i really dont know. You'd think wouldn't you? but then again, how can we predict the actions of terrorists?

No. Random killing, even of military personnel or militarily-employed, is never legitimate. For an attack to be legitimate, even in an "irregular" or "resistance" war, it must have some direct military purpose: it must disable some capacity being used to carry out the claimed) cause of war. Attacking the Pentagon was just as much an act of terrorism as attacking the WTC.

There are no legitimate targets for terrorism. by the way. It is not war. By calling it war, the President legitimizes it. It is crime, nothing more, nothing less. Good question. You are working hard and well.

I don't think hitting the Pentagon was a random act....Wasn't it a chosen target?

This is actually a question best left for philosophers, but I will give my take on it. I can understand how the thought process goes here. President Bush declared war on terrorism. By doing so, terrorists have every right to feel that they are officially at war with the US and it's allies. Since the Pentagon is seen as a military target, it is therefore a valid target. However, there are many flaws in that logic. Flaw #1 is the actual strategic importance of the Pentagon. Even if ALL of our military decisions were made there, our command structure is too flexible, too full of contingencies and lines of succession for losing the Pentagon to be effective. It would anger us, but not incapacitate our military. Flaw #2 is the number of civilians in/around the Pentagon compared to the means used to target it. When weighed against the damage it would actually cause our military, the cost/benefit breakdown would quickly reveal to anybody that there would not be NEARLY enough effect to justify the civilian casualties. That is not counting the civilian casualties caused by using a commercial airliner as a terminally-guided munition. Flaw #3 is that Congress has not officially ratified the alleged war. Where is the official Declaration of War? Without that, there is no war and the number of legitimate targets decreases dramatically. (Personally, if our troops bust down the door to their hideout and run in guns blazing, I feel that they ARE entitled to fight back in self-defense, so there ARE still some conditionally-legitimate targets.) I had more, but I forgot them. Damn aylight Savings time... I need a nap...

You mean 9/11? Month before day.

It was probably one of the best. The other planes shouldn't have gone into the twin towers, they should have had another go at the Pentagon, and have had the last one thrown into the White House.

Of course, after all random killing of anyone military or civilian is always legitimate!

Target? Yes. But that does not excuse either the method or the concurrent attack on the World Trade Center. If they had used a missile (like the conspiracy theorists say our own government did) or a car bomb, 9/11 wouldn't have been the act of utter cowardace it was.

It is military. therefore a legit target. The Twin Towers were financial, so also legit. Rules of war, though, says something about when hitting targets like that, it is supposed to be done at a time when the least amount of civilians are in said target, like at night. Still, that was an invitation to war, and the United States and the coalition gladly accepted.

targeting the pentagon is an act of war. it is also a legitimate target. the use of civilian filled commercial aircraft as a bomb is an act of barbarism.