SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: TimF who wrote (25199)7/25/2006 9:33:24 PM
From: KonKilo  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 540807
 
Similarly the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor would not be considered terrorism by most people's definition. That doesn't mean we didn't or shouldn't go after the Japanese hard after the attack. The attack was an act of war.

Absolutely...we were clearly in the right to respond to Japan as we did back then.

But the analogy to 911 is not as clear. We were attacked that day by terrorists who were mostly Saudis.

Since the 19 hijackers were obviously killed in the attack, and since invading our ally SA would have been ludicrous, we decided to go after the state that supported the attackers' training, Afghanistan. In this, we had the support of the world community as well as the vast majority of American citizens. (GWB at this time enjoyed a 90% approval rating...how did so many of those supporters end up deranged a scant five years later? <g>)

However, at this point the course of action became controversial. Many people did, and do, believe that Iraq had nothing to do with 911 and that it was therefore wrong and/or immoral and/or counter-productive to attack them.

Thinking people wondered how bin Laden came to be forgotten, as Hussein morphed into the new menace. Those who read and understood Orwell's 1984 experienced a sense of real world deja vu throughout this process.

There is a difference between responding to an attack and merely lashing out.