Still, the statement that "al Q set out to kill thousands of civilians" is at least questionable (leaving aside the evident acceptance of the Washingtonian construction of the 'elementary difference').
Al Q probably viewed the victims as 'collateral damage', much as Washington does. It seems to me that they went after the symbols. If they really were set on casualties, it would have been simple enough, simpler, to crash the planes into the ground. It would seem elementary that anyone setting out to kill thousands or tens of thousands would have done that than go into the upper floors of the WTC or into the Pentagon.
And by the way, may I just point out that Byford in Foreign Affairs actually has a more nuanced view of this "seems rather elementary". Shocking, isn't it, considering that this is supposed to be a list of the left, while Foreign Affairs has been mocked as policy wonks?
Peter K. wrote:
>The difference is that Al Qaeda set out to kill thousands of civilians
>while the allies or "Empire" didn't. Seems rather elementary.