Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 35

Thread: The flight that got slammed into the pentagon.

  1. #1

    The flight that got slammed into the pentagon.

    Was it terrorism or was it a natural (unatural, however you want to take it) act of war, the pentagon was a military installation was it not?

    Taken there are civilians that were killed as well but when the U.S. bombs a "terrorist" hideout in Iraq and kills some civilians that isn't terrorism it's an act of war.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    hmmm, thats a damn good point. It very well could have been considered an act of war, or a decleration of war. I think the deciding factor would be did the government ok the attack/crashes. If it was not an action started by the ruling government then it would be terrorism.
    \"He who shall introduce into public affairs the principles of primitive Christianity will change the face of the world.\"
    Benjamin Franklin

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    while both are beyond a doubt 'acts of war' the islamonazis' bombing was meant to cause a maximum amount of terror. the more civialians killed the greater the shock.

    and while our bombing of hideouts and dinner parties are sure to terrorize those involved they are meant to cause the 'least' amount of harm to the innocents...and can you really call the family that gathers the quida together for supper and a meeting... civilians?
    Bukhari:V3B48N826 “The Prophet said, ‘Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?’ The women said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.’”

  4. #4
    The ******* Shadow dalek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Taken there are civilians that were killed as well but when the U.S. bombs a "terrorist" hideout in Iraq and kills some civilians that isn't terrorism it's an act of war.
    There is a big difference between, bombing a target of hostiles when it is a military establishment, and bombing cowards who use civilians for shields, of course there is going to be collateral damage in these cases.The fact that this is a war against terrorisim does not change those tactics.The people of Iraq, in some cases know full well who the insurgents are, heck even some of the supposedly new security forces of Iraq have been infiltrated by these fanatics,and continue to place the innocent civilians of Iraq in danger.

    When a suicide bomber targets random civilians, there is no "hard target" when the Israeli's retaliate they are trying to target a "hard target" usually a fatwah leader, but of course they surround themselves with innocents, and the Israeli's end up trying to defend their reason for striking back, and causing some civilian deaths (actually what is a civilian in the palestinian camps?)

    Anyhow, all three incidents (Towers,Pentagon,Pittsburgh) were technically acts of war, the only reason it wasn't declared a war (War was declared against terrorisim) is because there was no country behind it, like Japan and Pearl, or Germany and Poland, clear cut antagonists.It was hard to put a face on this enemy (Al Quida)(but we all know Saudi Arabia was behind it.wink wink).

    If it had been that easy to declare war openly on a particular country, we would have been in and out long before now, as there would be nothing left to rebuild or occupy, the first Gulf War is an example of an open declaration of war, because Iraq, occupied an ally (Kuwait), the same for the Falklands, the Argentinians didn't count on the old Iron Lady (Thatcher) to take their little illegal occupation so seriously, well weren't they surprised.....
    PC Registered user # 2,336,789,457...

    "When the water reaches the upper level, follow the rats."
    Claude Swanson

  5. #5
    Senior Member nihil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    United Kingdom: Bridlington
    OK, I will "nit pick" on this one.

    The Pentagon is not a military target. It is an administrative centre...........like Congress, the IRS (no Mr. Bin Laden, I am not advising you as to how to obtain universal popularity ) and so on.

    Administration = infrastructure, and infrastructure is a legitimate target in war.

    Fort Benning is military, the White House is infrastructure...............flammable at that............not that Canadians and their British mates would do anything along those lines?..............it was the French

  6. #6
    Does anyone have any proof a plane actually crashed into the pentagon??? noone has any photographs of any plane wreckage in or areound the building, and from what I am to understand many photographs were taken within the first 30 mins of the 'impact'

    the whole 3 planes deal sounds like a real good story for mike moore.

    what happened to the plane that went down in the field? noone talks about that either.

  7. #7
    AO Senior Cow-beller
    zencoder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Mountain standard tribe.
    Yeah, let me hold your proof right up here...
    Why dont you go read the 9/11 report, and ask the agencies and people who investigated these 'incidents'.

    All this discussion is doing is trolling for an argument.
    "Data is not necessarily information. Information does not necessarily lead to knowledge. And knowledge is not always sufficient to discover truth and breed wisdom." --Spaf
    Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made president should on no account be allowed to do the job. --Douglas Adams (1952-2001)
    "...people find it far easier to forgive others for being wrong than being right." - Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore

  8. #8
    Senior Member nihil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    United Kingdom: Bridlington

    Get a life huh?

    A Boeing 737 at 600Mph and you expect to find anything larger than a matchbox?

    Ack! phtt!

  9. #9
    AO Guinness Monster MURACU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Hate to say it but the US is the only country to call terrorist’s attacks an act of war. For most other countries they are criminal acts. The important thing is you can’t go to war with a criminal organisation. War is a political act and as such, it needs a legitimate political opponent. Bush legitimised Al queada by declaring war on terrorism. Then again it means that the powers that be can keep the American public in a war mentality for as long as they want. Which is every politicians dream.
    As for the rest of what was said both the allies and the axis during the second world war attacked soft targets such as cities to break enemy moral using the terror generated by bombing attacks. A couple of examples Cologne, Coventry, London ect.
    Also take the American bombing raids of the 80's and 90's on different middle eastern cities. Were they terrorist attacks by the definitions given here or were they a legitimate political response?
    Who here believes America is in a state of war? (Outside of Iraq that is.)
    Is Bush a war time president?
    If Bush is war time president doesn’t that mean that every president elected from now on will be a war president with all the powers that go with it?

    Oh Nihil are you up early or late. 6AM post my time ouch.
    \"America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.\"
    \"The reason we are so pleased to find other people\'s secrets is that it distracts public attention from our own.\"
    Oscar Wilde(1854-1900)

  10. #10
    Only african to own a PC! Cider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003

    Plane crash into the pentagon or something else?

    I have followed 9/11 very closely since it took place and the aftermath that led afterwards. There was a film banned in the USA that spoke about Bush and his connections to the middle east etc. When 9/11 took place, Bin Laden advisors wwere having a meeting down the road from the twin towers. All aircraft was forbidded to take flight however they (Bin ladens advisors) were put on a flight straight away back to the middle east. Very interesting. The documentary also suggested that a missile hit the pentagon and showed visual information about it. Bush has oil connections with the bin ladens and it was the USA (CIA) whom trained him and funded him to take on the USSR in Afgan. A terrorist attack was bound to happen and in my opinion the CIA was involved with this whole scandal. Some of you may disagree with my theories but we are entitled in my opinions.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts