News Is the World Trade Centre attack considered terrorism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Adam
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on whether the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center should be classified as terrorism. Participants agree that the attacks were unprovoked, undeclared acts of war by a non-state actor, specifically Al Qaeda, which aimed to instill fear and assert power over a larger adversary. There is debate about the evidence linking Osama bin Laden to the attacks, with some questioning the reliance on a video where he praises the event. The term "unprovoked" is contested, with some asserting it reflects personal opinion rather than an objective fact, suggesting that the attackers may have believed their actions were justified. Overall, the consensus leans towards categorizing the attacks as terrorism due to their nature and the tactics employed.

Was it terrorism when the planes flew into the World Trade Centre?

  • Yes

    Votes: 17 94.4%
  • No

    Votes: 1 5.6%

  • Total voters
    18
Adam
Messages
65
Reaction score
1
Was it terrorism when the planes flew into the World Trade Centre?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I voted yes, because USA inhabitants were not forewarned againshis attack. It was not a formal attack, such a war declaration of another goverment. If Al Qaeda would send one thousand soldiers to New York like in a formal invasion, then N-Y inhabitants could run away and be prevented. Nobody would be working at that time.
 
Last edited:
I voted Yes, but it is sketchy, as far as I know we're taking it for granted that it was Osama bin Laden that did it, was there any evidence aside from that video tape of him saying it was a good thing?
 
Yes. It was an attack designed to create terror by a small fringe group in order to gain power over another larger more powerful foe.

This attack was unprovoked, the act of war was undeclared, and the perpetrators were not uniformed, carrying insignia or any other signal of affiliation to mark them as an enemy.
 
Artman said:
Yes. It was an attack designed to create terror by a small fringe group in order to gain power over another larger more powerful foe.

This attack was unprovoked, the act of war was undeclared, and the perpetrators were not uniformed, carrying insignia or any other signal of affiliation to mark them as an enemy.

Everything here looks fairly factual, except "This attack was unprovoked". That is your opinion. If you claim it is fact, must qualify it better.
 
I think that...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gokul43201 said:
Everything here looks fairly factual, except "This attack was unprovoked". That is your opinion. If you claim it is fact, must qualify it better.
Unprovoked is my opinion. In my opinion again I believe they believed that the attack was justified.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top