Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : War -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Emile Vidrine who wrote (4375)	9/24/2001 2:32:24 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 23908

And who's fault is it that the British placed the command headquarters in a civilian hotel?? Who's fault is it that the Palestinian gunmen hide out behind children? And why are you just as upset about some Hamas suicide bomber blowing himself up in a pizzaria or shopping mall where NO military targets are present?? I'm not saying that I condone the King David attack, but when a military command takes control of a civilian building for their purposes, THEY bear primary responsiblity for the security of any civilians inside. Btw, yes... 20 Jews, working for the British military were victims. But only a few individuals actually staying at the hotel were injured. And btw, the Jewish National Council DENOUNCED the bombing of the King David Hotel. And the British were warned several times that a bomb was in their headquarters and they refused to evacuate. When's the last time a extremist muslim suicide bomber gave a warning?? But my entire comment was based upon legal definitions of what constitutes a theoretical "military target". Horrendous and diabolical as it was, I can see someone making the legal argument that the pentagon was a "military target". But I cannot see anyone being able to justify the attack on the WTC, where civilian victims from 80 different countries were murdered. It could not, in any manner, be construed as a "military target".