3 ms·

What was 9/11 if not military actions on USA own soils? Like, sure it can be labelled terrorism rather than "conventional military intervention", but psyops apa

What was 9/11 if not military actions on USA own soils? Like, sure it can be labelled terrorism rather than "conventional military intervention", but psyops apart, on practical level that’s typical asymmetric/guerrilla warfare.

mortarion 7mo ago
9/11 was not a military action against the USA, and the invocation of article 5 by the USA was illegimate.
- freedomben 7mo ago
  > 9/11 was not a military action against the USA that's a surprising thing to hear. where do you draw the line between terrorism and war? I see a distinction without much of a difference.
  - chii 7mo ago
    it's indeed a distinction without a real difference, but terrorism is specifically targeted at civilians to produce some political outcome. It's wild to suggest that terrorism against the US should not be responded with by military action - it's only the degree and targets that should be under debate.
    - squidbeak 7mo ago
      [Replied to wrong message - oops]
  - hermannj314 7mo ago
    The difference between war and terrorism is what language you use to say "God wills it" If you say "Deus Vult", you are a war hero. If you say "Inshallah", you are a radical terrorist. The rules are quite simple.
  - andruby 7mo ago
    Probably not a perfect line, but one way to differ both is wether the action was done by a Country (Nation) vs a "militant" group.
- squidbeak 7mo ago
  This is foolish nonsense. An organized foreign army directing improvised missiles against your cities is very definitely conducting 'military action' and is a valid target for a military response.
xorcist 7mo ago
"Military action", perhaps, but that is a very vague term. You replied to someone about "fighting foreign troops on own soil" which describes a ground invasion. 9/11 was something else. It is USA did not respond with any military force. The response, if any, was behind closed doors and we may never know the details. The only thing we know is that relationships with the Saudis are closer than ever. Journalists aren't even allowed to question why they chop up their regime critics in small pieces and put them in a box because that is considered "impolite". The public response was largely within domestic policy. New laws, new government agencies, more money spent on the military. It was also alluded to when fighting the continuation war with Iraq, but nothing was ever said explicitly about that.

mortarion 7mo ago

9/11 was not a military action against the USA, and the invocation of article 5 by the USA was illegimate.

freedomben 7mo ago
> 9/11 was not a military action against the USA that's a surprising thing to hear. where do you draw the line between terrorism and war? I see a distinction without much of a difference.
- chii 7mo ago
  it's indeed a distinction without a real difference, but terrorism is specifically targeted at civilians to produce some political outcome. It's wild to suggest that terrorism against the US should not be responded with by military action - it's only the degree and targets that should be under debate.
  - squidbeak 7mo ago
    [Replied to wrong message - oops]
- hermannj314 7mo ago
  The difference between war and terrorism is what language you use to say "God wills it" If you say "Deus Vult", you are a war hero. If you say "Inshallah", you are a radical terrorist. The rules are quite simple.
- andruby 7mo ago
  Probably not a perfect line, but one way to differ both is wether the action was done by a Country (Nation) vs a "militant" group.
squidbeak 7mo ago
This is foolish nonsense. An organized foreign army directing improvised missiles against your cities is very definitely conducting 'military action' and is a valid target for a military response.

xorcist 7mo ago

"Military action", perhaps, but that is a very vague term. You replied to someone about "fighting foreign troops on own soil" which describes a ground invasion. 9/11 was something else. It is USA did not respond with any military force. The response, if any, was behind closed doors and we may never know the details. The only thing we know is that relationships with the Saudis are closer than ever. Journalists aren't even allowed to question why they chop up their regime critics in small pieces and put them in a box because that is considered "impolite". The public response was largely within domestic policy. New laws, new government agencies, more money spent on the military. It was also alluded to when fighting the continuation war with Iraq, but nothing was ever said explicitly about that.