3 ms·
Certainly the World Trade Center was a 'soft' target, but I wouldn't describe the Pentagon as anything other than a military target. Also don't forget the bigg
by krschultz 16y ago
Certainly the World Trade Center was a 'soft' target, but I wouldn't describe the Pentagon as anything other than a military target.
Also don't forget the biggest terrorist attack prior to 9/11 against the US was not the previous (mostly failed) WTC attack, it was the two embassies in Africa (somewhat militarized considering every embassy has a wall and a detachment of marines) and prior to that the USS Cole. And a ways back we had the marine barracks in Beirut. Terrorists are not afraid of military targets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_United_States_embassy_bombings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_United_States_embassy_bomb...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing
- OpieCunningham 16y agoI'd certainly describe the Pentagon as a symbolic target in exactly the same way as the WTC was a symbolic target. I don't fully disagree with the remainder of your comment, but I would also say that it's not a trivial factor that the targets you listed also have something else in common: they're all U.S. targets that are local or relatively easy to get to locations. Another consideration is that those are all older attacks. More recent attacks around the globe to Western facilities have focused on non-military targets. Based upon the result of 9/11 (U.S. engaging full force), the non-military target has demonstrated to be more productive for them.
- wlievens 16y agoThe Pentagon was not attacked to disrupt military capability. That would consistute a military target. It was attacked for the symbolic value.