The Pentagon is a military target. -- Back Talk

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, [6], 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

Subject: The Pentagon is a military target.

Author:
Mark7

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 09:25:26 10/04/01 Thu
In reply to: Mark7 's message, "Israel is no democracy. It is a THEOCRACY." on 22:59:21 10/03/01 Wed

The Pentagon is a military target. I was very surprised that it was hit.

Anybody with some military training would know that command and control targets are the first to be hit.

When Mathias Russ in 1991 I believe landed a Cessena plane in the Red Square in Moscaw, we laughed our as$ of at the stupid Russians. The Russians replied that they flanked the little plane with MIGs and just didn't want to shoot it down.

Well, the Pentagon in my mind should have learned something from it.

But back to terrorism, if the Pentagon is not a military target, how come the Belgrade TV station was?

See, our definitions of terror and terrorism are muddy and inadequate.

To us Americans, our brave men and women in uniform flying multy million $ F16s, B1s and so forth cannot be terrorists.

But if you were a sound technician working for the Belgrade TV station, things would look very different. They would be terrorists, and the Sound technician could hardly be called a "military target".

I do think we need an international agreement about terrorism, much like the Geneva convention regarding modern war, conditions for prisoners of war and so forth.

Because frankly I cannot distinguish the thug in uniform from the one without uniform. And I certainly cannot make the difference between Jihad and Cruciade. Both are holy wars made by mad men.

But I have a tip for all my fellow Americans who never learned much about the dark age history of the middle east
and Islam.

The Muslim did win the last Cruciades. It took them 500 years to do it, but they did end up winners.

I believe the last cruciade was in 1444 at Varna, a portcity in today's Bulgaria.

Mohamed the 2nd took the throne when his father (I forgot his name, maybe Murad?) died in battle. Also dead in battle was the king of Hungary and most of the elite of Christian Europe.

The Turks had a fiest after the war, executing over 30,000 prisoners of war by decapitation. It took them about 3 days to do it.

In 1453, the same angry Mohamed the 2nd took Constantinopole, today's Istambul, and made St. Sophia cathedral in Constantinopole into a mosque.

Legend has it that he put an oath at Varna to take the city which was considered just as holy for Christianity as Rome.

Istambul is to this day a Turkish city, and Sophia a mosque.

Something to consider for would be cruciaders.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: International agreement
Author: JeffF [ Edit \| View ]	Date Posted: 13:08:49 10/04/01 Thu I have no objection in principle to your idea of an international convention on terrorism, but how would different nations agree on a definition? You say our definition of terrorists and terrorism are muddy and inadequate. Maybe, but what do you propose that an international convention use as the basis of an agreement?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: It's called Human Rights

Author:
Mark7
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 21:34:16 10/05/01 Fri

If we support only these governments and organizations with genuine beliefe in respect for human rights, we will win against terrorism.

We cannot win against terrorism by blaming the French for their reluctance to jump on our military expeditions and aiding the dictatorship in Pakistan because it is convenient at the moment.

All we are doing is helping one thug instead of another.

Yes, it has it's practical inconveniences, but if Sharon would have been at the Hague in the same cell with Milosevich, Arafat and maybe some triger happy of our own proud men in uniform, there will be less thugs to follow around the world.

Plus, I am really concerned that Congress may pass some antidemocratic laws in the name of "security", laws that will open the gates for official government terror, like in WW2 with the Japanese, or in the McCarthy era with the red scare.

There is no terror greater than government terror, and no terrorist so potent as the terrorist in uniform.

To give you a recent example, by numbers, Osama is nothing compared with Radovan Karadich of Bosnia.

Even little thugs like George Armstrong Custer would rank up there close with Osama, if you take into consideration the number of civilian victims killed.