[Some1]

Krsqk
As the attack on the Pentagon was not in time of war, it was unannounced, and it was done via hijacking civilian aircraft, I would call that terrorism. If war came here, I would expect the Pentagon to be shelled/bombed.

I would call it terrorism too, but for them it was war already... And bombing the pentagon in a normal way is not possible for them. This is what you get when to not equal enemies fight.

Krsqk
Indeed. Now, if we could only find an unbiased perspective. I know, there is no such thing.

Because, the first thing that dies in a war..... is the truth.

DavidG: Calm down plz..., i didn't suggest it.

Geoschmo
If one wanted to stretch the definitions a bit I could almost see some logic that the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole was an act of war and not terrorism. And if the 9/11 terrorists had taken a private plane loaded with explosives or something and flown it into the Pentagon you could make the same case. You can have a war that is undeclared afterall. But calling the innocents on the airliners collateral damage is ridiculous. Collateral damage is not intentional by definition. The 9/11 terrorists purposly murdered those pasengers. They made no effort to prevent their deaths. Their deaths were in fact part of the objective.

Its ridiculous for us... Thats the problem (i want to add that i do see it as an terrorist act, but also GWB his war is.)
The bombs that miss and hit civilians are what?? Collateral damage? Remeber that US can permit itself to say what to attack and destroy, something the opposition can't.
The problem is that this was (i guess) the only way to "make their point". Bomb the pentagon? (no way), use a private plane (shot from the air in a sec).... Its just an to unequal war (for them) to stick to the "principles of war".
Guerilla tactics are largely based on: hit, run & fear.

IMO: First look at what you do wrong, before telling someone else what he does wrong (when you are just as wrong yourself).
&
This war is just to enequal to make them stick to any rules.

R.