He has said (in my words, ‘cause I don’t have his in front of me) that actions have consequences. Which does NOT JUSTIFY the consequence that was meted out on 9/11. Nothing does. Only that it is important to look at their “justification” for doing what they did in order to help defeat them on the battlefield. Or prevent recurrences.
It’s like you taunting your next door neighbor. It builds up a lot of tension and hard feelings and you really hadn’t ought to do it (in fact, you’re a MORON if you do). However, presuming you yourself have not crossed the line and INITIATED an act of aggression, taunting does not in any way JUSTIFY your neighbor’s act of arson when he burns your house down with you in it. BUT, presuming (once more) that you survive the fire, it would be a good idea to, among other things, look at anything YOU might have done to contribute, however minutely, to whatever demons your neighbor had that caused him to try to kill you. JUST IN CASE HE HAS KINFOLK THAT MIGHT ALSO COME AFTER YOU, whilst HE is in prison. It’s only uncommonly GOOD sense.
By yours and Pauls reasoning, how does he justify World War Two? Wouldn’t that also have been “blowback” from Japan when they attacked Pearl Harbor for how we were refusing to send them materials, gas, oil and sticking our noses into Asian matters and building up militarily in the Pacific?
Yet, he readily states that was “justified,” the nrails on how “unnecessary” it was.
Likewise, he justified Afghanistan by voting for it and now, rails against it saying, “...our national security is not threatened by us not being in Afghanistan. Our national security is much more threatened by us being in Afghanistan.”
He must think the Taliban and Al Qaeda taking Afghanistan back over and quite possibly Pakistan too, giving terrorists nuclear weapons, will keep us safe?
No thanks, “Buckie.”