David Marcus: Labeling 9/11 as ‘Inevitable’ Equates to Justifying Its Disgrace
The Rise of a Socialist Voice in Colorado
DAVID MARCUS – On Tuesday night in Denver, the political landscape saw a notable shift as Democratic Socialists continued to challenge traditional Democrats. A 29-year-old Ethiopian-born candidate, Milot Kiros, emerged victorious over longtime Representative Diana DeGette, who had been elected to the U.S. House prior to the 9/11 attacks. Kiros’s win has sparked debate, with critics arguing that her rhetoric subtly shifts blame from the perpetrators of the tragedy to American foreign policy. While she claims to focus on the root causes of the attacks, her statements have drawn sharp criticism from conservatives who see them as an attempt to downplay the moral responsibility of al Qaeda.
“Inevitable in the sense that we destabilized a lot of the Middle East, which led people to believe that another act of violence was the only response,” Kiros stated during a recent interview. She emphasized that the U.S. must address the conditions that foster violence, suggesting that the 9/11 attacks were a necessary outcome of its policies. But her argument has been met with skepticism, as many view her phrasing as a clever way to absolve the attackers of their guilt.
A Question of Cause and Justification
Kiros’s assertion that 9/11 was inevitable has led to a crucial distinction: is she merely identifying the causes of the attacks, or is she justifying them? The former President Barack Obama, who famously targeted Osama bin Laden in 2011, symbolized the nation’s resolve to hold the terrorists accountable. However, Kiros’s perspective implies that bin Laden had no choice but to strike, as if the United States had already set the stage for the catastrophe. This framing, critics argue, risks portraying the 9/11 attackers as victims rather than villains.
While the cause of 9/11—resentment toward U.S. foreign policy—was undeniable, the term “inevitable” carries a weight that goes beyond mere explanation. By labeling the attacks as inevitable, Kiros suggests that al Qaeda’s actions were a logical consequence of America’s actions, thereby minimizing the deliberate nature of the violence. This line of reasoning, though seemingly academic, has implications for how Americans perceive their own role in the events of September 11, 2001.
“Our responsibility is to get rid of those conditions that lead to violence in the first place,” Kiros added. Her words, though framed as a call for systemic change, have been interpreted by some as a way to absolve the attackers of their agency. If the U.S. had not provoked the conflict, then bin Laden might have chosen a different path, according to this logic. But does that mean the 9/11 attacks were justified, or simply unavoidable?
A Bigger Leap: From Inevitable to Deserved
While Kiros stops short of saying America “deserved” the attacks, others in her camp, such as Hasan Piker, have taken a more radical stance. In an unearthed video, Piker explicitly stated that the United States was responsible for 9/11, framing the attacks as a deserved punishment for its global policies. This position, though extreme, reflects a broader trend within the Democratic Socialist Alliance (DSA) to reframe the event as a necessary response rather than a catastrophic act.
The DSA’s approach has drawn comparisons to the Cold War era, where communist ideology was often blamed for global conflict. Just as some once argued that America’s capitalist system was the root of all evil, the DSA now claims that the U.S. created the conditions that made 9/11 inevitable. For many Americans, this perspective feels like a betrayal of the sacrifices made by those who died in the attacks. The tragedy is not just a historical event but a symbol of national unity and resilience, and Kiros’s rhetoric threatens to erode that connection.
“America created the conditions that made it impossible for anything but a 9/11-style attack to happen,” Kiros explained. “Therefore, bin Laden had no choice but to act.” This logic, while compelling in its simplicity, has been criticized for reducing a complex act of terrorism to an inevitable outcome. The implication is clear: if the U.S. had altered its policies, the attacks could have been avoided, but that doesn’t mean they were justified.
The Legacy of 9/11: Pride and Sacrifice
Even 25 years after the attacks, the emotional impact on Americans remains profound. The loss of nearly 3,000 lives in New York, Washington, D.C., and Shanksville, Pennsylvania, is still felt deeply by families and communities. For most, 9/11 represents a day of unity and heroism, not a moment of inevitability. The idea that these tragedies were the only possible result of U.S. actions, however, challenges that narrative and risks framing the victims as aggressors.
Conservatives and some Americans who lived through the events of 9/11 argue that the DSA’s stance is not just a semantic shift but a moral one. By calling the attacks “inevitable,” they suggest that America’s foreign policy—particularly its support for Israel and military interventions—created a cycle of violence that left no room for alternatives. This view, while not universally accepted, highlights the tension between accountability and blame.
It is important to note that Kiros’s critics do not dismiss the role of U.S. foreign policy in fueling resentment. They acknowledge that America’s actions in the Middle East contributed to the conditions that made the attacks possible. However, the leap from “cause” to “justification” is where the debate intensifies. The DSA’s argument that 9/11 was inevitable implies that the attackers had no moral choice, which some see as an attempt to shift the focus from the actions of the terrorists to the policies of the U.S.
A Call for Clarity in Rhetoric
Words matter, and the DSA’s use of “inevitable” to describe the 9/11 attacks is a strategic choice. By replacing “justified” with “inevitable,” they aim to distance themselves from directly endorsing the attacks while still attributing them to American actions. This subtle shift, however, has been accused of watering down the gravity of the event and framing it as a necessary consequence rather than a heinous crime.
Kiros and her allies may argue that their perspective is rooted in a desire to understand the broader context of the attacks. But the question remains: does that understanding justify the violence, or does it merely explain it? The answer lies in how we interpret the term “inevitable.” If it means that the attacks were the only possible outcome, then it is a justification. If it means that they were a predictable result, then it is an explanation. The distinction is fine, but the implications are significant.
As the DSA continues to gain influence, their redefinition of 9/11 raises concerns about how the public will remember the event. For those who lived through the tragedy, the attacks were a choice made by individuals who sought to destroy American lives. To label them as inevitable is to suggest that these individuals had no other option, which is a powerful way to reframe the narrative. This is why many Americans feel that Kiros and her peers are not just rewriting history but undermining the sacrifices that define the nation’s response to 9/11.
In conclusion, the debate over 9/11’s inevitability is not merely academic—it is a battle over how we define justice and responsibility. While the U.S. has a role in the global tensions that preceded the attacks, the DSA’s use of “inevitable” to justify them risks making the victims of 9/11 appear as perpetrators rather than the true targets of the most devastating act of terrorism in modern history.
