• FishFace@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    10 months ago

    Similar to how Bin Laden very much succeeded in his goals for the Sept 11th attack, by getting us to pass the Patriot Act, invade some countries and start ripping ourselves apart.

    Bin Laden’s goals were to get Americans to replace their government with one that would get out of the Arabian peninsula and stop supporting Israel. He consummately failed.

    • Candelestine@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      Not sure why someone would believe a fighter when they say why they fight. It’s not like propaganda is unique to western countries or something. It’s everywhere. It’s a tool that creates effects, you think he’s above using it or something?

      • FishFace@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        getting us to pass the Patriot Act, invade some countries and start ripping ourselves apart.

        This assessment of al Qaeda’s goals I have only ever heard from Western propaganda and the popular consciousness, not any serious attempt to analyse them. While bin Laden’s statements could be lies (more relevant than whether they’re propaganda, which can be true), I think it makes more sense to take his word for his own motivations than what amounts to nothing more than the popular Western view of his motivations, filtered through years of our own media. Of course there may be some serious analysis of his goals somewhere I haven’t read - feel free to point me at it. It should come along with some reason not to believe his own explanation though.

        I’m skeptical that it exists though, because this understanding of his goals essentially denies that he has any goals beyond hurting America: it’s “they hate us because we are free.” But bin Laden laid out perfectly clearly that his hatred of America developed from seeing Muslims killed in attacks which were enabled by American intervention - something which I see no reason to cast doubt on, and as such see no reason to doubt his explanation.

        • Candelestine@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          It makes zero sense though. No people on Earth would just go “oh welp, guess we better go home now.”

          Do we seem hesitant to kill people to you?

          • FishFace@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            10 months ago

            How does it not make sense? One way of achieving your aims is making it very costly for the people blocking those aims to continue doing so.

            No people on Earth would just go “oh welp, guess we better go home now.”

            Conflicts often end in a negotiated peace where neither side has been conclusively defeated, often indeed amounting to “welp, we’d better go home now.” The cost to the US military in Vietnam turned public opinion against the war until it became politically unsustainable.

            More broadly, this attitude inevitably leads to post-hoc cynicism, where you look at someone who failed to achieve their stated goals, conclude in hindsight that they made no sense and that they therefore couldn’t ever possibly have believed sincerely in them.

            If it really made zero sense, it would make zero sense to use as propaganda. The fact that it makes enough sense that you believe bin Laden even used it to convince others means you accept that people could believe it. It’s not unreasonable to think that bin Laden was smarter than the people following him, but you haven’t done the work to show he couldn’t believe it.

            • Candelestine@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              Propaganda is a quantity game, it can make anywhere from no sense to complete sense, because different messages will be received differently by different people.

              The Sept 11th attack was not a piece of some greater war. It was a declaration to an unsuspecting people, very few of us had any expectation that something like that would happen. I can understand when the Japanese made the mistake in 1941, but its much less understandable now. It’s certainly no Vietnam, which didn’t end until we had lost large numbers for many years. Comparing that to an expectation that a surprise attack on our civilians would have similar effects is simply ridiculous.

              America is a box of hornets. It was still, and got kicked. No other possibility was even remotely likely to anybody that knows anything about us. He couldn’t have been that totally and completely ignorant.

              To the contrary, it is far more likely he was an intelligent adversary that researched and understood his opponents, and struck effectively. I simply find that far more plausible than him being a fool that wanted a quicker way to get him and his organization to heaven, and otherwise failed miserably.

              edit for some sloppy wording

              • FishFace@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                10 months ago

                So, the only reason you have for not believing bin Laden’s stated goals is that, you assert, it was too obviously impossible to achieve them.

                You haven’t presented any reason he instead must have wanted to cause the USA to sacrifice domestic freedoms as a motivation. What about all other possible motivations? Why that one? It seems like it doesn’t do bin Laden any good for that to happen. Instead it seems like it’s how an American, unable to understand the world through any lens except an American one, might decide bin Laden’s motivations must be viewed.

                • Candelestine@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  I have at no time asserted it was impossible to drive the US from the Middle East. To the contrary, sowing domestic strife and global overreaction was an excellent first step towards accomplishing that in the long run.

                  All I’m granting him is an assumption of rationality and long term thinking. I’m not claiming any truth or facts or anything, I cannot read a dead man’s mind. But I can look at what happened and draw conclusions with the aid of hindsight, and strongly prefer that over simply trusting his word.

                  Are you unable to see how we have harmed ourselves since then? How about how Israel is harming themselves right now?

                  • FishFace@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    Are you unable to see how we have harmed ourselves since then? How about how Israel is harming themselves right now?

                    This is just an invitation to commit the post-hoc fallacy.

                    I’m not claiming any truth or facts or anything

                    But you said:

                    Similar to how Bin Laden very much succeeded in his goals

                    That’s an assertion/claim as to what those goals in fact were. And you still haven’t found any reason that they included “make the US pass laws which restricted its own civil liberties” other than the fact that that’s what eventually happened.

        • Candelestine@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          I don’t disagree. Just disagree that his method was as simple and straightforward as people here seem to think, just believing what he’s spoon feeding them 100%. He was sophisticated, a leader. Not some simpleton.

          As if Americans would just give him what he wants for knocking down a couple skyscrapers. Have you even seen our culture? We shoot each other in our own streets, much less foreign attackers. How people think we could just forego a chance at revenge is just utterly, hilariously wrong in every way.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            10 months ago

            He believed we would leave because he grew up in a world of Western countries being driven out by anti colonial violence. It’s not that complicated. He wasn’t a political science guy, or an anthropologist. He was a radicalized construction engineer.

            • Candelestine@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              10 months ago

              I don’t think you need to be an anthropologist to figure out that attacking someone’s civilians nearly guarantees counterattack. We still needed the oil out of the region back then to boot.

              • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                Shockingly it doesn’t. You’re also not taking into account his radicalization. Which allows for a lot of irrational beliefs.

                • Candelestine@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  That is actually a fair criticism. I simply don’t think it’s as strong an influence over strategic thinking. In any decent thinker anyway.