Would an Iraqi be justified in a terrorist attack on the US?
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
No, we have a timetable to withdraw. Why force us to stay?
Because the only justification is to get us to leave, which we are doing anyway.
Self-defeat and progress of the cause
I'm of the opinion that part of justification in this context is the notion of something being self-defeating. Many critics of Israel, for instance, will point out that much of its action against Palestinian terrorism only perpetuates the problem and increases the danger for Israel. Indeed, some days, the idea of a secure, peaceful Jewish state seems a laughable canard; quite clearly, the Israeli government has in the past undertaken missions which could only have the effect of inflaming tensions, hastening the next suicide bomber, and augmenting the ranks of the willing.
Same idea here. If one wishes to blow up Americans, it would be wiser to do it in the theatre. Of course, at this point, it wouldn't be especially wise.
The questions are what goal the cause intends, and whether the chosen action achieves progress toward that end.
S.A.M. said:
I'm of the opinion that part of justification in this context is the notion of something being self-defeating. Many critics of Israel, for instance, will point out that much of its action against Palestinian terrorism only perpetuates the problem and increases the danger for Israel. Indeed, some days, the idea of a secure, peaceful Jewish state seems a laughable canard; quite clearly, the Israeli government has in the past undertaken missions which could only have the effect of inflaming tensions, hastening the next suicide bomber, and augmenting the ranks of the willing.
Same idea here. If one wishes to blow up Americans, it would be wiser to do it in the theatre. Of course, at this point, it wouldn't be especially wise.
The questions are what goal the cause intends, and whether the chosen action achieves progress toward that end.
By principle or practice?
By principle or practice? No, and yes, respectively.
In practice, consistency of principle is not a prerequisite for theoretic justification of anything. One can certainly denounce that reality as anything from tragic to sinister, but it really does make a difference in the end.
Take the American Revolution, for instance. We won. We kicked out the British and won. If our real and sublimated reason for fighting the British was that we just wanted to kill people, I'm sure we could have found a way to drag that one out for decades.
S.A.M. said:
By principle or practice? No, and yes, respectively.
In practice, consistency of principle is not a prerequisite for theoretic justification of anything. One can certainly denounce that reality as anything from tragic to sinister, but it really does make a difference in the end.
Take the American Revolution, for instance. We won. We kicked out the British and won. If our real and sublimated reason for fighting the British was that we just wanted to kill people, I'm sure we could have found a way to drag that one out for decades.
Sure but I'm flipping the question of justifying an attack because of individual terrorism, to one justifying attack because of sustained, extensive and massive state terrorism
e.g. flip it around.
Is it justified for the US to respond to a terrorist attack from an Iraqi after what has happened in Iraq?
Thats my question; imagine you're an Iraqi whose family has been killed, neighborhood bombed and entire country destroyed.
What act can you undertake that is considered justified?
Last edited:
It is not the case that the entire country of Iraq has been destroyed.
What do you think would be justified? In particular, do you yourself believe a terrorist attack on innocent civilians would be justified as a response?
Flip what around? Who was it that "justified" (what do you mean by that, here?) the invasion of Iraq in terms of previous "individual" terrorism?
tiassa, im interested to here your opinion on this senario which is extrapulated from a real event but is fictional (ie i have no idea who actually died in that incident). Your at your weding, you have been getting ready to marry here for years and the day finally arives. Both your own family and hers are so happy for you both. Suddenly a F-18 drops a bomb on the weding killing your mother and your bride.
A few weeks latter your father in law comes to you and says that the US goverment cleared the pilot of any wrong doing and put it down to an "acident". You never asked the US to invade and now both your mother and your bride are dead because of them. Your father in law goes on to tell you that he feels the same and that the pilot has gone home now because his tour is over but he knows where the pilot lives in the US and can arange for you to blow up there house.
Now is it any less "justifyable" that you blow up the one responcable in the US now rather than in your country even though you were invaded first?
A few weeks latter your father in law comes to you and says that the US goverment cleared the pilot of any wrong doing and put it down to an "acident". You never asked the US to invade and now both your mother and your bride are dead because of them. Your father in law goes on to tell you that he feels the same and that the pilot has gone home now because his tour is over but he knows where the pilot lives in the US and can arange for you to blow up there house.
Now is it any less "justifyable" that you blow up the one responcable in the US now rather than in your country even though you were invaded first?
well millions of people get cancer naturally. so maybe your granpas case was different but maybe (most likely) not. he may have just told you those things too.