the word "Dresden" for "New York City.
Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2025 3:40 am
Everyone interviewed on-camera officially agreed: we don't know for sure who did this. Everyone seemed to agree unofficially: a private terrorist group, probably masterminded my Osama bin Laden, is the most likely candidate. I'm ready to go along with this. But no one raised the question: What was his motive? They identified him as the number-one suspect, but somehow he had no motive worth discussing on-screen.
I heard this assessment repeatedly: "This is the warfare of the 21st century." I can hardly disagree. It worked so well in the 20th century, as far as murderous terrorists of civilians were concerned, that it is unlikely to be abandoned soon. There is nothing new here. We can easily substitute the words "King David Hotel" for "Twin Towers," but nobody mentioned this.
I heard the word "cowards" used repeatedly. I don't remember that anyone ever used this word regarding the kamikazes of World War II. A warrior who gives his life for his cause during wartime, knowing that he job function email list will surely die, is not generally dismissed as a coward, even by his victims. What the 9-11 critics were saying was that the terrorists did this to civilians. I agree with this assessment. The terrorists were indeed cowards by Western standards, although they overcame their fear of death. It's one thing to die deliberately for your cause as a warrior; it's another deliberately to take specific civilians with you.
The War on Civilians
But I don't see that there was anything new here, either. " The Allies – mostly the United States – firebombed a defenseless German city, day after day, in 1945, a city with no military significance in 1945. At least 25,000 civilians died in the resulting firestorms, with 350,000 left homeless in winter. Our fighting men did this from air in streams of hundreds of bombers, when there were no German fighter aircraft to defend the city.
I heard this assessment repeatedly: "This is the warfare of the 21st century." I can hardly disagree. It worked so well in the 20th century, as far as murderous terrorists of civilians were concerned, that it is unlikely to be abandoned soon. There is nothing new here. We can easily substitute the words "King David Hotel" for "Twin Towers," but nobody mentioned this.
I heard the word "cowards" used repeatedly. I don't remember that anyone ever used this word regarding the kamikazes of World War II. A warrior who gives his life for his cause during wartime, knowing that he job function email list will surely die, is not generally dismissed as a coward, even by his victims. What the 9-11 critics were saying was that the terrorists did this to civilians. I agree with this assessment. The terrorists were indeed cowards by Western standards, although they overcame their fear of death. It's one thing to die deliberately for your cause as a warrior; it's another deliberately to take specific civilians with you.
The War on Civilians
But I don't see that there was anything new here, either. " The Allies – mostly the United States – firebombed a defenseless German city, day after day, in 1945, a city with no military significance in 1945. At least 25,000 civilians died in the resulting firestorms, with 350,000 left homeless in winter. Our fighting men did this from air in streams of hundreds of bombers, when there were no German fighter aircraft to defend the city.