• 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.

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

              You’re ignoring most of my arguments. Why the focus on Patriot Act, when it was one of three factors I listed? Why do you keep trying to say that I’m saying his stated goals were unbelievable, when I’ve repeatedly said I’m debating the specifics of how he expected to accomplish them? It’s not a “what”, it’s a “how”.

              I’ve repeatedly expressed my reasonings. I cannot help it if you don’t tell me the specific parts you disagree with or don’t understand. I won’t just keep repeating myself.

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

                Why the focus on Patriot Act, when it was one of three factors I listed?

                Because it’s the one that I see repeated most often by others and the one find most doubtful.

                Why do you keep trying to say that I’m saying his stated goals were unbelievable, when I’ve repeatedly said I’m debating the specifics of how he expected to accomplish them? It’s not a “what”, it’s a “how”.

                Because we started with a disagreement over what his goals were and you seem to have maintained your side of that disagreement? If you say “it was X, Y and Z” and I say, “no, it was A and B” and you then say “how on earth could what he did have achieved A” you’re not actually arguing about “how” you’re expressing your skepticism that it was A by casting doubt on how realistic it was.

                I’ve repeatedly expressed my reasonings.

                You haven’t expressed a reason to believe that bin Laden wanted the USA to pass a law like the PATRIOT Act. You’ve made implications that you maybe don’t actually believe it that strongly, but not gone so far as to say that you don’t believe it, and you’ve talked about the other things you believe, but you’re quite reticent to talk about that one.

                I don’t mind leaving aside the other stuff because this one, I think, is more egregious.

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

                  At least you’re willing to be honest, I respect that. I’ll point out though, that the Patriot Act in isolation requires me to explain at length how a surveillance state harms American citizens, which in turn harms America. This would be a tangent. It’s far easier to deal with in conjunction with American diplomatic reputation, debt, and casualties as well, wouldn’t you agree? Taken all together, I think it becomes almost impossible to not see how grievous harm has been done, and continues to be.

                  One more time. I have at no time asserted that his stated goal was impossible or unachievable. Quit putting words in my mouth. I’m talking about how they get accomplished, yes? I’ve said several times now that they are possible, just not in any way quickly or straightforwardly, which I assert he likely knew, due to how painfully obvious it is and was, to anyone who picks up the briefest of US history books. Our involvement in WW1 and 2 was definitive and for very clear reason. I don’t know how someone could assert that he’s paying attention to Vietnam but not WW2.

                  You really want to get into a sidetrack about how a surveillance state harms the citizens of a democracy in a way that makes them prefer isolationism? I think it’s fairly straightforward if you acknowledge our voting system, but I can explain if you wish. It’s common enough sentiment in privacy circles. Importantly, it lasts until we do away with it, where war exhaustion due to casualties fades fairly quickly, historically speaking. Knowing our government, we will probably not do away with it for quite some time, though that’s more an educated guess.

                  edit: The main reason I don’t want to get into the privacy discussion, incidentally, is because we’re on Lemmy, where a very large number of privacy-oriented types hang out. So it strikes me as unnecessary and a little silly, despite your questioning of it. But ask one last time and I will provide some resources for you, that’s fine.

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

                    I agree that the PATRIOT act has harmed American citizens, but I think that’s a completely Western-centric way of thinking that likely wouldn’t even cross the mind of a radical Islamist. I don’t think it can be said to have harmed the USA in the way that would further any of bin Laden’s goals that we can infer from his words or otherwise. If anything, bin Laden was an authoritarian himself and so would be more likely to believe that state surveillance is beneficial to the wellbeing of the state.

                    One more time. I have at no time asserted that his stated goal was impossible or unachievable. Quit putting words in my mouth. I’m talking about how they get accomplished, yes?

                    Seems to me you’re still saying 9/11 couldn’t have achieved it.

                    You really want to get into a sidetrack about how a surveillance state harms the citizens of a democracy in a way that makes them prefer isolationism?

                    I want you to lay out why you think the PATRIOT act or something like it was likely foreseen by bin Laden and why he thought it would likely further his goals. You’re hinting at a discussion from the perspective of “privacy-oriented types” rather than from bin Laden’s perspective. There’s to be done here than just argue, “bin Laden wanted to harm America, and eroding privacy harms America, therefore bin Laden did 9/11 to erode privacy.” Many consequences of 9/11 might further or hinder bin Laden’s goals, but IMO we’re talking about more than that.