UBL is George Washington

[Justin]

On 2004-07-06T11:28:41-0700, Eric Cordian wrote:
> Sunder wrote:
> > Right, WTC as a target doesn't make any strategic sense.

> Doesn't hitting a world financial center impede the funding of imperialism?

Empirically, I don't think so.  Since September 11th, funding to the
military and security industries have increased substantially through
DHS and military contracts.  It may be that the only way out is through,
and that the only way to be free from Western Imperialism is to cause it
to strangle itself.  In the short term, however, terrorists have not
succeeded in getting our imperialist policies changed.

9/11 with Dubya at the helm can have only one result.

> If you apply the same standards the US uses to classify dual use
> infrastructure, and organizations "linked to" the enemy, I think the
> WTC is pretty high on the target list. 

Yep.  Even ignoring specific entities that officed in the WTC, it was an
effective target.  When a government is in debt 70%+ of the GDP (2002 -
$10.4T), there's little distinction between private financial targets
and government targets.

> The US bombed water treatment plants, electrical facilities, and
> bridges in Iraq.  Certainly not military targets either.

Each democratic government likes to flood the logos with the notion that
it only attacks military targets; it convinces citizens that their
government is humane, and helps to pacify the non-interventionists.

In practice, intelligence is never accurate.  Hitting only military
targets, even if that were the goal which is clearly not the case -- is
not possible.

A stated policy of attacking only military targets encourages the use of
human shields by the enemy, which in turn drives up the "civilian
casualties" decried so strongly by the media.

-- 
 "Once you knew, you'd claim her, and I didn't want that."
 "Not your decision to make."
 "Yes, but it's the right decision, and I made it for my daughter.  She
deserved to be born with a clean slate." - Beatrix; Bill; Kill Bill V.2