Regardless of what we here think, 19 men of Middle Eastern origin certainly believed, very strongly, that America deserved 9/11. I think we can safely assume the WTC was chosen as a symbol of the US rather than anyone inside being a personal target. And I think we can safely assume the beliefs of those 19 men are representative of a much larger number of people.
The fact that anyone believes retribution on that kind of scale is necessary is worrying in the extreme and from where I’m sitting, the pool of people who do so appears to be growing and there must be many who believe more of the same is deserved.
Unfortunately, the leaders who are blithely squandering any remaining 9/11 sympathy - arguably the true targets of such retaliation (for that, in many eyes, is what 9/11 was) - are likely to get more innocents killed as a result of their insensitivity and, as an attack against the United States (or the Coalition of the Willing) rather than individual persons, it could well be just as “deserved”.
And Osama is still out there, while thousands of innocent Afghanis and Iraqis have been slaughtered. US and UK troops have died - and the supposed 9/11 mastermind is still at large. The US has been doing Osama’s work for him - I’d guess there are a lot more Muslims pissed off with America now than there were pre 9/11.
Um, you’re comparing someone cutting you off in traffic to decades of political, economic, and social bombardment and control? It isn’t like the US made some minor inconvenience like playing the wrong national anthem or bombing someone’s embassy (well, we’ve done those, too). We’ve been screwing around with entire social-economic systems for DECADES like they are provinces whose ultimate purpose is to serve our interests instead of independent and sovereign states.
Did America deserve to be attacked? I think so. We stirred the pot, we have to accept the consequences. No one can do whatever they want without eventual reprisal.
Did the civilians in the WTC and on the planes deserve to be attacked? Hell no. Though this gets fuzzy. The Al Qaeda targets have always been carefully chosed to reflect the intent of the group. The USS Cole was a military target in the Gulf - a clearly painted target. Attacking it represents disapproval of the US military presence. The embassies in Africa. Again, clear targets - American political entanglements in Muslim countries. 9/11 - clear targets. The symbols of American international economic dominance and the command and control center of the military (and possibly head of the government). Were the civilians inside the WTC fair targets? From one (radical) point of view, yes. Each one was, effectively, a soldier of the economic machine that Al Qaeda viewed as a major threat to their society.
You can’t kick up dust and expect to get away scott free. Eventually, someone we pissed off somewhere was bound to make a successful attack on us, and probably with some very justifiable reasons, from their point of view (generally the opposite from the Bush Admin’s “Awe shucks, what did we ever do to you?” position).
Take, for example, Saddam’s attempted assassination of Bush Classic. His admin, evidence suggests, may have inferred that they would turn a blind eye, then severely beat Iraq down. While it is true that no serious attempts were made on Saddam’s life, I would figure that invading someone’s country and imposing Versailles-esque limitations on them would generally qualify one for getting an asswhooping. Turning around and acting all surprised about it just means that you are dangerously unaware of the consequences of your actions, a mistake being repeated by New Bush.
Turning around and using that as justification to invade them AGAIN with WORSE consequences is just plain stupid. It is like punching someone in the face, then when they gut punch you, getting all pissed off and wondering what you ever did to deserve that, so pulling out a gun and spraying their brain across the wall.
I believe the point of the OP is not “did the people in the WTC deserve to die,” but rather, “did America provoke the attacks.” The question is an entirely different one.
But since you insist on “debating” about the civilians in the WTC, let’s.
As I mentioned above, from a radical point of view (part of wisdom used to be knowing your enemy), the civilians in the WTC can be viewed as tools of a machine that negatively affected their culture. OK, so the question is, does this make them valid targets? What is a valid target? Do you need to be in the military to be a valid target? Are politicians leading crusades a valid target? Would members (or the headquarters) of a mercenary army occupying a country be a valid target? Would the offices doing the planning be a valid target? In the case of the WTC, no, I do not think they are valid targets, even though they are (vaguely) part of a system that effects negative control in other countries.
As for the Pentagon… I have much less sympathy, frankly. For one, they are a valid target, being a military installation. For two, they got caught with their freaking pants down.
Of course, 3000+ innocent people desrved to be incinerated at the WTC, because some 19 insane savages were told that God wanted them to do it! By that brand of stupid logic, YOU desrve to be killed by Islamic savages as well.
issue is this, does the USA desrve “punishment” because of its actions around the world? No…individuals who had nothing to do with the actions of the USA anywhere, do not deserve to die.
There, that is simple enough so that even someone as limited in intelligence as you can comprehend it! :eek:
No, I’d say that you need a serious lesson in logic and history.
Regarding the OP, I say, Strawmen, all.
I am assuming that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by 19 people under the direction of Osama Bin Laden.
Bin Laden did not mastermind and fund these attacks because of the actions of the USA in South America (Chile, Argentina or Panama). He did not do so because of the “sponsoring” of Saddam Hussein (unless you have a specific cite in mind- by all means, please share). He did not even carry out the 9/11 attack because of US support of “Hawkish” Israel (If Israel is Hawkish, I’d love to hear your definitions of Hamas, the Al-Aqsa brigade and their peaceful, nurturing brethren)- he took on the Palestinian cause as a no-cost afterthought.
No, Bin Laden has (had?) a hardon for the US because of the presence of American troops on Saudi soil, as well as our close ties with the House of Saud. His beef has always been with the Royal Family, or at least it started there.
So no, the thousands of people in the WTC and Pentagon in no way deserved to die.
Sure the US has behaved abominably in the past- no apologies here. However, you (and others) are conflating a variety of past insults and injuries to a variety of peoples and places, and seem to suggest that this absolves the perpetrators of 9/11 in some way.
If the guy down the street from you had a past of murder (against people unrelated and unknown to you), rape (again, totally outside your circle of family and friends), theft (in which you were not involved and did not suffer), would you be justified in burning down his house as he and his family slept? Would his wife and kids “deserve” to burn to a crisp, because his wife chose to marry him?
Of course no individual deserved it. America deserved it. Exactly the same logic that dictated Afghanistan deserved what it got for harbouring bin Laden and any innocent people that got in the way - well, too bad.
Excuse me, first of all Cite?
Second, I am arguing that the U.S.A is a Republic and also a democracy. Why are you offended?
Because it’s a democracy, americans are responsable for their goverment’s foreign policy. That, in no way, justifies the killing of thousands. That was my position. You chose to be offended by it.
No, I’m quite serious.
See, that’s the funny thing about sovereign states; They really can only treat with other sovereign states. The US can’t negotiate treaties with every Tom, Dick, and Harry in country “X,” nor is it duty-bound to seek their opinion when formulating policy. Governments operate and interact with other Governments. It’s the way it works. To paraphrase P.J. O’Rourke, if the entire world were truly democratic, we’d all be eating pizza every fucking night.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I was under the impression that the US military was present in Saudi Arabia at the request of the Saudi Government. Scumbags or not, the House of Saud is (are?) the legitimate rulers of Saudi Arabia. If people are pissed off at the presence of the US military, why not vent that anger at, oh, I dunno…the people who invited us in in the first place?
Oh, and one more thing-
I am dying to know what “stirred the pot” means. Please elaborate.
Ummmmm…the removal of the Saud dynasty is one of the immediate objectives of Al-Qaeda. Hence the events of the past couple of days, and ongoing destabilising attacks throughout Saudi Arabia.
Oh, I see. Only militaries and officially recognized governments are allowed to do anything.
If you don’t understand what we did to piss them off, you need mental help (especially since you just pointed out one example just above this). I can only assume that you’re playing the same mock-innocence of the Bush Admin.
Evidently, you don’t see. Let’s try to keep to the OP which as I recall was whether America deserved to be attacked by **OBL **. Apparently, private citizen Bin Laden was not consulted when the United States was invited/allowed by the Saudi Government to establish a military presence in the “holy land.” As Gorilla Man has pointed out, this-and none of the other actions of the United States-was OBL’s justification to act as judge, jury, and executioner.
To paraphrase, my point was that “Only recognized governments can negotiate with other recognized governments.”
Assume all you want. I despi…well, let’s just say that I did not vote for President Bush in 2000 and do not plan to vote for him in 2004 (you never know who’s reading these boards, after all). My point is, despite the dickheadedness of our administration, or the scumbagousity of the House of Saud, they acted within their rights as the heads of their respective governments, and launching a terrorist attack because you disagree or dislike them is… not… justified…ever.
