That had we not had a history of committing acts of of mass violence in other countries, we wouldn’t have deserved to have one committed upon us. We did though, so we do.
You can both empathize with the loss of innocent life, and understand that it was consequences of their collective actions. If someone where to stab someone, and that person stabbed them back, and the attacker dies, you can both mourn the loss of life, but also understand the attacker deserved what happened to them. Had we not accepted the warmongering, corporate, fascists, controlling our government, we would not have slaughtered 100’s of thousands of people in foreign countries in the first place, thus avoiding the retaliation we received. That attack was defensive. Your previous comment implies that if a country is attacked by another, they should not attack them in return, because it would be underserved, which is just completely naive pacifism.
I think no one **objectively deserves anything, so I’m not disagreeing with your sentiment but I think I get tripped up by the anthropomorphism more than the concept of certain people deserving specific rewards or punishments for actions of any particular type
Yup. That is exactly what violent expressions of hatred results in.
So what lesson did you learn from the end result of using violence out of hatred towards a country?
That had we not had a history of committing acts of of mass violence in other countries, we wouldn’t have deserved to have one committed upon us. We did though, so we do.
If you’re selectively empathetic than any claims of empathy towards people in other countries is suspect. I think you’re likely a psychopath.
You can both empathize with the loss of innocent life, and understand that it was consequences of their collective actions. If someone where to stab someone, and that person stabbed them back, and the attacker dies, you can both mourn the loss of life, but also understand the attacker deserved what happened to them. Had we not accepted the warmongering, corporate, fascists, controlling our government, we would not have slaughtered 100’s of thousands of people in foreign countries in the first place, thus avoiding the retaliation we received. That attack was defensive. Your previous comment implies that if a country is attacked by another, they should not attack them in return, because it would be underserved, which is just completely naive pacifism.
That we can feel superior to all parties by pointing out the obvious?
Saying people deserve to be the target of violence isn’t being superior to anyone.
deleted by creator
People live in countries. People die when countries have wars.
You have to be a real psychopath to forget that countries are made up of people.
I think no one **objectively deserves anything, so I’m not disagreeing with your sentiment but I think I get tripped up by the anthropomorphism more than the concept of certain people deserving specific rewards or punishments for actions of any particular type
Edit to add objectively and specific
Yes, violence is bad.