited by a good government one day so I'm glad it was left untouched.

But the attack on the WTC and Pentagon were futile. The result was only the deaths of workers and civilians. The terrorists wanted the arms trade to collapse. It didn't. When the attacks on Afghanistan started the share price of companies like Lockheed Martin went through the roof and Wall Street and traders all over the world were getting rich off the backs of all the dead in New York and Afghanistan.

RodUK · Jul 17, 2002, 07:10 AM

Pearl Harbour may have brought America into the war, but it was the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima that ended it.

I expect Hiroshima was also full of people going to work just like they had done a countless number of days before.

I expect these people were also not trained to defend themselves, or in the military. I expect these people were also innocents...

[ 07-17-2002, 07:12 AM: Message edited by: RodUK ]

spectre · Jul 17, 2002, 08:50 AM

It's funny... The United States is probably responsible for the largest attack on innocent citizens ever. Remember the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I just found these stats but I have no clue if their right... but if so.. wow

Hiroshima [1]
Killed Injured Resultant Fatalities
100000 100000 140000

Nagasaki [2]
Killed Injured Resultant Fatalities
73884 74909 17358

Obviously these attacks happened because of the war, and resulted in the end of the war, but it can't be denied that many innocent people were killed.

SimeyTheLimey · Jul 17, 2002, 08:57 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by simonjames:
So - whats your opinion of the US Airforce bombing of the Iranian parliament building killing hundreds of civilians? (early 80's I believe though I am not an expert). Eventhough the two countries were at war the USA intentionally bomb a civilian area.<hr /></blockquote>Simonjames, what the hell are you talking about? Care to substatiate that rather serious charge?

I know of no bombing by the US Air Force of the Iranian Parliament in the 1980s, or at any other time. If you can come up with evidence of the attack, I will eat my words, but the US has never been at war with Iran. It was Iraq that was at war with Iran in the early 1980s, not the US. So I think you are serously (and slanderously) confused.

Perhaps you are thinking of the USS Vincennes, which mistakenly shot down an Iranian airliner in the late 80s after confusing it for a military aircraft? Or maybe you are thinking of the 1979 Iranian Hostage Crisis in which British SAS commandos stormed the Iranian Embassy in London? Or perhaps you are thinking of the Gulf War Iraqi military bunker which was attacked by the US Air Force? The Air Force did not know that the Iraquis were also illegally using a military target as a civilian bomb shelter.

Maybe you are confusing one of those events, but none of them are what you say happened. And none of them were deliberate, calculated attacks on civilians.

skipjack · Jul 19, 2002, 05:59 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by M�lum:
I agree that the 9/11 terrorist were cowards.
But These cowards are fighting a war. They think they are on the right side of the track and that a (Holy) war is needed.

They fight with the weapons they have and as they are not a country, they don't have conventional weapons and have to improvise with daily life things turned into weapons, like airliners.
This is the most frightning detail of the whole attack, the use of non-weapons.

They are attacking the USA. In the USA its quantity that matters (the biggest, fastest, most expensive, largest, it's a typical US obsession) so they use methods that give the biggest media coverage: The most well known US symbols of power.
The civilians are details for them, like they think the Arab civilians are details for the US goverment.<hr /></blockquote>This post (the one quoted) covers much ground.

While the Pearl Harbor attack was an organized military action to eliminate or slow the actions of the United States, which was not overtly involved (as national policy) against Japan, the events of September 11 were just another battle of a pseudo-government (hiding behind their affiliation with Islam) against whomever they believe opposes them.

What is frightening is that we have become involved in an old fashioned blood feud. Through the magic of technology, that feud is no longer constrained to a region, but has been brought to our home territory. Certainly it is not the first terrorist attack, but it was the most successful. I don't think there is even the concept of attacking civilians. In the terrorist organization, as in the nomadic tribe that is the heritage of the people of the region, there is no organized, mercenary army. Everyone is a soldier and everyone on the opposing side is a target. Some targets are easier to kill, especially in an established country where there is a military and police.

What is also frightening is that their form of warfare is unconventional. It does not follow the standards of civilized behavior. Where have we seen that before? Perhaps the colonists fighting the British army?

The attack of September 11 might have been an act of war, but not by a readily defined entity. In our legalistic way of doing things, we are going to try to target some individual or individuals, some specific organization, and assign them total responsibility. They will not. They will just take out targets of opportunity.

In the judgement of most people, the terrorists were cowards. They did not have to face the consequences of their actions. Like those who strap explosives to their bodies or run truck bombs into buildings, persumably they are skilled enough so that it will be a quick end for them. Those who believe it took courage to pilot airplanes into buildings must believe that the pilots had something to live for. Sure, we might try to explain it by the "seven vigins waiting in Paradise", but Islam is not the only religion to claim that the afterlife is a better place.

There is nothing "holy" about this war, especially by Muslim standards. Not that I accept that Islam is a religion of peace for everyone, although it does stand for peace among its adherents. It might be argued that the terrorist leaders are emulating the life of Muhammad. But aside from that debate, religion is not a real issue except in its misuse.

While I cannot argue that the US government and military has been perfect, I do take issue with the situations and statistics cited without context. Not by way of justification, but if we have done something truly wrong, in our society we still try to assign blame or responsibility (even if it is a scapegoat). In a blood feud, the perpetrators are supported and defended by their "clan". And to those who say the US has been wrong by propping up corrupt governments, well, we're damned if we do and we're damned if don't. If we had chosen the other side, , we'd have their enemies against us. If we do nothing, we're accused of being isolationist. If we choose "right", we're still meddling and imperialistic.

It seems that our only choice is to bring the battle back on their territory. The only thing that would be palatable to our Western sensibilities, might be a Mutually Assured Destruction scenario where we claim that any act or terrorism would be met by swift, immediate, and harsh retaliation against any state known to provide aid and comfort to the organizations known to conduct terrorist activities. This would rely on nations to police themselves, and hopefully we wouldn't be stuck with puppets like Arafat who claim to have popular support, but who have demonstrated that they have no real control or authority. However, that is a Western, idealistic solution which would no doubt be opposed by the most vocal elements in our society (how can we prove who did it, what about all the civilians?) and might not even be a credible threat to those who have a strong belief in the afterlife and see themselves as having a miserable existence in this world.

We surely must take some sort of action, no matter how unpalatable to some, or we are resigned to being bankrupt in our attempts to maintain security in our own country and be ready for every threat (does anyone really believe that this group of terrorists is going to try another airliner attack now that the unthinkable is no longer so?), much as we bankrupt the Soviet Union by their attempts to keep up with our capabilities.