Where is the IDF? [Archive]

StealthMode

12-02-2003, 04:05 PM

I see pictures of terrorist walking around in groups and "show boating" for cameramen all the time in Palestine/Isreal. I just viewed a post where a terroist group leader is walking around. I have questions... if the media can find them in these cities:

Where is the IDF? It would seem they would have intelligence when these bastards are walking around in front of cameramen.

And why are they not "mowing down" these terrorist that are so obvious to see with there garments and headbands.

Also, when they have these "rallies/parades/funeral processions" why are they not attacked? They are in large groups?

Thanks.... I am wondering if I just do not understand the situation well enough.

Dalleer

12-02-2003, 04:15 PM

Also, when they have these "rallies/parades/funeral processions" why are they not attacked? They are in large groups?

Maybe because there seems to be "civilians" present in these rallies etc. as well, although sometimes it's hard to say who's a civilian down there...

Hitting one of those rallies stacked with "civilians" would surely give the Israelis a bad image, or make their current bad image even darker...

Etc.

Javehn

12-02-2003, 04:43 PM

Very simple. Not firing on mosks , or on every religion site , that's one .
Firing when someone have what is called "the means , and intention"-he have the means , like gun , and he is pointing it at your face (unless it's otherways - it used to be "in states of clear and present danger" , or return fire only) . Then , the ROE permits to engage him . That taking out all the ralleys , and all those thingies. Exceptions made when is talking about very high ranks of those millitia groups - as they always have "the mean , and intention" , they sometimes get's elliminated , and that is rarely done . It was done recently , responce to attack on Israel made during Hudna .

IDFM203

12-02-2003, 05:28 PM

Just to add.....

Before 2002 and operation defensive shield, the IDF in general contrary to world media, was very restrained and even though intelligence knew where a lot of hamas and Islamic jihad and etc. were, yet still they did not go after them in a large scale. Only on a few pin point cases but I remember for a large part of my time that a lot of cases we would not and also there would be Palestinians shooting at us but yet we would not respond due to them being around civilians.

Now after constant homicide bombings and shootings (which was on a daily basis!!) the army finnaly went in 2002 in a larger scale and attacks against Israel have gone dramatically down and that is due to one fact, the IDF is finally going after them in a larger scale.

Now we never indiscriminately fire at them and when there are rallies with civilians and they are there as well, well the idf does not do anything. And no it’s not because of international opinion for we have come to realise that no matter what Israel does or doesn’t do, it gets its “bad” image. The fact is that we are restrained and that we don’t fire indiscriminately at terrorists and most certainly not at civilians and that we never purposely target civilians and that’s not because of image but rather because of our own moral standards and our own ROE that most soldiers respect.

Of course like very army we are not perfect and we make mistakes and we have a few bad apples but as a whole, the IDF performs professionally especially with what it has had to face.

Shalom :D

jdbjdb

12-02-2003, 05:51 PM

Until someone disarms the terrorist, I say keeping killing them one by one, sounds bad but the terrorist force the IDF to resort to such tattics.

StealthMode

12-02-2003, 11:02 PM

Thanks for the reply guys....
It makes sense what you say, I guess my reference to "mowing down" seems totally wrong, with the media and image battle having to be fought daily as well as religous sites.

It is just wrong that they have terrorists "acknowledged as spokesman" or that have "offices" or HW. Giving terrorist titles, acknowledging them as a spokesman FOR a group give them recognition and power. If a spokesman comes out to speak for a group, arrest him!

I guess I am being unrealistic, it just seems that they are in plain sight with the media. Maybe sniper squads that use extreme caution and scare these terrorist into crawling around like the rats they are. I call for a new IDF sniper squad implementing fear into these arrogant terrorists walking the street!!
It is sick watching them parade around!

StealthMode

12-02-2003, 11:04 PM

HW = HQ... HeadQuarters... like the recent expulsion in Pakistan of terrorists offices (i think it was a very large amount of offices). Come on now, giving them power with recognition. Offices for terrorist groups!

hood

12-02-2003, 11:18 PM

Here's some. :) On the edge of not being worth a caution for graphic content, but here it is for the sake of consistency.

http://media.militaryphotos.net/photos/albums/album43/aaa.jpg

RAMALLAH, WEST BANK - DECEMBER 1: Israeli army special forces pass the bodies of two Hamas militants killed in a firefight with the troops December 1, 2003 in the West Bank town of Ramallah. Israeli troops mounted a major raid in Yasser Arafat's headquarters town killing three armed Palestinian militants and a nine-year-old boy. The troops also demolished a four-story building believed to be hiding a Hamas man on Israel's most-wanted list.

jdbjdb

12-02-2003, 11:22 PM

One thing that makes me sick is seeing little chilren wearing mock suicide belts, it wouldn't suprise me if some were real, a whole new/young generation already compromised by terror.

martinexsquaddie

12-03-2003, 05:31 PM

i think the kiddie suicide bomber is probably a hoax
there was a good article on the idg in this weekends guardian

hood

12-03-2003, 05:40 PM

Whether or not it's a joke, using little kids as propaganda and military instruments is shameful.

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20031121/capt.bei10511211908.topix_mideast_lebanon_israel_prison_bei105.jpg

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20031121/capt.sge.hiw26.211103190941.photo01.default-380x270.jpg

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20031121/capt.bei10711211824.mideast_lebanon_israel_prisoners_bei107.jpg

Whistler

12-03-2003, 05:42 PM

Even if that one newborn suicide baby was a hoax (which I doubt), there are hundred of other pictures where that came from. Kids frome 3-12 carrying assault rifles, bomb belts, terrorist garb, etc... No wonder there is so much hate in that region if it gets hammered into them at such a young age.

jdbjdb

12-03-2003, 07:35 PM

How about scare tattics? They being little kids, if you put them in a real combat situation, maybe that would scare them straight, or perhaps firing blanks from IDF tanks would send them running with their tales tucked firmly between their legs.

hood

12-03-2003, 08:28 PM

maybe that would scare them straight,

I have yet to ever see that happen. Usually it makes them ultra brave so that they stupidly think that pelting Israeli soldiers with stones won't get them shot.

hahaha

12-03-2003, 10:41 PM

Is peace possible in the region even with all the 'hate-filled' younger generations ?

One?

12-03-2003, 11:04 PM

IDFM203

12-04-2003, 12:04 AM

i think the kiddie suicide bomber is probably a hoax

More "hoaxes" ;) :roll:

http://www.israel-wat.com/child2.jpg
http://www.israel-wat.com/21.jpg
http://www.israel-wat.com/child6.jpg
http://www.israel-wat.com/kid.jpg
http://www.israel-wat.com/kid11.jpg
http://www.israel-wat.com/kids22.jpg
http://www.israel-wat.com/show12.jpg
http://www.israel-wat.com/pic5.jpg
http://www.israel-wat.com/pic6.jpg
http://www.israel-wat.com/q6q.jpg
http://www.israel-wat.com/y9.jpg
http://www.israel-wat.com/march4.jpg
http://www.israel-wat.com/g4k_eng.jpg

shalom :D

hahaha

12-04-2003, 07:25 PM

Are there any hard-core Jewish factions that would contemplate being suicide bombers ? If not, why not ? Is it against the religion ?
Does the Koran (sorry for spelling) actually state that if you give your life in a jihad you will go upstairs and get x number of virgins or is it a play on words that the ministers/mullahs/priests/..etc... perform to brainwash the young and impressionable ?
Are these suicide bombers high on some drug or do they work themselves up in a frenzy like the freaks who cut their heads open with the blades ? Flagellants - is that the word to describe them, someone who punishes themselve through self harm...??

jdbjdb

12-04-2003, 08:57 PM

I remember hearing about "Revenge for the little ones" I don't know much about them, Suicide method is not their way though, Israel arrest their extremist, Palestinian Authority does not.

Are these suicide bombers high on some drug
They are promised 72 virgins, also the highest level of salvation to the martyr and his family.

Uncle Sam

12-04-2003, 09:02 PM

Sadly..This is where it all begins...NOT the kid with mock explosives strapped to him...But the idiots behind him...Cheering him on !!
http://www.israel-wat.com/y9.jpg

StarvingStudent47

12-04-2003, 09:32 PM

Are there any hard-core Jewish factions that would contemplate being suicide bombers ?
While there are a very small number of Jewish extremists who have engaged in terrorism, they do not specifically use suicide bombing. Furthermore, they are very rare (probably no more prevalent than Christian terrorists like Eric Robert Rudolph and Timothy McVeigh in the USA) and they target other Jews (ie Yitzhak Rabin) as much as Arabs. The Israeli state does not tolerate their presence and treats them just like the USA treated McVeigh and Rudolph--as murderers.

If not, why not ? Is it against the religion ?
Since Islam is the only religion that does engage in suicide bombing, it's kind of hard to explain why all others do NOT. Jews don't for the same reason Lutherans and Catholics don't suicide-bomb: it just seems like a bad idea overall. Apologists for terrorism say "well what would you do if you were that poor and helpless," but there are poor and helpless people in Latin America, Africa, and Southeast Asia who would never ponder the idea that the solution is strapping a bomb to your chest and blowing up a bus full of kids.

Does the Koran (sorry for spelling) actually state that if you give your life in a jihad you will go upstairs and get x number of virgins or is it a play on words that the ministers/mullahs/priests/..etc... perform to brainwash the young and impressionable ?
This is a highly contested issue. I have read part of the Qur'an (Koran is also an accepted spelling), though I have not read every page. I have seen no references to specific rewards for terrorism or anything like that. There ARE references to "jihad," though the book is extremely vague as to what "jihad" actually consists of. It is my understanding that the details of "72 dark-eyed virgins" and all that was developed by preachers far after the Qur'an was written.

Are these suicide bombers high on some drug or do they work themselves up in a frenzy like the freaks who cut their heads open with the blades ?
I've seen interviews with "failed suicide bombers"--guys whose bomb belts didn't detonate properly. They are not in drugs, and though they don't work themselves into a frenzy (that is a Shi'ite holy day that you're describing with the blades), they do describe being in a calm, trance-like state as they go to kill.

The Shi'ite holiday where they cut themselves commemorates the death of their sect's founder. Not long after the founding of Islam, there had been a power struggle between Ali and...some other dude. Ali's sons founded Shi'ism but were later killed by the armies of "the other dude." "The other dude" later founded the Abbasid empire (what became Sunni Islam).

Interestingly, though, drugs used to be a major part of terrorism. The Kharijis were an extremist Muslim sect in the Persia in the...8th century? 9th century? Something like that. They would publicly assassinate political figures and then allow the assassin to be murdered by a mob--the first suicide bombers, in effect. They would use hashish before the killings (the word "assassin" was first used to describe this sect, and "assassin" is a derivative of "hashishim" or something like that).

hood

12-04-2003, 10:05 PM

They would use hashish before the killings (the word "assassin" was first used to describe this sect, and "assassin" is a derivative of "hashishim" or something like that).

I've heard it both ways on this. Most prominently that the whole hashish connection was a total falicy and became "true" only through everyone thinking it was true and repeating it. Have a look at this:

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_info4.shtml

jdbjdb

12-04-2003, 10:05 PM

I bet this guy wished he had some painkillers
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1975000/images/_1976341_drag300.jpg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1975000/images/_1976341_cars-ap-300.jpg
Here is a picture of him up close
http://www.dallasdancemusic.com/photos/data/500/6287walt-thumb.jpg

StarvingStudent47

12-05-2003, 01:05 AM

I've heard it both ways on this. Most prominently that the whole hashish connection was a total falicy and became "true" only through everyone thinking it was true and repeating it. Have a look at this:

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_info4.shtml

Yeah, I should have mentioned that not everyone accepts the whole hashish thing. Fact is, it occured over 1000 years ago, and the Kharijis didn't keep written records of this sort of thing, so we'll probably never know for sure. The same goes for viking berserkers--some think that their berserker rage was purely psychological, others argue that they ate certain mushrooms that had a PCP-like effect. In the end, who knows?

S'13

12-05-2003, 03:37 AM

There is nothing more beautiful then the love of a mother for her son...
http://www.israel-wat.com/show12.jpg

ArmoredDov_D9

12-05-2003, 07:13 AM

Sending the children to a terrorist parades in only the tip of the iceberg. Palestinians also send their children to engage in terrorist activity.

http://www.idf.il/idf_in_pictures/images/2003/november/dotz%2030.11.03-03.jpg

This is a video capture of a film documenting terrorists attacking workers neer the fence around the Gaza Strip. IDF forces opened fire and wounded one terrorist. As you can see, the terrorist is been evacuated by his fellow terrorists, under the protection of Palestinian children, acting as HUMAN SHIELD, preventing the IDF to shoot on the terrorists.

Kids were also used to carry explosives for the terrorists (suck kids were captured near the fence of Gaza. Hizbullah newspaper hailed Jenin children for their help in transporting explosives to the terrorists there. Abu-Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) condamned PA and Hamas for exploiting kids to throw pipe bombs on Israeli vehicles which caused serious handicaped due pre-mature dentonation of the bombs given to the children).

Roger Rabbit

12-05-2003, 07:24 AM

I don't see the children in that picture. They look more like teenagers or young adults.

ArmoredDov_D9

12-05-2003, 08:16 AM

There is a childe in front of the second man from the right (the man is wearing right shirt, the kid is wearing blue shirt).

hahaha

12-07-2003, 10:24 PM

All they (the terrorist organisations) are doing is forcing the Israelis not to trust any Palestinian man, woman or child. Who would blame the Israelis ? men are being used to carry out the suicide bombings, women can hide **** under their burquas - even case of a man dressing up as a woman; children being used to ferry bombs to terrorists and as human shields. Amazing how the terrorists think that they are benifiting their country and their fellow countrymen when in fact they are practically ruining the lives of these people. I don't see how these organisations can be called freedom fighters (I know I have called them this in the past) when they are actively ruining the freedom of Palestinians. Don't these groups realise this or are they that caught up with trying to keep the conflict going and going ?

Javehn

12-08-2003, 06:29 AM

Hey , what the hell . I had the same picture posted on my thread. :lol:
Nice . About the hashish , yes , some of them are real pot heads . Some of them chooing this strangest **** called G'a't , and getting crazy from it. That allowes them to do suicide missions like - 16 years old kid jumping with kalachnikov ahead of tank and starting spray it using some strange fire method developed in arab countries - holding the weapon in one hand point it god knows where and spraying random authomatic fire ( sometimes they are the ones causing bystander injuries and sometimes death . I been witnessed to that fact and to they poor shooting skills ) . Or this kid is highly ignorrant , or his is suicidal , or he is just stoned up .
Instead of making some orderly plan to attack Israeli troops in coordinated attack ( they have ****loads of weapons , that they do have ) , they all prefer to commit suicide one by one attacking Israeli soldiers by that strange manner . If this is not becose of constant use of some pot , i don't know what is wrong with them .

Mr. Nielsen

12-08-2003, 09:21 AM

Quote:
If not, why not ? Is it against the religion ?

Since Islam is the only religion that does engage in suicide bombing, it's kind of hard to explain why all others do NOT. Jews don't for the same reason Lutherans and Catholics don't suicide-bomb: it just seems like a bad idea overall.

The Tamil Tigers on Sri Lanka have been using suicide bombs regularly, so it’s not just a Muslim thing.

I suppose you by bad idea are referring to the targeting of civilians.

While the suicide bombs have mostly been used against civilians there have also been some successful ones against legitimate targets.

For instance in September a suicide bomber attacked a group of Israeli soldiers outside their base in Israel, killing in all nine of them. If the suicide bomber had instead attacked them with say an AK-47, what would he/she have achieved? Would it have been suicidal? Definitely.

S'13

12-08-2003, 09:54 AM

For instance in September a suicide bomber attacked a group of Israeli soldiers outside their base in Israel, killing in all nine of them.

The soldiers were probably waiting for a bus to take them home...

Mr. Nielsen

12-08-2003, 03:57 PM

Quote:
For instance in September a suicide bomber attacked a group of Israeli soldiers outside their base in Israel, killing in all nine of them.

The soldiers were probably waiting for a bus to take them home...

I guess so. It was described as a hitchhiking post.

Are you suggesting they were unarmed, so that the attacker didn't necessarily had to die?

IDFM203

12-08-2003, 04:12 PM

While the suicide bombs have mostly been used against civilians there have also been some successful ones against legitimate targets.

For instance in September a suicide bomber attacked a group of Israeli soldiers outside their base in Israel, killing in all nine of them. If the suicide bomber had instead attacked them with say an AK-47, what would he/she have achieved? Would it have been suicidal? Definitely. yes but those are very few and far in between......

Most or a large majority of the homicde bombers purposely target civilians inside of israeli cities. Again most homecide attacks are against Israeli civilians.

Quote:
For instance in September a suicide bomber attacked a group of Israeli soldiers outside their base in Israel, killing in all nine of them.

The soldiers were probably waiting for a bus to take them home...

I guess so. It was described as a hitchhiking post.

Are you suggesting they were unarmed, so that the attacker didn't necessarily had to die? no hes saying that they were standing around off duty waiting for a bus to go home. thats all that he was saying.

Secondly Israelis hitchhike from anywhere and not necessary from a designated hitchhiking post.

Thirdly I don’t get your question…….if a soldier is armed or unarmed it makes no difference, for if a attacker is trying to kill him, the person (the off duty soldiers in this case) has every right to defend himself even if that means death for the attacker.

Forth of all, the question is even more baffling considering that we are talking about a homicide bomber that kills himself and with that action kills others as well so it wasn’t the off duty soldiers that killed him in the first place but his own actions to himself.

P.S. just out of curiosity I would love to see a link to that incident……(I don’t doubt it just I don’t remember it at all)

shalom :D

Javehn

12-08-2003, 05:02 PM

For me , when i was a soldier , i would respect those fighter much more if they would come against me with a rifle or something . He would be still ass whooped , but at list , he would die like fighter , not like some chicken **** .

About the attack on trempiada, there were several attacks made , and in one of them x-student from my highscool died . I am not shure to which one you reffering .

Mr. Nielsen

12-08-2003, 06:42 PM

IDFM203

12-08-2003, 07:25 PM

P.S. just out of curiosity I would love to see a link to that incident……

The incidence I was referring occurred on 9. September 2003. I couldn't find the source again (it was the Israeli ministry of foreign affairs website), but it is the one here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3094362.stm

Apparently one of the wounded died later. ok so what was your point of bringing this incident up in the first place??...I mean was it to show that despite most (a very large majority of them) of the homicide bombers purposly targeting and attacking Israeli civilians in Israeli cities, that they also once in a while target and kill off duty non-combat soldiers (that base is a medical base and other things) in a Israeli city (Tel Aviv) while waiting for a bus????

I don’t get why you brought that incident up in this thread???……………… :roll:

shalom :D

Mr. Nielsen

12-08-2003, 07:27 PM

I was just saying that in this case using a suicide bomb didn't seem as such a bad idea. Considering that an attack with a firearm would have got the attacker killed just as well without achieving as much.

fred_engles

12-08-2003, 08:07 PM

Since Islam is the only religion that does engage in suicide bombing, it's kind of hard to explain why all others do NOT.Largely true, but not exactly. Not only are there several groups that practice suicide terrorism that are Muslim but secular (PKK, DFLP), there's also at least one group that's been involved in one or two suicide bombings, BKI, a Sikh seperatist group in India.

Mr. Nielsen

12-09-2003, 09:37 AM

I think this hitch-post subject have become a bit confused. To help the matter I will adress some ealier clarifying questions.

Quote:

While the suicide bombs have mostly been used against civilians there have also been some successful ones against legitimate targets.

For instance in September a suicide bomber attacked a group of Israeli soldiers outside their base in Israel, killing in all nine of them. If the suicide bomber had instead attacked them with say an AK-47, what would he/she have achieved? Would it have been suicidal? Definitely.
yes but those are very few and far in between......

Yes and thats why I remembered this one as standing out.

UoUo

12-09-2003, 09:42 AM

sooo..the pentagon in 9/11 was a legitimate targets ?

Cuz you must understand...the soldair that died in that bus staion was non combat

Mr. Nielsen

12-09-2003, 09:52 AM

Mr. Nielsen wrote:

Quote:
For instance in September a suicide bomber attacked a group of Israeli soldiers outside their base in Israel, killing in all nine of them.

The soldiers were probably waiting for a bus to take them home...

I guess so. It was described as a hitchhiking post.

Are you suggesting they were unarmed, so that the attacker didn't necessarily had to die?
no hes saying that they were standing around off duty waiting for a bus to go home. thats all that he was saying.

I think this is mainly confusion as to what is meant.

But I was interested in when israeli military personel carries their weapons with them. I would think that it was preferred to have as much armed personel on the streets as possible.

Mr. Nielsen

12-09-2003, 10:09 AM

sooo..the pentagon in 9/11 was a legitimate targets ?

Had the Taliban/Al-Quida had some legitimate quarrel with the USA and been at war with them. Then I would guess so.

I'm sure that the Iraqi defense ministry was considered a legitimate target despite that it probably contained much non-combat personel.

Mr. Nielsen

12-09-2003, 11:26 AM

Cuz you must understand...the soldair that died in that bus staion was non combat

I was reading non combat as being non frontline troops, but IDFM203 mentioned the place being a medical base. So are you saying that the killed persons were unarmed medical personel?

If so they would be considered non-combat personel by the Geneva convention, and they would not be a legitimate target (still for the attack to be illegal the suicide bomber would have had to realise it was not combatants, otherwise I guess it would be a case of collateral damage).

If that's the case the example wasn't as good as I thought. Being an example of a suicide bomber attacking a military target.

ArmoredDov_D9

12-09-2003, 11:50 AM

The place of the attack was a bus station near Assaf Harofe hospital and near base Triziffin (a base of military schools, mechanical workshops and military hospitals). The terrorist attack wasn't directed particularly at soldiers since they are a lot of civilians in that station (mainly coming for treatments in the hospital.

By the way, on December 3rd 2003, Israeli security captured two PLO terrorists on their way to commit a suicide bombing within a highschool in Yokne'am. They were halted by the security fence and were forced to take a different route, there they were captured by the YAMAM (Israeli elite police counter-terror unit, with a worldwide reputation). A great massacre was foiled and many lives were saved.

Javehn

12-09-2003, 12:02 PM

Those were not exactly a millitary targets . First of all , not 90 percent of Israelies have weapons , and we do not live in wild west . Hardly 50 percent of soldiers cariing weapons . That depends on area were soldier is serving , his unit , his trainging level and so on .. Not once Israeli medics saved palestinian terrorist lifes , which caused a big storm in some ex-aphganistan veterans from Russian army ( there are a lot of those in Israel ) . The people that was targetted - medics , chefs , drivers .. Half of them didn't even knew how to use weapons , and almost all of them didn't carry it .
Not like the terrorists. I can tell you , that they have huge ammount of weapond in fair qualities , all kinds of sights , grenades , rpg's . Not counting self made weaponds and mines ( those are actually poor quality , and it's getting blown even before it's used . A lot of Palestinian fighters died this way . May the Allah host them in his shadow , and bring them 72 virgins !!) . But they prefer not to use them , and instead pick much easier way . Instead of dying like true fighters , they do it like chickens . I would be much more respectfull to them , if they would come on me with rifle in purpose to fight like true fighters .

Javehn

12-09-2003, 03:17 PM

Oh , by the way , check this one out ...
Nice picture .
http://miloni.freeyellow.com/babywar.GIF

StarvingStudent47

12-09-2003, 03:47 PM

sooo..the pentagon in 9/11 was a legitimate targets ?

Had the Taliban/Al-Quida had some legitimate quarrel with the USA and been at war with them. Then I would guess so.

First off, "legitimate quarrel" has nothing to do with whether a target is a legitimate military target or not. Hitler had no legitimate quarrel with Great Britain, but if the Luftwaffe bombed an RAF base, no one would contest that it was a legitimate military target.

Secondly, don't forget that 9/11 was not the first time that al-Qaeda and the USA had met. There had been a long history of al-Qaeda bombings against the United States, as well as (unfortunately limited) United States counter-attacks against al-Qaeda training camps. International terrorist organizations don't generally declare war officially, but I'd consider this a de facto war even before 9/11.

What am I getting at? Nothing in particular. Just saying that the bombing against Assaf Harofe hospital was no more legitimate than the attack on the Pentagon. If you think the latter was unacceptible, then so was the former. But if you think the latter was legitimate, then I guess the former was too.

Mr. Nielsen

12-11-2003, 10:04 AM

In a conventional war between states governed by the Geneva Conventions, I think a complex such as the Pentagon would be considered a legitimate target and a hospital would not.

So if say Afghanistan, as a country, attacked the pentagon despite never having any trouble with the US. It would be an attack against a legitimate target, but unprovoked like Pearl Harbor.

And if the Dutch resistance during ww2 had succeeded in bombing the German ministry of defence in Berlin, who would have objected to that?

Now the real attack against pentagon was carried out by a group not representing any specific country or ethnic group, and having a rather bizarre cause (at least in the eyes of us westerns). So does the pentagon then become an illegitimate target. And does it make a difference?

Had the attack against pentagon been the only attack from Al-Quida and had empty planes been used, the operation in Afghanistan would still have been justified I think.

It's no wonder that there is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism, as the subject seems quite confusing.