• 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
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  10 months ago

                  You don’t understand how people can discuss possibilities without believing in them 100%? The world must be a very confusing place. I guess that makes more sense why you just believe a terrorist though, you have to believe someone. Something has to be true, right?

                  People are complicated, so we discuss possibilities, alternatives, etc and think in terms of likelihood. This is fairly common in areas where we cannot scientifically prove something, like when examining motivations.

                  Truths belong in holy books. I have opinions, and I am discussing them. I admit I do use fairly strong hyperbole sometimes.

                  Like I said, the idea that America would just give up after losing a couple skyscrapers is just pants-on-head stupid, so I feel pretty comfortable swinging with some strong language.

                  edit: Alright, I edited my old post to add an imo, so it was clearer I was not trying to give historical fact.

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

                    Just because you couch it in terms of opinion doesn’t mean it’s not a claim about truth; you’re just not saying you’re certain of it. I wouldn’t expect certainty - I would just expect that whatever you do believe you believe for a reason, and that you would be able to articulate that reason, which you aren’t doing.

                    With your successive replies it sounds like you’re more comfortable defending the position that “bin Laden’s stated goals are unbelievable” than “bin Laden’s goal was to make the USA pass liberty-reducing legislation.” It’s OK if, on reflection, you think the latter isn’t really supported by the facts and that’s why you’re not defending it or giving a reason for it.