Incorrect.
I will now prove that the following distinction, characterized as "idiotic" is indeed a real distinction:
1. The US deserved X.
2. Actions of the US caused X to happen
Consider an analogy:
Fred is sitting in his bathtub watching CNN with the TV propped perilously on the edge of the tub.
The TV tips into the tub and poor old Fred is electrocuted.
Does Fred "deserve" to die?
I would say not, we all make stupid mistakes - Fred has made an error in judgement, not committed a moral transgression for which he should be put to death in punishment.
Did Fred "cause" his unfortunate demise.
Sadly, yes.
Fred's actions led to his death.
The anology doesn't fit the US did not take part in any irresponsible actions that lead to the attacks. We havent (figuratively) set the tv on the tub. A rather silly attempt.
Abandoning Afghanistan after the Soviets pulled out and leaving a vacuum that the Taliban filled and then al Qaeda allied itself with the Taliban and found a safe haven there.
That was mighty irresponsible if one thinks about it.
No. The chain you present is clearly incorrect. A woman walks down the street in a skimpy dress. A man is "caused to be aroused" (there is a clear causative factor here). This does not mean that one can reason as follows (as your are suggesting)
1. The woman caused arousal in the man
2. The woman is responsible for this arousal
3. The woman is to blame for this arousal
4. This justifies a subsequent sexual assault by the man.
No one thinks like this (at least no one reasonable). It simply does not follow that if agency A has some causal role in a sequence of events, that if that sequence of events then comes back to bite A, we conclude that A "deserves" what he/she got. Its not that simple.
People need to take care of themselves. This includes Afghanistan and even mexico. When we have to do it it is a result of a serious problem that has nothign to do with us. We didnt have a responsibilty to stay there and it has nothing to do with 911.
Begs the question by merely asserting that the US did nothing irresponsible.
If you can defend this assertion, please do.
I have never claimed that the US, in fact, did things that "caused" 911.
I merely raised it as a possibility.
If you don't understand the connection to the ability of al Qaeda to pull off the 9/11/2001 attacks then you should really read a lot more and post a lot less.
Another analogy that fails logic on this subject. The causative factor begins and ends with their false and cultic religion that drives them to want to dominate the world.
Al Qaeda's faulty religious views are the cause; however, its ability to attack the United States on 9/11/2001 is clearly related to our nation's actions in leaving a vacuum in Afghanistan from which it could operate.
Obviously no thinking person will dismiss the possibility that any government has engaged in activities that are causally linked to some outcome.
So how about we turn to what Wright said and see whether what he said is consistent with a claim that the US "deserved" 911?
The distinction I have drawn is real.
If Wright is merely saying that that US governmental actions "caused" 911, then this not equivalent to an assertion that the US deserved 911.
but whether the US had been stupid in Afghanistan after the Soviet "era" there or not, bin Laden, or any terrorist, determined enough, can launch an operation from anywhere.
It just so happened that there was a favorable condition created by the filling of the Taliban of the void created by the Soviet withdrawal.
when Martial Law was declared in my country in 1972 everything was strictly watched by the military. curfew at 10 pm to 5 pm, radio stations and tv stations monitored and controlled, checkpoints day and night everywhere in the city, most of the known activists and underground fighters jailed, or in hiding.
yet we were able to stage lightning demos, paralyze transportation, create bottlenecks where troops and cops were to pass to respond to the lightning demos.
four of us were responsible for the dictator encircling the city with his crack troops believing that a good sized attack by the underground was about to be carried out.
all we did was to take propaganda flyers on top of four high rise building and let the wind blow it all over the area, and we did this five times in one day in different spots of the city, right under the noses of the dictator's military and police machine.
all that was needed was determination, planning, logistics, and men dedicated enough to do the job.
If I recall correctly he has specified what he considers to have been acts of terrorism - dropping the two atomic bombs on Japan.
I thoroughly disagree with his characterization. The atomic bombs may have saved one million American casualties and many times that amount of Japanese casualties, including Japanese civilians.