Re: I don't think we're interested in "moral high ground"
BP, I hope you understand what I'm trying to get here.
I've never defended the terrorists' action. Nor do I support any nation that "harbour" terrorists and "support" terrorism KNOWINGLY. I believe folks with sanity will probably have the same stance.
What we differ in is the way things are being handled, or rather mishandled.
9/11 was a tragedy.
However, a little introspective will reveal that such a tragedy was one that was waiting to happen in view of US foreign policy, past and present. Justifiable, no. To be expected, yes.
After the 9/11, the US could have had a legitimate WAR against terrorism. Instead, it has become a "hand over OBL or we'll bomb you, fuck the proofs" "terrorist action" in the eyes of many. Almost every nation denounced terrorism. Whether they are paying lips service or not, we won't know. Is the US really against terrorism itself if it wasn't the victim?
Nevertheless, many "allies" in this war are allies because they can't afford to be in the "against US" category, economically and militarily. So are they victims of terrorism? "You're with us, or you are with the terrorists" (and you know what we will do to the terrorists, don't you?)
And then, the biggest irony of all, the US "ally" itself with the NA, a bunch of looters and rapists no less, which is at war with the then-ruling regime in their civil war, thus again ignoring the sovereignty of another nation and propping up the US-preferred faction.
So does the end justify the means? How really different is the US from the terrorists of 9/11?
