Yes. These for instance:
Original source NYT, now archived, but article can be found all over the web.
So, you were saying?
Yes. They were deliberatly targeted and killed, since the military operations would necessarily result in their deaths. It’s not like the militaries ignored that civilians could possibly be killed. For instance, even ignoring errors, if you bomb, say a power plant, you know you’ll be killing innocent civilians working in it. It should also apply to Iraki non-civilians, by the way. It’s not because a guy wear an uniform that his death becomes unimportant.
So, yes, the question would be : was the desired/expected outcome worth the deliberate killing of thousands of innocent Irakis, civilians and soldiers (plus some hundreds of americans, brits, etc…)?
The fact that those civilians weren’t the primary target doesn’t make them any less innocent, nor their deaths any less the result of a deliberate choice. So, if you’re the one deciding the actions which you know will result in them being killed, or the one implementing this action, you’d rather be sure to have exceedingly good reasons to do so.
I’m not going to debate the war in Iraq or the Bush administration or whatnot in this thread (others know infinitely more than me about these things anyway). I’m just saying that no nation should have to lose people who are, by and large, blameless. Circumstances have unfortunately dictated otherwise in some cases.
Did the citizens of Dresden deserve to die in the incendiary bombings during WWII?
Just a question. I don’t think they did deserve to die, but I understand that they were innocents that died because of the actions of those who deigned to speak/act in their name (the Nazi leaders of Gemany at that time.)
No, as a matter of fact I am not comparing the USA directly to Nazi Germany. I am pointing out that “deserve” or not, innocent civilians can end up dead because of the actions of their leaders.
Nothing is inevitable, nothing. We make choices as to what we do, and if the choices are to harm others, then we reap what we sow.
Love
I didn’t vote for him. Do I get on a terrorist “do not call list”?
And it’s a Republic, not a Democracy.
I would like to hear an american president doing the same thing.
Reagan apologized for the internment of Japanese-Americans in World War Two. Bill Clinton apologized for American support of Guatemalan dictators. Madeleine Albright offered a confession of America’s role in Iran in 1953. George Bush apologized for the Abu Ghraib scandal. However, like other democracies, America fosters truth and reconcilication for atrocities that have since passed into history mainly by upholding academic freedom and freedom of speech, and declassifying documents under the Freedom Of Information Act (declassifications which, unlike in Britain, Canada, and France, is largely unimpeded by Security of Information Acts).
Somehow, I doubt that the terrorists gave a wet slap about vietnam, our south american misadventures, the bay of pigs, our China policy, or anything else not related to them. They were mad because we support Israel, and tried, not very successfully, to kill Osama several times before.
I’m not American.
Well, let’s see… you’re from Argentina, correct? Your government started a stupid, pointless war that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of British servicemen. So is it okay from a British terrorist to come over to your house and murder your parents? Whaddya say? Oh, you didn’t vote for those guys? Well, how many of the people in the World Trade Center voted for Reagan? Given that quite a few of them weren’t even old enough to vote in 1980, or weren’t even Americans, I’m guessing FAR less than half. So too bad for you; by your logic you and your relatives are all responsible for the Falkland Islands war and it’s okay for a British nut to murder your family.
It comes back to this; if the government of Argentina got someone killed, does your sister deserve to be murdered for it? Yes or no?
Personally I believe that American foreign policy in the Middle East by sponsoring Hawkish Israel, and tyrants like Saddam, the Saudi Royal family.
Interventionism in South America - Chile, Argentina, outright attack on Panama.
Considering these questionable acts which the United States has perpetrated, I suppose they did deserve the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
The other nation that deserves to be attacked by terrorists is Russia. The scars of interventionism in Europe are deep - outright attacks on Czechoslovakia and Hungary, economic embargos on Albania, the masterminding of a coup in Poland, and the pouring of funds into anti-democratic communist parties in Western Europe, among others. By 1980, they provided 80% of Africa’s arms, including supporting sadistic regimes in Somalia, Uganda, and Sudan. They also armed terrorist-supporting Middle Eastern nations and groups, such as Libya, Nasser’s Egypt, and Syria. Terrorist groups such as the PLO and Viet Cong benefited from Soviet funds. They supplied Saddam Hussein with nearly 60% of his conventional arsenal, and trained many nuclear scientists for him. Of course I don’t need to mention their horrible domestic human rights record, which to this day remains one of the worst in Europe.
Come to think of it, France is also long overdue for a terrorist attack. Their neocolonialism in Africa has consistently evoked fury, especially their armed interventions and arms dealings with corrupt African dictatorships in former Zaire, the Ivory Coat, Gabon, Cameroon, Chad, the Republic of the Congo, and Togo. Evidence is mounting that they actively assisted the genocide in Rwanda. Their arms deals extend outside of Africa however, as they were the second largest arms suppliers for Ba’athist Iraq. The French have assassinated many progressive African leaders, such as Ahmad Ben Barka, and engaged in systematic torture of Algerians during the 1954-1962 war. Other terrorist acts include the infamous sinking of the Rainbow Warrior.
If the terrorists turn their anger toward Cuba, it should be expected. The list of Latin American government Cuba has attempted to subvert since 1959 is endless. The government achieves such ends through providing funds and arms to cruel and destructive terrorist movements, such as in Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua. Because of this, Latin America’s struggle to achieve stable democracy was nearly smashed in Venezuela and Uruguay. Cuba has also directly intervened with military force to prop up Africa’s most terrible governments, including the sadistic and barbaric Mengistu. Even today they have by far Latin America’s most terrible human rights record.
The British have good reason to fear an attack from outraged terrorists who want to avenge the overthrowing of Mossagh in Iran, Cheddi Jagan in Guyana, and the assassination attempt on Nasser by MI6. In a scheme to topple Nasser, Britain made a covert deal with Israel to launch a surprise attack in 1953. Their support for French colonialism in Indochina after World War II caused much undue suffering, as did their oppression of the Mau Mau movement, the ostensive leader of which ruled Kenya after independence.
As a Canadian, I wonder if Canadian policies have made us a target for terrorists. We evicted the entire coastal Japanese-Canadian population to concentration camps in 1942, denied the vote to Native Americans until 1960, and were among the first North American governments to open ties with the oppressive communist regime in Cuba, and with Mao’s China, possibly the most murderous regime to have existed in human history. In search of profits, we repeatedly refused to bring down comprehensive sanctions against apartheid South Africa, and our armed forces pepper-sprayed protestors who objected to the government’s extensive trade with Suharto’s Indonesia. In a horrific act, Canadian peacekeepers tortured a young Somali boy to death in 1993. America demonstrated a love for freedom that clearly does not exist in Canada when they evoked the Patriot Act in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. By comparison, the FLQ were killing .6 people annually in Quebec (over eight years), when Trudeau evoked the War Measures Act, essentially turning him and his cabinet into dictators. Thousands of native Quebecois were arrested without explanation despite their obvious innocence. Even though 85% of Canadians supported this extreme action, we proceeded in 2001 to condemn American racial profiling at the border even after that nation had faced thousands of deaths. A Canadian pastime is lambasting Americans for supporting dictators, but when they attempt overthrow dictators, like they have done in Nicaragua, Grenada, Iraq, and elsewhere, our support suddenly disappears. This hypocrisy knows no bounds.
In any partisan foreign policy debate it’s convenient to ignore the equally prolific list of French/American/Russian beneficial deeds to humanity (which in the United States’ case includes their “outright attack on Panama”). I tire of the inevitable extensive list of places America has intervened that will appear on these threads. Invariably, the list will include no explanation except the name of a country and the year of intervention, causing the same people who criticize governments for supporting dictatorships to criticize them for fostering democracy or undermining atrocious governments. For every occasion in which America has subverted democracy (there are many), I can name an occasion America has helped to support democracy (there are many). This is true of every nation. Therefore, I believe no one with a solid background in history would find themselves with hatred towards any single nation. Once an irrational hatred already exists however, people who claim to be historians will readily utilize selective history and intellectual dishonesty to support their claim.
They werent intentionally murdered. If the US army knew a way to just take out combaticants, and leave all civilians alone, of course they’d do it.
Osama’s the opposite; more civilians for his dollar, please.
P.S, great post Tokyo.
Say what!? Cuba nearly smashed Uruguay´s democracy?, geez, musta been busy I didn´t notice that… :rolleyes:
For the record Uruguay went through a rather moderate (compared to neighboring countries anyway) militar dictatorship from 1973 to 1984, but Cuba had almost nothing to do with it; yes, there were calls for spreading the revolution and many schmucks going to Cuba and back to learn the insurgents trade, etc… But by the time the SOBs took power all revolutionary activity was finished; Uruguay´s dictatorship was cathalized by communist revolutionaries, but at the bottom was the result of an abismaly poor political leadership.
Just fighting ignorance here… carry on.
*geez, “Latin America’s struggle to achieve stable democracy was nearly smashed in Venezuela and Uruguay” we even voted the militars out… *
Okay, I exaggerated on the Uruguay issue. However, it was Tupamaro violence that caused the government to hand power over to the military and the Tupamaros are known to have received funding from Cuba. Prominent Tupamaro leaders are believed to have been trained in Cuba. Nonetheless, their success can be attributed mostly to their own ingenious resourcefulness, not due to the Cuban support they received. At the time the government was under dire economic stress due to their enormous bureaucracy and leftist parties with communist sympathies were gaining increasing support. It’s worth pointing out that Uruguay’s neighbors such as Brazil were already engaging in low-key subversion in Uruguay by funding non-communist political parties and other efforts. The United States knew about this but took no actions to prevent it.
No, America did not deserve it.
Provoked it, perhaps. But provoking madmen is not necessarily something you can morally avoid in every circumstance.
If you would like to debate the sanity of the attackers and those who supported them, along with those who would committ similar acts, then you’re in for an argument that I doubt you could win.
US foreign policy has been abysmally ineffective at some points, and outright evil in others. The same is true for many nations, but in America it is much more important to keep a consistently moderate foreign policy, because of the unique role it has in world politics. This shouldn’t be reason enough to say a country “deserves” its citizens killed, any more than Saddam’s aggression against his neighbors should be reason enough for American terrorists to demolish a hospital in a deliberate attempt to kill as many Iraqi civilians as possible.
When the planes take out Congress, the White House, or the Pentagon (rather than just some damage) we can talk about deserve. The attacks did not target those who either make or carry out policy, it targetted citizens who are not involved and generally horrified by the effects of our negative foreign policies (when they actually hear about them).
Fair enough 
The essence of a republican regime is the periodical and regular change of authorities. Some add division of power and publicity in the acts of goverment. In no way it means that the people have the ability of choosing it’s leaders. Examples the medieval italian republics, and the early roman republic.-
You have a democracy when, as I said above, the people can elect their leaders. Of course this is a simplification, those elections have to be clean, fair, etc.
My point? U.S.A. is democracy, it’s also a republic. Your point?
I blame my english, after all I thought my post was pretty clear:
That means that, in my humble opinion, no matter what the real or supposed attrocities the american has committed abroad. THERE WAS NO MORAL JUSTIFICATION FOR THE ATTACKS.-
Secondly, your analogy is crap. For two reason (besides the above). First because in 1982 Argentina was a dictatorship, no one elected Galtieri. Secondly because without even cheacking a history book I can remember at least 6 unprovoked, illegal, and bloody invasions of Argentina by England (including the occupation of our capital twice). So if anybody has to pay back it’s certainly not England.-
Very soon I’ll open a pit thread where I will deal with inept analogists.
It’s had them already - such as the 1995 bombing of the Paris metro, which killed 10 people.
Neither a majority of the American citizens nor a majority of the American voters elected President G.W. Bush. He received a majority of the electoral college votes. If the United States were a true Democracy, I don’t think that could happen.
At any rate, those Americans responsible for embargoes, the deaths of innocent Iraqi civilians, and the suspension of adherence to the Geneva conventions were obviously not the ones killed on 9/11.
People who have not lived and worked in the United States may be forming their opinions of “the typical American” from slick Hollywood productions. Here’s news: There is no typical American anymore than there is a typical SDMB poster.
If some of the Dopers are arrogant, racist, know-it-all’s, would you say that Straight Dope Message Board deserves to be crashed?