Who else deserves 9/11?

Great Debates
1

After reviewing the posts in Meweus’ thread:
Did America deserve 9/11?

I was more than a little shocked at how easily people said, “America had it coming, after all they did to the rest of the world.” Rather than hijack that thread I post this one to address the group of Dopers that answered YES.

The theme I took away from this debate (both on this Board and with people in my house) is this notion that the US, through their foreign policy, has harmed a great many people. Those that live in the US benefit from that foreign policy, regardless of whether or not they support it or vote for the current president. Because they benefit from it they are in part responsible, and deserving of what ever they get. To paraphrase a common response:

“The US foreign policy is in part designed to make the lives of Americans better. If you live in the US than you are benefiting from that lifestyle. The way a criminal’s wife lives off his crimes, she deserves what ever comes to her even if she isn’t involved with robbing the bank. On 9/11 an act of revenge was committed on the US. Those killed were in the US and benefiting from decades of despicable foreign policies, hence they deserved what they got.”

I argued against this until I was blue in the face, as did many others on this board, and as a result I have had to come to terms with the fact that a significant population* agrees with the notion that America deserved 9/11.

So for debate I ask:

If you agree that the US deserved 9/11, who else also deserves it? A couple of examples I can think of off the top of my head would be Britain, France, and Spain for colonizing most of the world. Anyone descended from the Romans who colonized most of their world. Catholics. Germans for WWI, WWII, and the Holocaust. Canada for its treatment of the aboriginal peoples. Japan for WWII. And I guess I’ll finish off with Russia. Those were just examples of countries I felt have done at least similar actions to those that led to 9/11.

Secondly, is there any redemption? Assuming the US deserved 9/11, is there anything they can do to be forgiven? Was the destruction of the WTC sufficient punishment or should there be more. If so, how much more?

Lastly, if the US straightened up and flew right, did nothing but good, and apologized to everyone, how long after would they continue to deserve 9/11? By this I mean: is there some sort of statute of limitations? The Romans had a horrible foreign policy; does Rome still deserve to be attacked?

P.S. Has anyone else found that they use 9/11 as a verb now? Is that wrong?

*I do not have a specific number, I’m basing this on personal perception.

2

I didn’t follow the original thread, but I have heard a similar sentiment expressed before. Personally I think it’s ridiculous, out of curiousity, I would wonder if the people that believe the U.S. “deserved” it are consistent in blaming the victim. It seems to me that it would be just as easy to say that the governments the U.S. has overthrown “deserved” it because they weren’t helping us out. Or the girl that got raped “deserved” it because she was in the wrong place, wearing the wrong thing, with the wrong guy, and she lead him on. Or that the husband that was killed by his wife “deserved” it because he was physically abusive, but she “deserved” the abuse because she cheated on him, or that the kids at Columbine “deserved” it because they teased the less popular kids that turned into murderers.

Lay the blame where it belongs. The terrorists made a conscious decision to do as much destruction as possible when they hijacked those planes. The U.S. didn’t force them to do that, we didn’t “deserve” to be attacked because of our foreign policy anymore than they deserved to be subjected to whatever evils people think come from our foreign policy. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

3

So what you’re saying is, some people who visit the SDMB seriously believe that 3,000 people deserve to die.

Moreover, you are now asking if any other countries “deserve” to have 3,000 innocent people killed by maniacs.

I am ashamed of breathing the same air as anyone who feels that any country deserves to suffer the loss of 3,000 innocent lives.

If you feel this way, you are a monster. And I’m not about to spin that opinion to make anyone feel better.

4

Um. I think the OP is just saying that to make a point to the others who say that America deserved it. You, evidently, have missed that point.

5

My remarks were directed to the people the OPer referred to, not the OP it/himself.

Sorry if I was unclear.

6

I’ll judge those that have been meddling too much with other countries or that have played with terrorists too much:

China is due for a 9/11 internal version…

Russia is having their 9/11 in several instalments due to Checyna.

Saudis appear to be getting back some of their terrorist fomenting back.

Israel is making some effort too. Pakistan meddled too much with Islamic wackos.

(Coincidence or not… all of these are US “allies”.)

7

China is a US ally? Neat. Since when?

8

oopps… I put China afterwards…

9

It would be easy, as an immediate reaction, to say that Saudi Arabia, the homeland of Osama bin Laden, or Egypt, the incubator of many of the 9/11 attackers, “deserve” retribution in kind. But countries are not responsible for the actions of criminals. Revenge too often is taken out on bystanders. It is a safe bet that most of the people killed in the WTC and in those planes had nothing to do with the policies that so incensed the attackers. Even those in the Pentagon were not personally responsible for the distress of people like Mohammed Atta.

So, in answer to the OP’s first question (though I do not believe that America “deserved” the attack): No. No country deserves to be attacked and its people killed because of policies of its government over which the people have no control.

Redemption could only happen if, instead of sending troops with weapons all nations sent volunteers with food, technical support and medical supplies, and let other nations decide for themselves how they shall be governed. Not a likely prospect, even though it would cost a lot less in the long run than supporting war.

As to a statute of limitations: As long as there are demagogues who pour salt in old wounds, who shout “remember. . .(fill in the event, attack, disaster here)” there are no limits to how long individuals and nations can harbor hatred.

10

Chastain,
Who decides who is innocent? How do you define innocence? Are those soldiers fighting a war any less innocent? Does donning a uniform instead of a suit makes one less innocent? When the US dropped atomic bombs on Japan, did it not know that thousands(not 3000) innocent lives will be lost? No it was not collateral damage. No attempt was made to avoid or reduce civilian casualties. As far as the Islamic Fundamentalists are concerned they are at war with the US and since they do not possess the same military strenght as the US they are bound to use means that do not necessarily fall within the framework of rules governing war.

As for the OP,

Those are events of the past. How can they be compared to the foreign policies being pursued by the US currently and the way it effects the lives of people in the current times? The retaliation by whoever is to the current and continuing doings of the US.

You have answered your own question. If Rome deserved to be attacked, it would have been by this time. The fact that has not happened implies that it does not deserve it, that the past is forgotten since it no longer continues to do what it does. On the other hand if the Islamic Fundamentalists see it as aligning itself with the US, then it becomes a common enemy as we have seen in the terrorist attack on Spain.
I would like clarify here, that I do NOTsupport the terrorists nor their activities. Because the US is wrong does not make them right, but it also cannot be denied that it gives them some amount of legitimacy.

11

But that wasn’t the question. The question was, what country deserves to suffer the loss of 3,000 lives?

The answer to that question is none. At least, it should be.

12

Well, I’d have to say that, using the same logic, indeed other nations ‘deserve’ their own 9/11. Certainly Europe is as much or more responsible for how the Middle East is today, despite trying to become appologists in the last few decades. Much of the groundwork for our present mess was laid down before the US was even a nation, and quite a bit of it was laid down when the US was still a non-entity. Certainly we get our fair share of the blame for our recent escapades, but the US was no more deserving of 9/11 than any other powerful nation.

I didn’t join in the other thread because the premise was too ridiculous. After all, if America ‘deserved’ 9/11, what gave AQ the ‘right’ to do it? Where was THEIR moral justification…or are people saying that AQ represents the people of the region?? Was it simply because they could? Well hell…thats the same justification that all major powers (including the US) use.

The whole argument rests on a false premise IMO…that AQ attacked the US on 9/11 to right wrongs either real or perceived, that this was their primary motivation. Certainly AQ USED wrongs committed by the US (either real or perceived) to justify its actions. However, AQ attacked the US mainly because the US stood in its way, preventing it from being able to achieve its strategic and tactical goals…namely the break down of the old colonial national lines drawn by Europe in the region, the establishment of a ME superstate (with AQ leadership in charge no doubt), and the spread of fundamentalist Islam.

I see the attack as both a warning to the US to nose out of the ME, and an invitation for the US to become embroiled in a long drawn out and bloody war in Afghanistan (which we avoided, only to stupidly become involved in a long drawn out and bloody war in Iraq instead) which would bleed us white and force us to withdraw back into our shell as we did after Vietnam, leaving AQ a freer hand in the ME…as well as more prestige from having driven back the US as the Soviets were driven back.

-XT

13

All of the above are true.

England may be considered deserving. They are playing Johny Sidekick to America in our Adventure in Iraq, and anyway, their imperial “mandate” kicked it all into motion in the first place. But I think the statue of limitations on that has passed.

India and Pakistan are going to 9/11 each other until the cows come home.

One could argue that France has a punch to the nose coming, but like the England thing, they’ve been on relatively good behavior for the past few decades.

And of course, all of the regional warlords and stuff.

On to the OP…

You may not notice it, but there is a difference between stuff that happened 2,000 years ago, and stuff that is happening TODAY.

In any event, as I recall, Spain has been battling terrorism for centuries, France got a comeuppance severalfold all over the world, from 1750 until the 1970s, as did the Germans (unless you don’t consider blockading the country, starving their people, firebombing Dresden, etc as punishment). Japan got the ultimate act of terrorism - nuked, I think that serves. Britain lost its empire in a more peaceful way (excluding that trouble in America), but they are still fighting in Ireland. Russia has been fighting for centuries, as well.

There is generally a cost to being expansionistic assholes. Eventually, the people you are repressing, or their friends, get wise and get pissed.

Much like raising a child, we have come miles in relations. We may DESERVE a punch to the nose, but that doesn’t mean we should GET a punch to the nose. As long as we realize what we did wrong (from your tone, it is obvious that most Americans don’t have a bloody clue) and work to correct our mistakes, we won’t have any kind of forgiveness or redemption.

14

heh, oopsie. Maybe I deserve 3,000 braincells to be killed by a flying insect.

15

Would it have made a difference if the 911 was done is slightly different manner ? Just an alternate scenario - Suppose they could have also managed to carry on board a pretty good bomb possibly a dirty nuclear one, let the passengers off, flown again and instead of crashing into the WTC, they would have driven the planes into some military installation, many of which are located in populated areas I assume, and ultimately the same number of 3000 “innocent” lives would have been lost except that this time they would have been in terms of “collateral” damage. How would all this talk of “innocent” lives go? Would they be still considered terrorists?

16

Well, we’ve got about 10,000 civilian casualties in Iraq; whether or not they “deserved” the equivalent of three 9/11 attacks is another question.

17

Well, thats the question, isn’t it? By the logic that says that the US ‘deserved’ 9/11, then certainly the Iraqi’s ‘deserved’ what they got as well. You are quibbling over degree (i.e. more people died in such and such than so and so).

After all, their government certainly did bad things, so therefore their citizens deserved to die. Right? Oh, certainly there are vast differences between the two events (the US didn’t deliberately target Iraqi civilians, AQ did…AQ didn’t actually try and take over the country or invade, the US did in Iraq and Afghanistan), but at its core, if one set of innocent non-military civilians ‘deserved’ to die for the faults of their government, then so did the other.

Or is it only if America does bad things that they deserve to have bad things happen to their civilians?

-XT

18

Hit the send button too soon:

Also, remember that 9/11 happened BEFORE Afghanistan and Iraq. What exactly did the US do under the former president(s) that would have justified such an attack against innocent civilians? If AQ was pissed at the US for having troops in SA, they could have attacked us there…that was a valid military target. The USS Cole was a valid military target IMO for people pissed at the US…the WTC was not. Also, what exactly did the OTHER countries do who had embassies bombed and civilians killed, and what was their justification for that?

Again, IMO AQ’s attack had nothing to do with righting wrongs…it had to do with grabbing for power and attempting to intimidate and terrorize. The US didn’t ‘deserve’ what happened to it on 9/11 in any way, shape or form. No more than Poland ‘deserved’ to be invaded by Nazi Germany or any other myriad autrocity thats occured in this century or any other.

-XT

19

I don’t think I, or anyone else, said that 3,000 innocent civilians deserved to die. I said that America deserved to be, and should have expected to be, attacked.

Now that you want to compare the 3,000 Americans to 10,000 Iraqis (some of which are probably insurgents, so lets call it 6,000)…

America’s government went and screwed around with other countries, including Iraq, for decades, instigating an armed resistance movement ultimately leading to, thus far, the WTC 1, USS Cole, US embassy, WTC 2, and Pentagon attacks.

The Iraqi people suffered under a dictator supported by America, were killed with chemical weapons an arguable number of foreign countries helped said dictator gain while being supported by America, and then eventually went around the middleman and got killed by America directly.

Tic for tac, alright!

20

Thank you rjung, that was by far the most common response. “Did the civilians of Iraq deserve it?” That was exactly why I started this thread. There is the belief that 9/11 happened because of US foreign policy in the Middle East. So let’s compare and contrast with Iraqi foreign policy in the Middle East:

[ul]
[li]Iraq spent the 80’s in a brutal war with Iran trying to snag a bit of land on the Gulf.[/li][li]Started the 90’s by invading Kuwait in the ultimate war for oil.[/li][li]Suppressed Sunni and Kurdish uprisings.[/ul][/li]
Now comes the sticky part, Saddam was a dictator, so do the citizens of a dictatorship some how get a free pass? Or are they as culpable as citizens in a democracy?

Again, part of this debate is to quantify a 9/11 attack. Can we attribute some level of retribution to 3,000 lives? Or two massive towers? Or a city’s economic infrastructure? Is it purely on an eye for an eye basis? Or should it be as a percentage of population?

If you believe that the US deserved 9/11 I am willing to respect that, but to keep that respect you’re going to have to answer the other questions I posted. And I am also curious if you feel YOU deserved to be part of that travesty?