More absurdities. Their rights to self defense were violated by their own government firstly. And more importantly than their right to carry firearms (which if protected might have resulted in a much different scenario than what occurred on 9./11) their national government failed them miserably. The one job it was supposed to do well (National Defense) if failed at.
Furthermore this was not 90% of the population who were affected. It was all of us. Every single one of us has been shown the folly of foreign interventionist policy at the expense of the homeland.
This whole scenario has nothing to do with self-defense. First off, the 90% did not have their rights to self-defense violated by some foreigners. They were violated by the government, which forbids people from defending themselves and arrogates responsibility for defense to itself.
Can you imagine a private company taking this approach? No security firm would ever forbid you from stopping a burglar at your door. No supermarket would forbid you from growing your own food. No car company would forbid you from walking. Nor would anyone buy products from companies that adopted such tyrannical policies.
Yet the government forbids you from acting in self-defense. That alone shows that it works by force, not by the wishes of its citizens (as you claim). As a consequence of this government violation of people's rights, some foreign criminals attacked and the people could not defend themselves. The government, incompetent as always, failed to defend them either.
Since the violation of rights comes from the government, any consequent actions it may take are also illegitimate. Unsurprisingly, they are further violations of rights, in this case the rights of the foreigners it attacks in order to justify its usurpation of your rights.
Bombing a foreign country is not about not self-defense. It's not even about bringing the perpetrators to justice. No, bombing is, as you say, about retaliation. About revenge. How exactly does killing more innocents, in this case Afghani peasants, serve the cause of justice?
Of course, none of this addresses the original point I made anymore than your response does. The government violated my right to self-defense. Why am I forced to support the wars it undertakes to justify that usurpation of my rights?