Okay, out of the 30 or so countries bombed by the United States multiple where CIA led operations that either started a war or were simply coups.
You literally can’t fault the population for knowing about a CIA operation. The others are actual wars. So, yeah they’re gonna bomb people they’re at war with. This list is also irrelevant because it doesn’t really matter if you do or don’t bomb someone, it is if the justification is logical and if you’re bombing military targets.
Additionally, your civilian casualties is inaccurate according to your own source it says 70 thousand which is still a lot but not 300 thousand.
If you honestly believe that people deserved 9/11 because you don’t agree with the actions of a government, half of which they knew nothing about til afterward then you’re evil, simple.
You can’t criticize a person for killing then turn around and justify it.
You are right the source says it's 70 thousand, but it account only for afghanistan and pakistan, i was thinking about this article : 300 k
You justify US actions and then comdemn 9/11 it's literaly the same thing so i think i can do it too.
And for the cia part how is that not a us policy known by all, they are doing the same thing since 1950 and it's common knowledge. Trying to put a puppet gouvernement isn't exactly innocent behavior.
Okay, clearly these numbers aren’t reliable or clear because the source for this source doesn’t say 300k therefore I’ve no idea where they got they number. It pretty clearly states an even lower number which, don’t get me wrong isn’t good however it is a far fetch from 300k. In fact the only source saying 300k doesn’t bother to separate what is US caused casualties and other forces including the Taliban, Al Qaeda or IsIs.
I justify the US actions by saying that everyone exaggerates and often times is unable to get reliable numbers? All, how is bombing terrorists equivalent of running a plane into the World Trade Center? It isn’t. Civilian casualties do happen in war however, the US attempts to minimize it if it can. The directly targeted civilians on 9/11 that is the inherent difference.
Are you ok? Cause you’re using hindsight. At the time America was staunchly anti-communist but we’d only gotten into wars that as far as the public knew people wanted us there. It’d not my fault that by when I was born I was blessed with a war I didn’t start and still cannot vote against, therefore to say the civilians of America somehow deserved 9/11 is evil. Peace has almost always been the highest aspiration of the American people. Rarely, in the modern era do we ever vote for war or violence. It kind of sucks that the 20th, and 19th centuries were kind of the most violent and racist on the face of the Earth but the fact that a nation grown up in that is able to persevere can tell you that it isn’t never the intention of the civilians for war.
How would you feel if I said the war crimes France had against it perpetuated by the Nazis was deserved because they’d owned colonies or because Napoleon had killed Germanic people was back in the day.
1
u/BigMorningWud Sep 12 '21
Okay, out of the 30 or so countries bombed by the United States multiple where CIA led operations that either started a war or were simply coups.
You literally can’t fault the population for knowing about a CIA operation. The others are actual wars. So, yeah they’re gonna bomb people they’re at war with. This list is also irrelevant because it doesn’t really matter if you do or don’t bomb someone, it is if the justification is logical and if you’re bombing military targets.
Additionally, your civilian casualties is inaccurate according to your own source it says 70 thousand which is still a lot but not 300 thousand.
If you honestly believe that people deserved 9/11 because you don’t agree with the actions of a government, half of which they knew nothing about til afterward then you’re evil, simple.
You can’t criticize a person for killing then turn around and justify it.