Regardless of the ultimate moral judgment, it is obviously not the case that a bunch of civilians dying during warfare is the same as an attack committed solely to target civilian populations during peacetime.
Even granting the premise of “paying is equal to doing,” none of your examples are anything like 9/11. The defining characteristics of 9/11 are obviously these: peacetime, intentionally targeted at civilians, killed a large number of civilians.
The best way to absolve a country of guilt is actually to make divorced-from-reality equivocations so that every less than ideal outcome looks equally evil, equally preventable, etc. The US has done plenty of truly atrocious stuff overseas and at home, silly arguments like “the US committed decades of 9/11-style acts” is counterproductive if your mission is accountability.
War is the ultimate act of overt violence. Discounting examples from war is strange. What does it matter to the victims if a piece of paper somewhere declares it a war?
I can’t point to a single act that satisfies your criteria. The U.S. does not wage peacetime violence in the same way that terrorist groups do. We prefer to do the damage over time. We prefer to avoid headline capturing violence. But the victims don’t care and the point I made is not diminished by this. Our reaction to 9/11 was an overreaction. Lots of places have been devastated by U.S. actions and those people haven’t had similar overreactions.
2000 people weren’t killed in a single day in Nicaragua in the 80s. We did it over time and in a sustained way. The Nicaraguans don’t obsess about how this changed the whole world or desire to go on a 20 year killing spree in reaction to what we did.
It doesn't matter to the victims but it does matter to the frameworks used to make decisions going forward. If your argument here is, "wouldn't it be nice if there were no war?" Sure would!
Different claim than this one: “We’ve done 9/11 type events on other nations for decades”
And FWIW other places couldn’t overreact the way the US did even if they wanted to, and I’m sure on more than zero occasions they did. The US is a phenomenally dangerous giant lumbering around. Don’t presume that others would do much better if they were equipped the same way we happen to be.
You agree with the point I made but don’t like the statement, “We’ve done 9/11 type events on other nations for decades.” I’m perplexed by this. Don’t see how it can be a fruitful experience to nitpick that statement of mine when you agree with the point I was making. The examples I gave weren’t close enough to the 9/11 in details for you so you nitpicked that and ignored my point. Which you have now stated you agree with. This is why I periodically delete my account on this site. Yes, I know, delete isn’t the technically correct term but it is close enough. I change usernames and reset my previous password to a random string so that I can’t use it anymore. It is a deletion of sorts.
Because it's counterproductive to accuse people of routinely executing massive terrorist attacks against civilian populations when they aren't routinely executing massive terrorist attacks against civilian populations.
Even granting the premise of “paying is equal to doing,” none of your examples are anything like 9/11. The defining characteristics of 9/11 are obviously these: peacetime, intentionally targeted at civilians, killed a large number of civilians.
The best way to absolve a country of guilt is actually to make divorced-from-reality equivocations so that every less than ideal outcome looks equally evil, equally preventable, etc. The US has done plenty of truly atrocious stuff overseas and at home, silly arguments like “the US committed decades of 9/11-style acts” is counterproductive if your mission is accountability.