3 ms·
"the Beirut bombing, the (first) World Trade Center bombing attack, and 9/11 were, at least in large part, a response to the destruction that the US has been wr
by chernevik 14y ago
"the Beirut bombing, the (first) World Trade Center bombing attack, and 9/11 were, at least in large part, a response to the destruction that the US has been wreaking on foreign soil for years"
Because nothing says "retaliation" better than deliberately attacking innocents with zero culpability for whatever it may be that is pissing you off.
By your thinking, we could have gotten bin Laden by announcing that, until he was turned over to us, we'd drop a 1000lb bomb on some occupied point in Afghanistan every day. There would be logic, right? They had harbored a known murderer and killer, who had gone and killed thousands of people. The Afghans were responsible, in some sense, for the safety from which he operated, and culpable by knowledge of his aims. They should have settled him a long time ago. So let them settle the problem now, or pay the price.
By _your_ logic. Which is stupid. If everyone behaved that way the world would be completely unlivable. The US is by no means perfect but it is, by and large, a nation of laws. That means very little to those innocents killed in its mistakes and evils, but means an enormous amount to the very many people who are not killed by its adherence to some standard of humanity. And to all of us, living in a world where the mighty hold themselves in some manner accountable to something looking like justice.
Here is a thought experiment on the difference between the likes of the US and bin Laden. Imagine what bin Laden would have done if he got ahold of, say, a single nuclear missile submarine. Or any of the destructive powers of this country. That is the difference between an imperfectly ethical power, and a murdering piece of crap. For me, I think it is a really, really important difference.
- notdrunkatall 14y agoWe are a nation of the people, by the people, for the people. Bin Laden wrote a letter to the American people and published it after 9/11 wherein he explains the motivation behind his attacks. Other than the obligatory fundie religious crap, his reasoning was thus: your government has been fucking with us for decades, and we're sick of it, yet we cannot attack your government because it is too powerful. Because your government represents you, that makes you culpable, hence the attack. The easy conclusion is that all 'terrorist' are vile, murderous, evil people with not a drop of decency in their bodies. However, the reality is that 'terrorists' are usually just normal people who have frustratingly little recourse against that which they are opposed to.
- chernevik 14y agoCongratulations, you've justified a world where everyone is a hostage to the aggrieved. How do you think that will work out for the not-rich / not-strong / not-smart / not-popular?
- notdrunkatall 14y agoI did not justify terrorism, nor was I attempting to. I am merely pointing out that even a 'terrorist' has reasons for his actions, and we ignore those reasons at our own peril. The CIA has a term for what amounts to retaliation in response to US actions overseas: blowback. It is obvious that if you fuck with a beehive long enough, you are eventually going to be stung. Is the bee wrong? Are we wrong? Who cares? The sensible course of action would be to just stop fucking with the damn beehive. Unfortunately, it seems that we've allowed our government to get us caught in a feedback loop of retaliation - they sting us, we smash something of theirs. When does it stop? Must we eradicate all of the bees in order to see peace?
- vacri 14y agoIt's opinions like this that hold us back from progressing socially - the idea that understanding the motives of a nemesis is functionally the same as justifying them.
- chernevik 14y agoThis phrase: "'terrorists' are usually just normal people who have frustratingly little recourse" is a _value_ assessment. It is literally a normalization of terrorist motivation. And, the idea that al Qaeda is motivated by outrage at American or Western injustice is at best a huge oversimplification. And at worst, a credulous acceptance of their propaganda.
- vacri 14y agoAl Qaeda is not a monolithic entity with a single soul. The senior figures certainly have more complex motives, but the junior figures are going to have simple motives similar to the swathes of young US southerners who signed up to defend their country. The GP was talking about 'terrorists' as individual people, not as a theory.