I get the memes and all that, but am I wrong in thinking it's a tad more complex? In any context, I can't help but regret such loss of life. As I think about it, though, I guess we wrought all manner of havoc in the Middle East, and we didn't spare civilians, so why should we expect any different. All the horrific things we did there... I see clearly why it happened. I just can't see myself supporting such an action. If they flew planes first into government buildings (which I know they tried) or military bases I could understand better. I just can't in good conscience support either what we did there or what happened here. I also won't say the US didn't deserve it; we totally did, but was actually doing it the correct move? How is it entirely different from going out and shooting random finance bros or billionaires. Sure they deserve it, sure it'll make us feel better, but I don't think it'd bring about real change. It's the argument against adventurism. And it helped fast-track surveillance fascism here, though I don't blame them for that, that was our own ghoul-ass politicians and scared people.
I guess this could be a common sentiment, and people just like memeing, which is all right, I suppose, so long as it doesn't get you in prison for making an ill-advised joke.
EDIT: I guess I still have some pacifist brainworms. I keep wanting our "good guys" not to use such violence, when comparably it is a drop in the bucket of the violence used against them. Also, of course, the responsibility for what happened to the US is lies within themselves. I do regret the loss of life, but I need to remember to keep in mind the many many many more lives lost due to US imperialism. Thanks for the replies!
It's like if the school bully is beating up on one of the nerds and the nerd manages to land a nose-breaking punch to the bully's face. We'd all cheer that. I am with you on the one hand, these people largely had nothing to do with the violence in the middle east. But on the other hand, many of the companies based in the WTC definitely did.
I've written and erased a lot here. It's a difficult subject. I can't speak for anyone else, but what it comes down to for me is the notion of critical support. The middle east has been ravaged by western hegemony for at least 100 years, so their fighting back should get our cheers, even if we disagree with their reasons or methods.
In the end, because it was a century of abuse that led up to the attacks, we should blame western politicians for it. After all, it is ultimately they who are the ones that actually caused the attack. So when people here say "bush did 911" they fucking mean it, but not for the conspiracy theory reasons. Bush killed those ~5,000 Americans (and so did all the other ghouls, but you know what I mean) because he was one of the main people causing terror in the middle east.
Another way to look at it is a day or so ago someone posted about a person shooting one of his roosters with a shotgun because it pecked his nephew. My first reaction to that was "what did that boy do to deserve getting pecked? Because he almost certainly started that shit." Then the uncle goes and does a Bush on the rooster. The rooster didn't deserve getting killed. Did it peck a child? Yes. Was it provoked first? Probably. Critical support for the chicken.