Did the terrorists prove they have the ability to strike strategic targets within the United States on Sept.11

Question

They struck at the financial heart of America and its planning and procurement offices .
When you think crazy do you think about people who would target specific high value targets or do you think people who would crash into a navy ship or a barracks .
Seems like they are fighting a war and not just a group of radicals who would show up with machine guns at schools eliminating hundreds of students without much resistance .

That would have been cheaper and an actual attack on civilians .

Have we lost cite of the truth .
That 9-11 was a military attack and not the work of radicals .

Answer 1

certifiable.

Answer 2

I am answering this question with above answer....

While the attacks on the Trade Center were tragic, they were not strategic attacks and they did not cause any significant long-term harm to US infrastructure or our ability to wage war. As "strategic target" is one that would necessarily result in a loss of infrastructure and/or loss of military effectiveness.

If the attack on the pentagon had been successful in causing any serious damage, or if attack on the white house had been successful at all, that would indicate a strategic weakness.

He believes it was not a strategic attack because of what it "did not do" However, looking at this objectively, instead of directly, one would deduce that this would be a very strategic military attack. The attack did exactly what the government wanted it to do and gave the people of the US something to fear.

It would not be the first time in history for something like this to happen.
People need to open their eyes and wake up.

Answer 3

You have to remember what the World Trade Center represented: They were the symbol of American wealth and power.

You also have to remember that the same group of radicals tried to get the WTC in 1993. Their plan then was to bomb one building and cause the building to collapse into the second building, bringing both to the ground and killing thousands and thousands of people. So when you ask, was the WTC a strategic target, Yes, it was.

You also have to remember that there are many non-State militia out there in the world who are 'legitimate' armies who operate independently of their governments who do just as they please. They fight THEIR governments and they wage attacks against OTHER governments.

Dude with half a gazillion dollars has an enemy. He finds many thousands of people whose ideas are similar to his. He builds an arsenal and an army of followers. He has the money, the manpower and the arms to do what he pleases. How is that NOT a military that can wage war against us?

The problem is that because they're NOT a state-run military, nobody took them seriously. Small potatoes; no match for us. We were proved wrong. And it won't happen again.

Answer 4

I think you are making a false dichotomy. Radicals have the ability to target strategic sites for military, symbolic and just plain terror reasons.

McVeigh targeted a federal building because of the symbolic value. The World Trade Center was targeted for financial and symbolic reasons. The killing of innocent civilians was an additional aim because none of these terrorists chose times when the buildings would be mostly empty.

The Pentagon was a military and symbolic target.

Answer 5

No. While the attacks on the Trade Center were tragic, they were not strategic attacks and they did not cause any significant long-term harm to US infrastructure or our ability to wage war. As "strategic target" is one that would necessarily result in a loss of infrastructure and/or loss of military effectiveness.

If the attack on the pentagon had been successful in causing any serious damage, or if attack on the white house had been successful at all, that would indicate a strategic weakness.

But yes, the increasing scope of attacks indicates a "maturity" (in the military sense of the word -- meaning increased effectiveness and capability) to cause damage.

What you would expect of an organization that's now almost 20 years old, compared to being less than 5 years old the last time they attacked US soil.

Answer 6

bin Laden declared war on the US long before the 9/11/01 attacks! He is a general leading troops against the "Great Satan" the US and all non-Muslim countries. The enemy is Radical Islamists who want to spread a fundamentalist type of Islam to all the countries in the world.

By attacking the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and the Capital building he was attacking the military and capitalist symbols of American might and prosperity. It was a brilliant plot that was largely successful. bin Laden is determined to launch another spectacular attack on the US, but so far we and our allies have thwarted him.

Answer 7

Yes, the attack provided that our nation can be subject to acts of violence. I do believe that we may face other such attacks. Having a free and open society does involve a greater risk of these acts occurring. I do believe we are in a war against radical Islamics who would destroy us all if able

Answer 8

911 was obviously a military attack, in much the same tactics as WWII targets were for both sides, inflict heavy civilian losses, disrupt the lives of the targeted and cause havoc

Answer 9

I believe they picked their target poorly. If they really wanted the west to go down, they should have picked IRS head quarters instead. This way, instead of having the American public opinion rally against them, it would be for them.

Answer 10

It was a military attack BY radicals.

They though by attacking the U.S. that (the U.S.) would back down; but they were wong,

Answer 11

anyone with the know-how,means and will can stage an attack - what's new?