Reply #232: Now listen carefully. You are almost ready for some truth.

[Inland]

He confuses casuality with justice.

He didn't merely say that the deaths were predictable. he said the deaths were justified, that they were a befitting penalty for the participation by those little Eichmanns in the tower. No, don't tell me he didn't say that. Look at the quote. Read.

And that's the essential, amoral dimension to the war criminal and terrorist. Any dope can predict that, for example, the Iraq invasion would lead to more terrorist attacks, as I did. I can also predict that walking in a bad neighborhood at night will get you robbed, maybe killed. I can predict those things because there are evil people who use events to their own purposes. I can predict those things because in things like war and crime, shit happens. But it doesn't make it right. It doesn't justify it.

Ward takes the extra step of saying that the WTC victims deserved it. That their attenuated connection with the injustices of their government made death appropriate. But in reality, what did they DO to deserve death? Ward gives us a clue about his concepts of guilt and innocence when he says they were "civilians of a sort", meaning they were soldiers of a sort. Like any war criminal or terrorist, Ward sees civilians as targets. Not surprisingly, he also says that the little people at the WTC would be collateral damage under the Pentagons definition, thereby adopting the same standard.

The result in saying the WTC victims deserved it is a profoundly amoral stand that allows any type of crime against anyone, and in fact it is. You sound like every war criminal or terroist out there.