Zombie_Monkey: Is this the same Bin Laden who, when asked, "What is your idea of the perfect Islamic state?", responded: "Afghanistan is getting there"? Freedom loving, huh? I'm forced to wonder, "Freedom for whom, Osama?" I'm not talking about freedom as the United States knows it. I'm talkin about freedom from American intervention in Middle Eastern politics. I'm not saying I support him or oppose him, I'm just trying to put this in an objective light by supplying bin Laden's side of the story, to go along with Bush's. Seeing as how bin Laden probably knows bin Laden better than Bush knows bin Laden, I would rather trust bin Laden's word on the motives of his own operation. anidanami124: So what does that makes someoen like Tim MacVehigh(I don't know how to spell his last name.) You see the fact is people liks Bin Laden and Tim and monsters who kill people for no reason. Which by the way Bin Laden was killing people before Bush was in offcie. He was useing terrorism in Bill was the President. What Bin Laden and even Saddma is was doing is nothing new. I sincerely doubt that bin Laden spent years planning the Sept. 11 attacks so he could kill people for "no reason". Killers (George W. Bush included) always have their reasons. Unless they're insane. I don't presume to speak for bin Laden, but he probably aimed for the WTC to weaken the U.S.'s economy. In this sense, the civilians working in the WTC were indeed "military targets". Let's put it another way. During the American Civil War (1861-1865), General W.T. Sherman burned thousands of acres of homes and farmland, not to mention miles of railroad. Were these "military targets"? Maybe, maybe not. But their destruction helped end the war faster - and helped his side win the war. So, you can say that Southern farmlands and the WTC are every bit as military as Edwards Air Force Base. chilbiangi: I don't think that was the point. The point was that U.S. technically committed an act of terrorism at Hiroshima, and Japan didn't at Pearl Harbor.