The Alliance Part 6: Blowback and feminism are both wrong

Josh Xiong's blog had an interesting piece of why the idea that "blowback" is a source for terrorism is wrong.  He cites the examples of Japan (the US dropped a nuclear bomb on them), Cambodia, and Vietnam.  If "blowback" was really happening then why don't we see terrorists from Cambodia and Vietnam?  Someone else brought up the example of Latin America and how we don't see Latin American suicide bombers.  I wrote up an example about Laos.  Given that its the most bombed country in history mainly due to US bombing during the Vietnam War and the fact that the US wasn't even at war with Laos at the time, not to mention the massive problem with unexploded ordinance that persists to this day and will for centuries over there, we should be seeing massive waves of Laotian suicide bombers if "blowback" was real.

The justification for the idea of "blowback" is something the US or the West did in the past to somebody.  In many cases it didn't happen like the advocates of "blowback" describe, or the issues are more complicated than they are willing to admit.  Notice the similarities to this idea and to feminists (and other women) who claim that feminism was the result of men oppressing women or some other nonsense.  Or better yet compare "blowback" to the idea that men deserve to be oppressed now since women were supposedly oppressed a long time ago.

In both cases, the historical knowledge of the advocates of these positions is on shaky ground.  In both cases, its justifications for bad if not psychotic behavior.  Its worse with the feminists since they are outright lying most of the time and are using logical fallacies of the apex fallacy and the frontman fallacy.  The idea that women were ever oppressed is an outright myth.  At least the "blowback" advocates have some historical basis for their claims unlike the feminists.  Regardless, its also about the justification of bad behavior in the present not about actual history.