- May 29, 2008
- 826
- 10
Indeed. The high-profile targets were attacked as symbols, but I think the people inside them were seen as additional targets rather than collateral damage.Originally Posted by wawaweewa
Originally Posted by whiterails
Originally Posted by wawaweewa
You made a valid point.
What we view as "collateral damage", others view as murder. What we view as murder ( 9/11) victims, others view as collateral damage (attacking the enemy's infrastructure; Pentagon and the WTC).
It's relative.
If these "others" view the victims of terrorism as "collateral damage", they are morons. Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups attack civilians intentionally as a way of promoting terror and fear. The civilians and their emotional well-being are their direct targets. The buildings themselves are incidental. Collateral damage is defined as unintended damage....not the case here.
Not quite.How many hijackers were there? If they simply wanted to kill civilians then they would've sent out each hijacker as a suicide bomber to public places and killed people that way.They targeted the WTC, Pentagon, and the Capitol building to make a point. It was symbolic.
However, in the case of other terrorist attacks in public places, the infrastructure itself is the collateral damage rather than the civilians.