[Context_free]

The CIA had offices at 7 World Trade Center.

By the logic of that tweet, the CIA was hiding behind and deliberately using the civilians working in the WTC complex as human shields to hide from the Saudi 9/11 militants looking to remove US military bases from Saudi Arabia.

[duxup]

I really don't want to go down the endless list of comparisons but I don't think anyone warned the civilians in the world trade center just before it was hit. But in the case of the AP office:

"We received a warning that the building would be hit. "

And I think civilian casualties was was intended goal of the World Trade Center attack....

It's a bad comparison IMO.

[Context_free]

I could give other examples, but if Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's 1993 WTC bombing was not enough of a warning that that complex was a target, I don't know what would be. Mohammed succeeded on his second try.

John P. O'Neill of the FBI headed that investigation and he left the FBI and was head of WTC security on the day of the attack. He told people he thought he expected another attempt.

[detaro]

The WTC was targeted for being the WTC, not for having a CIA office in it.

[adventured]

Your logic twist doesn't make any sense.

If you're Israel you certainly might choose to level an 11 story building if it houses a meaningful share of or otherwise critical Hamas intelligence operations. That's direct targeting; Hamas had operations in the building and they intentionally, directly hit the building.

You don't fly jetliners into giant skyscrapers to hope to side-hit by luck a very miniscule portion of a massive target like the CIA. That would never be a consideration for the operation. The 9/11 hijackers as we know for a fact chose the WTC for the terror purposes of killing and scaring the civilian population. Your logic twists pretends we don't know what their intentions were.

[chroma]

If al-qaeda had:

- warned everyone before blowing up the World Trade Center and the Pentagon so they’d have time to evacuate

- not hijacked civilian airliners and murdered the pilots

- not killed everyone on board the planes by deliberately crashing them

…then yes that would be a valid comparison. It would also cause me to have a much more nuanced opinion of al-qaeda.

[hluska]

Geez, by that logic some collateral civilian damage is acceptable if it gives a nation grounds to attack someone they’ve always wanted to get rid of???

I must have put on my tinfoil hat this morning. Sorry!! :)