Sorry Carnivorousplant. I didn’t understand your question: WWII ended in 1945, at that time General Edelmiro Farrel was the de-facto president of Argentina, he wasn’t elected. To be fair the next president, the famous (or infamous) Juan D. Peron was elected, and he did help nazis, just like Truman. You got Von Braun we got Kurt Tank… we also got a lot of vermin.
All of that in no ways undermines my arguments.
So would you deserve it if the Israelis began killing thousands of your citizens because an elected offical help Nazis hide out?
Since when has closing your eyes and saying “we can’t talk to you because you don’t exist” been a cornerstone of political discourse? I mean, welcome to the 21st century. Not every organization is a member of an officially recognized nation, and are often parts of several nations together, acting outside of their government. In many cases, they are rebels within their own nation.
My point is this - making deals with the corrupt monarchy of a country and not forseeing that the people might disagree is, at the very best, stupid and undemocratic.
You seem to be following the conviction that Al Qaeda is attacking us because they “dislike us.” I disagree with that opinion, by stating that we have, indeed, done various things to cause that “dislike.”
If the government comes in and murders your sister, do you think you do not have a right to “dislike” them? What if a foreign government murders your father?
This “dislike” is justified, and may indeed result in some kind of reproach, violent or otherwise.
Or, in this case, wanted fugitives. Being a rebel, while highly romantic, does not automatically make you right.
True. However, being stupid and undemocratic does not justify the slaughter of innocent civilians (which was the point of the OP, as I recall)
No. I said absolutely nothing remotely similar. I said, repeatedly (and Gorilla Man made the same point) That Al Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center and Pentagon because of a security arrangement made between the US and Saudi Arabia. Please, respond to what I write, and not what you think I mean.
I was not aware that the US or the people who were killed in the World Trade Center and Pentagon had killed or injured any of the Bin Laden Family.
In fact, from what I read in Michael Moore’s books, the President and the Bin Ladens have an uncomfortably close relationship. (cite:"Dude, Where’s my Country")
So, by your reasoning, would the Japanese Red Army faction (or Aum Shin Rikyu) be justified in carrying out terrorist actions in the US because of the presence of Army and Navy bases in Japan?
Well, this is where we part ways. Next time, try thinking with your cerebrum instead of your limbic system.
The OP asked (with clarification) if America deserved to be attacked. IMHO, yes, it did. The people in the WTC didn’t deserve to die, but America had something coming down the pipes at it. Notice that they didn’t attack, I dunno, Switzerland. Like I said, we stirred the pot.
So, there is justification behind the attacks, though you don’t agree with the extent? Was the attack on the USS Cole (a warship in the disputed foreign area) alright? The embassy bombings? The attack on the Pentagon? The attack on the WTC?
I think the Cole and Pentagon attacks are justified. Embassies should be off limits in any instance, in a perfect world, and the people in the WTC, while viewed as a threat by AQ, were innocent.
Depends on what they attack.
Hugs and kisses, too.
“You don’t agree with me so I won’t talk to you” - why don’t you jump into the “art director beaten over painting” thread so you can punch me in the eye? 
I think deserve is an inappropriate word. There’s simply no good way to calculate the complicity of individual citizens of a nation versus that nation’s bahavior in aggregate. Maybe some people in the Twin Towers were dirty sons-of-bitches and had it coming, maybe some were saints, and some just average. Maybe some voted for Bush, others didn’t. “Deserve” goes right out the window when nations or other entities go to war. In the end you just have the cold calculus of cause-and-effect in the foreign policy arena. In that regard, I think there are a number of specific things the US govt. has done that essentially made 9/11 an inevitability, right or wrong. I think, in a very specific sense, the nation “had it coming”. That may or may not mean that US foreign policy, in raising the ire of militant Islamists, was doing wrong in all the actions that made the US al Qaeda’s target. I’m guessing some of the things about the US that fills bin Laden and his ilk with such hatred are “bad”, and others “good”. In the end, it’s probably a wash, from a moral or ethical perspective.
So all that’s useful to ask in this context is “Are we being smart and safe in the way we do business on an international scale? Are the risks worth the benefits?” If the answer is “no”, then to some extent, if we don’t change, we’re inviting further attack to no wortwhile end. If the answer is “yes”, we might still be inviting attack, but it’s a risk worth taking, perhaps.
Forget about “deserve” if you’re talking about “America”. If you’re talking about individuals killed in a terrorist attack, there are thousands of questions and answers about just deserts; as many questions and answers as body bags.
NO!!! How many times, and in how many ways can I say that they weren’t? The only justification apparently exists in the mind of OBL and you, Zagadka. And they’re not justifications, they’re excuses.
“and the people in the WTC, while viewed as a threat by AQ, were innocent”
So, this means,…what exactly? That they shouldn’t have died, (which I would interpret as meaning that their deaths weren’t justified)? Or that you can understand how AQ would view them as a threat ( which I would interpret to mean that you consider their deaths to be justified). If the latter, could you explain to me how a bunch of investment bankers, insurance agents, and data-entry operators were a “threat” to AQ?
Well, no…I don’t agree with you. Where and when did I say that “I won’t talk to you?” No matter how much we disagree, it wouldn’t justify punching you in the eye, although I can see where you think it might.
hehe… lets make this more complicated:
If americans re-elect Bush and his gang… do they deserve to be targeted by terrorist attacks in reprisal for Iraq ? (Or only if they come from swing states ?)
As for the OP… I think the USA (not its citizens) had 9/11 coming for a long time. In fact 9/11 came a bit past the worse of US manipulating and propping MENA dictators. In fact the US had been pretty nice about trying to defend Islamic people in Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo for example.
So you do not view any situation where a non-governmental body has justification in attacking an extra-national target?
Yes, the latter. And there is a difference. I don’t believe it WAS justified. I can see how they would justify it. Very distinct difference.
One of the primary gripes they have with America is that we are exploiting the region for financial/resource gain. Part of this is our companies expanding foreign investment and controlling multinational interests. In short, that we are slowly buying them out, wringing them dry, then leaving them to rot. This anger is not directed soley at America - it is also directed at the other Western nations who are guilty of this. Given that, the WTC represented the pinnacle of international corporations. With no other target that symbolizes American foreign investment so well… well, you can surely see where the logic comes from.
It may be amazingly cold hearted of them to discount the individual lives of the people in the towers, but their logic on the situation is sound.
As for the Pentagon… it is a military installation. Fair game.
Then I misunderstood what you were saying, I’m sorry.
Carivorous plant. Read my post, then I’ll discuss.
So did Afghanistan deserve it when the US began killing thousands of its citizens because unelected officials helped OBL hide out?
I believe that stating that the US is a republic and not a democracy is an american peculiarity in definitions. And ** Estilicon ** isn’t american. Here at least, the word “democracy”, even in politic studies, isn’t restricted to direct democracies (that is countries where the people would vote directly on all issues), but refers to any country which is governed by the people or its elected representants. So, by most definitions, the US is a republic and a democracy (except for the fact that, once again, in the US, people are prone to oppose both words).
France has suffered several terrorist attacks by algerian islamists ten years ago.
If you include oversea attacks, you could cite also the bombing of a french military building in Lebanon, or the bombing which killed a busload of french contractors (working on a military project) in Pakistan last year.
This is what I meant by my crack about thinking with the limbic system. This is not logic, it is raw emotion. Let’s break down your argument, shall we?
.
For the purpose of argument, I will assume that “they”= Al Queda. True, Saudi and American oil companies have set up consortia and corporations to locate, extract, refine, and sell the petroleum reserves. Similarly, so have French and British oil companies. These have been set up by agreement with the Saudi Government; you make it sound as if the Americans have single-handedly taken over the oil fields by force majeure
You seem to assume that “Multinational” = “American Civilians.” However, as regards the OP none of this has any bearing whatsoever on OBL, Al Queda, or the 9/11 attacks. We (and the French, British and others) are pumping oil out of the Saudi soil, and pumping scads of money into the Saudi coffers. Hardly what I’d call “leaving them to rot.”
Let’s get something straight here. I have no problem with trotting out the laundry list of American/western perfidy and coming to the conclusion that it’s inevitable that someone with a lot of resources and a big chip on their shoulder would try something, or at least feel justified in doing so. What I can’t understand is how you can buy into such hatred.
I once covered a story where a 13-year-old girl shot and killed a 15 and 16-year-old girl. When the police arrived she was standing over them yelling, “The hos deserved it. They was talkin’ to my man!” (who, I might add, was 16).
I suppose who deserves what is in the eye of the beholder. Clearly Bush and his supporters feel that those people killed in Afghanistan and Iraq deserve it. Just as clearly I think that bin Ladan and his supporters feel that the U.S. deserved what they got on 9-11.
I think it’s a great deal like that old joke about the golden rule: the one that goes “He who has the gold, rules.” These days it has become, "He who has the weapons, decides who deserves what. "
TV
Did America deserve it? No.
Did the people who died deserve it? Hell no.
Was something like this fairly inevitable, given the wide scope of US military and economic activities overseas? 'Fraid so.
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgement of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song
Did the United States deserve it? No.
Did the United States nurtured the conditions for it to occur? Yes.
US Mideast policies have been eff’d up for the last fifty years; having it turn around and bite us in the ass was a matter of when, not if.
The question itself, did America deserve 9/11, is intrinsically flawed.
All the things that the US has ever done, good or bad, have absolutely, positively nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. The terrorist attacks were done to us because we are the most powerful nation on Earth, but we’re not muslim. Period.
It like arguing whether the jews deserved the holocaust. Some Nazi apologists would argue they sort of did. They were a different religion, they (supposedly) controlled all the banks, they believed they were superior (the ‘chosen’ people), etc. It doesn’t matter to what degree any of those things were or weren’t true. The jews were persecuted because of good old fashioned human intolerence, prejudice, and hatred.
And the same is true of muslim extremists. They don’t hate Israel because of property or settlements or water rights. They hate them for the same reason the Nazis and the Klan hate them. Because they’re jews. And they hate us because we’re not muslim.
Think about how the US basically saved the Afghan muslim mujahadeens from Soviet extermination by supporting them all thru the 80s. And that, in a large part because of our support, they were ultimately victorious in expelling them. Now its certainly true that our primary motivation was the ‘enemy of our enemy’ concept. But still, in less than ten years, they acted as a base of operations that planned, practiced, and carried out the 9/11 attacks against us.
Their motivation is not past or current US policy. Its intolerance, ignorance, jealousy and most of all, hatred.
That’s ultimately what September 11[sup]th[/sup] was, the world’s biggest hate-crime.