What if the White House was also hit on 9/11?

[Roski]

Seeing as how President Bush was not at the White House, not as much as one would think.

If it hit the capital building though...

Half the country would explode in applause.

[Asyir]

Seeing as how President Bush was not at the White House, not as much as one would think.

If it hit the capital building though...

Half the country would explode in applause.

And we wouldn't be in this clusterfuck now

In all seriousness, if the capital building was hit, besides more deaths on that day, I don't think anything would've changed.

[Anollasia]

They'd rebuild it.

[United Christian America]

Here's a hypothetical counter question (unless we're still discussing the scenario in which the White House was added to the list of attacked structures):

What if the White House, Pentagon, and the Congressional building were struck on 9/11, but no other buildings or areas (outside of, say, whatever was caught in the explosion or falling debris) were struck by the planes? Can it be argued that the White House, despite housing some civilians, is not a genuinely "civilian target?" Therefore, Al Qaeda would be in a "state of war" with the US, but not "total war" as no genuinely civilian targets were attacked?

I fear that, with the number of Americans supporting ISIS and other radical Islamist groups, Osama would have had better leverage to claim that his Jihad was a benevolent, rather than malevolent entity, as he would be attacking those who he perceived to be enemy targets, targets that would also not be civilian and be only military and government in nature, much like how a modern army of a legitimate regime would do if they were to invade another country: destroy the enemy military installations and cripple the opposing regime, but not harm civilian targets or keep civilian casualties to a minimum.

[Farnhamia]

Here's a hypothetical counter question (unless we're still discussing the scenario in which the White House was added to the list of attacked structures):

What if the White House, Pentagon, and the Congressional building were struck on 9/11, but no other buildings or areas (outside of, say, whatever was caught in the explosion or falling debris) were struck by the planes? Can it be argued that the White House, despite housing some civilians, is not a genuinely "civilian target?" Therefore, Al Qaeda would be in a "state of war" with the US, but not "total war" as no genuinely civilian targets were attacked?

I fear that, with the number of Americans supporting ISIS and other radical Islamist groups, Osama would have had better leverage to claim that his Jihad was a benevolent, rather than malevolent entity, as he would be attacking those who he perceived to be enemy targets, targets that would also not be civilian and be only military and government in nature, much like how a modern army of a legitimate regime would do if they were to invade another country: destroy the enemy military installations and cripple the opposing regime, but not harm civilian targets or keep civilian casualties to a minimum.

Only the Pentagon is a military target. How are the White House and the Capitol not civilian?

[United Christian America]

Here's a hypothetical counter question (unless we're still discussing the scenario in which the White House was added to the list of attacked structures):

What if the White House, Pentagon, and the Congressional building were struck on 9/11, but no other buildings or areas (outside of, say, whatever was caught in the explosion or falling debris) were struck by the planes? Can it be argued that the White House, despite housing some civilians, is not a genuinely "civilian target?" Therefore, Al Qaeda would be in a "state of war" with the US, but not "total war" as no genuinely civilian targets were attacked?

I fear that, with the number of Americans supporting ISIS and other radical Islamist groups, Osama would have had better leverage to claim that his Jihad was a benevolent, rather than malevolent entity, as he would be attacking those who he perceived to be enemy targets, targets that would also not be civilian and be only military and government in nature, much like how a modern army of a legitimate regime would do if they were to invade another country: destroy the enemy military installations and cripple the opposing regime, but not harm civilian targets or keep civilian casualties to a minimum.

Only the Pentagon is a military target. How are the White House and the Capitol not civilian?

Well, "government targets," aka those places from which the opposing regime administers its reign. It would not be 'civilian' in the sense that the targets would have nothing to do with American foreign or domestic policy, or military affairs. Seaworld is a purely civilian target. The World Trade Center is a purely civilian target. The Congressional Building did arguably give consent to certain actions in the Middle East that were the alleged causes of Al Qaeda's vicious attack.

[Farnhamia]

Only the Pentagon is a military target. How are the White House and the Capitol not civilian?

Well, "government targets," aka those places from which the opposing regime administers its reign. It would not be 'civilian' in the sense that the targets would have nothing to do with American foreign or domestic policy, or military affairs. Seaworld is a purely civilian target. The World Trade Center is a purely civilian target. The Congressional Building did arguably give consent to certain actions in the Middle East that were the alleged causes of Al Qaeda's vicious attack.

The US reaction would be the same. Whether confining the attacks to "government targets" would have given al-Qaeda more ... credibility, I don't know. I doubt it, frankly.

[United Christian America]

Well, "government targets," aka those places from which the opposing regime administers its reign. It would not be 'civilian' in the sense that the targets would have nothing to do with American foreign or domestic policy, or military affairs. Seaworld is a purely civilian target. The World Trade Center is a purely civilian target. The Congressional Building did arguably give consent to certain actions in the Middle East that were the alleged causes of Al Qaeda's vicious attack.

The US reaction would be the same. Whether confining the attacks to "government targets" would have given al-Qaeda more ... credibility, I don't know. I doubt it, frankly.

Right, I doubt the American people as a whole would magically not see it as an attack on our soil, but what about foreign nations? We'd definitely get letters of condolences as that's posturing, but would the world express remorse to such an extent if Al Qaeda confined the attacks to the Pentagon, White House, and the Congressional Building?

[Farnhamia]

The US reaction would be the same. Whether confining the attacks to "government targets" would have given al-Qaeda more ... credibility, I don't know. I doubt it, frankly.

Right, I doubt the American people as a whole would magically not see it as an attack on our soil, but what about foreign nations? We'd definitely get letters of condolences as that's posturing, but would the world express remorse to such an extent if Al Qaeda confined the attacks to the Pentagon, White House, and the Congressional Building?

I fail to see how that would lessen international sympathy for the US.

[The Rich Port]

Right, I doubt the American people as a whole would magically not see it as an attack on our soil, but what about foreign nations? We'd definitely get letters of condolences as that's posturing, but would the world express remorse to such an extent if Al Qaeda confined the attacks to the Pentagon, White House, and the Congressional Building?

I fail to see how that would lessen international sympathy for the US.

So yeah, uh, if we are to recall recent history, that's exactly what happened.

We started loosing sympathy after Bush kept shitting on the U.N. and continuously pursuing military campaigns beyond his scope. His father did the same thing without arousing the ire of the nations of the world when he should have destroyed Hussein, not ten years later after a terrorist attack, and they loved H.W. for it.

[Farnhamia]

I fail to see how that would lessen international sympathy for the US.

So yeah, uh, if we are to recall recent history, that's exactly what happened.

We started loosing sympathy after Bush kept shitting on the U.N. and continuously pursuing military campaigns beyond his scope. His father did the same thing without arousing the ire of the nations of the world when he should have destroyed Hussein, not ten years later after a terrorist attack, and they loved H.W. for it.

Yes, but UCA is saying that if only the White House, the Capitol and the Pentagon had been hit the international sympathy would have been less from the beginning.

[The Rich Port]

So yeah, uh, if we are to recall recent history, that's exactly what happened.

We started loosing sympathy after Bush kept shitting on the U.N. and continuously pursuing military campaigns beyond his scope. His father did the same thing without arousing the ire of the nations of the world when he should have destroyed Hussein, not ten years later after a terrorist attack, and they loved H.W. for it.

Yes, but UCA is saying that if only the White House, the Capitol and the Pentagon had been hit the international sympathy would have been less from the beginning.

That's ridiculous, of course.

That's like saying we wouldn't care if Buckingham Palace and the British Parliament were attacked.

[Grand Britannia]

Nuked Iraq and Afghanistan instead of invading them.

[Rupudska]

Hindu Kush reduced to sea level. Next question.

[United Christian America]

Yes, but UCA is saying that if only the White House, the Capitol and the Pentagon had been hit the international sympathy would have been less from the beginning.

That's ridiculous, of course.

That's like saying we wouldn't care if Buckingham Palace and the British Parliament were attacked.

Well, would you care? Maybe not you personally, but do you really think that your neighbors, your friends, the people who live around you would honestly send nearly as many sympathy letters if Buckingham Palace and the British Parliament, but no other part of London, were attacked?

It's a tragedy regardless, but those who are particularly aware of events in the Middle East before 9/11 might not be so sympathetic if the places that represent the decisions made which "pissed off" those who became Al Qaeda were attacked. I'm certain that international sympathy would be notable, but would it be so widespread?

[Farnhamia]

That's ridiculous, of course.

That's like saying we wouldn't care if Buckingham Palace and the British Parliament were attacked.

Well, would you? Maybe not you personally, but do you really think that your neighbors, your friends, the people who live around you would honestly send nearly as many sympathy letters if Buckingham Palace and the British Parliament, but no other part of London, were attacked?

It's a tragedy regardless, but those who are particularly aware of events in the Middle East before 9/11 might not be so sympathetic if the places that represent the decisions made which "pissed off" those who became Al Qaeda were attacked. I'm certain that international sympathy would be notable, but would it be so widespread?

In America? Hell, yes, if we're anything it's suckers for the British Royals.

[Roski]

Well, would you? Maybe not you personally, but do you really think that your neighbors, your friends, the people who live around you would honestly send nearly as many sympathy letters if Buckingham Palace and the British Parliament, but no other part of London, were attacked?

It's a tragedy regardless, but those who are particularly aware of events in the Middle East before 9/11 might not be so sympathetic if the places that represent the decisions made which "pissed off" those who became Al Qaeda were attacked. I'm certain that international sympathy would be notable, but would it be so widespread?

In America? Hell, yes, if we're anything it's suckers for the British Royals.

I'd be petitioning the entire US to just up and attack Al-Queda at once.
Nobody messes with our friends across the pond

[Asyir]

In America? Hell, yes, if we're anything it's suckers for the British Royals.

I'd be petitioning the entire US to just up and attack Al-Queda at once.
Nobody messes with our friends across the pond

Hoorah!

[The Rich Port]

That's ridiculous, of course.

That's like saying we wouldn't care if Buckingham Palace and the British Parliament were attacked.

Well, would you care? Maybe not you personally, but do you really think that your neighbors, your friends, the people who live around you would honestly send nearly as many sympathy letters if Buckingham Palace and the British Parliament, but no other part of London, were attacked?

It's a tragedy regardless, but those who are particularly aware of events in the Middle East before 9/11 might not be so sympathetic if the places that represent the decisions made which "pissed off" those who became Al Qaeda were attacked. I'm certain that international sympathy would be notable, but would it be so widespread?

Americans are also highly protective of Welsh Corgis.

[Rebellious Fishermen]

Depends on who was killed. If any prominent officials were killed then our entire world could be different.

[Planeia]

The War of 1812, when we should have surrendered to the Canadians, I think. When the enemy captures your capitol city the war is supposed to end immediately. Everyone knows that.

Trust a country born of rebellion to cheat at war.

Cheat? Lol.

'Bout the equivalent of CoD players calling "HACKER!".... on console.

[Benuty]

Be more worried if everyone except conveniantly the chief of staff, and the heads of the military had been killed during a mysterious plane crash in the pacific.
*Shutters at thought of military administration ruling executively*.

[Asigna]

The symbolic impact of 911 would had been greater. Seeing the seat of power of the president of the most powerful country in the world, there would had been even stauncher criticism by Americans to the fed's foreign policy which had precipitated into this.

[The New Sea Territory]

One less white building in America, one more thing to justify pointing to a random country that ends with -stan on the map and invading it, one more right-wing talking point, one more site of the perpetual violence of war....

[The Rich Port]

Trust a country born of rebellion to cheat at war.

Cheat? Lol.

'Bout the equivalent of CoD players calling "HACKER!".... on console.

... That was the joke.