You’re doing it again! The 9/11 attack was not a legitimate political statement. Nobody has defended it as such. However, that does not make it insane. An act doesn’t have to be either a legitimate political statement or insane. When you say otherwise, you simply poison the well.
Since I’m here, I agree that the “bankrupt the US” strategy is just a post hoc rationale. Bin Laden could have predicted that the US would respond to the attacks by invading Afghanistan; but that could never bankrupt the US. Indeed, it wouldn’t have cost all that much had the US chosen to withdraw when the Taliban toppled, rather than occupy the place. Bin Laden could not have predicted Iraq. It’s just not plausible. Perhaps he hoped to start a clash of civilizations (or whatever you want to call it) between the US and Muslim world, but again, that would have meant he predicted an even larger American response than occurred, and I’m a little dubious that he would have expected the US to fight back that hard. After all, that would mean thinking the US was a brave, strong country — one tends not to think that of one’s enemies. It’s more likely that Bin Laden expected the American public would say, “Well, if it costs that much in American civilian lives to stay in the region, let’s just get out!”, much as the Spanish public said after the Madrid bombings. Terrorism does often work as a tactic because of that type of response — people have been giving examples throughout this thread. Of course, the final option is that he figured it would be either-or: the US would either overreact or withdraw, either of which would be good for Al Qaeda.
Regardless, any of those predictions are perfectly rational; things just didn’t quite turn out the way Bin Laden expected.
It doesn’t require that you think of America as “brave and strong” just that you think of it as aggressive and amoral or evil. After all, we didn’t do all that much “fighting back”; we spent much more effort attacking a third party, namely Iraq.
Yeah, it turned out much better than he expected. I don’t think he thought that this one act would result in the reaching of all his goals immediately. It was a lighting of the match.
Did he think this one act would result in reaching of none of the aforementioned goals in ten years, but would get him shot and killed before then?
Sure, I didn’t like the response either; but it takes a pretty substantial amount of willpower and, well, bravery on the part of the public to decide not to back down, but to engage more aggressively. “Amoral or evil” is entirely irrelevant, and “aggressive” misses the point that you’re choosing to fight someone who has just demonstrated a capacity to fight back by inflicting mass casualties. Terrorism is predicated on thinking of the enemy as a paper tiger of sorts — you can coerce them by creating fear. The US, in terms of foreign policy, did refuse to be coerced, that is a type of bravery, and I am dubious that Bin Laden expected that.
Let’s go through these one by one:
- Al Qaeda got smashed, and virtually the entirety of its leadership was killed or captured.
- Al Qaeda has lost credibility, both because of what happened in Iraq and because it got left out of the secular uprisings this year.
- The Shi’ites are arguably in a better position than they were ten years ago.
- We’re no closer to an Islamic Caliphate.
- The US is no closer to being out of the Middle East. (Farther, actually.)
- Yet there’s no sign of a clash of civilization rising.
- The Saudis are still in power, and if anything they’re slowly getting more liberal.
- And yes, the Middle East is continuing to liberalize.
In short, Al Qaeda lost. Badly.
Oh, please.We acted like cowards and bullies; we let our own rights and freedoms be curtailed and ran around attacking people and nations primarily according to how helpless they were against us; not to whether or not they had to anything to do with the attack.
“Refused to be coerced”? :rolleyes: Bin Laden might as well been cackling in his cave “dance, puppets, dance!” And “amoral or evil” is certainly relevant, since it affects both who we are likely to attack and how much we will alienate the world in the process.
Their victory was so immense that even if every single one of them was killed it would still be a victory, given the sheer lopsidedness of the forces involved. There simply aren’t enough of them for killing them to even the scales. And what happened in Iraq was a victory for them; they won there too. Saddam is gone, so is Iraqi secularism, and we have created yet another nation of people who would cheerfully see us all dead. All victories for Al Qaeda.
In spite of both of us. America in terms of foreign policy agrees with Al Qaeda and Islamic conservatism in general more than it disagrees. Religious dominance of society is good, hatred of homosexuals and women is good, secularism is bad, freedom and democracy are bad.
The westernization is coming from the bottom too. I saw a program on Syrian rap weeks ago. Rap is not the most elevated form of political discourse but it strikes a chord with many of the youth .Rap is very political.
Your first two statements are pure ideology; they have no relation to what actually happened. As such, I don’t see how I even can address them. The same is true of your third statement: Iraq went from Sunni domination to relative Shi’ite domination (remember, Al Qaeda doesn’t think Shi’ites are Muslim!), and it is still a secular regime. Moreover, things turned out as they did in Iraq in part because the Iraqi Sunnis rejected AQI, which treated them far worse than the Americans. Hence, Iraq was great for Al Qaeda for about three years, but after that, it became an abysmal failure. And unless there are lots of Iraqis currently joining Al Qaeda to fight elsewhere, I’m not sure why their distaste for the US helps Al Qaeda. For that matter, it’s not like they loved the US before 2003 anyway. Your final statement again is simply irrelevant (and FWIW, I don’t disagree that it all happened “in spite” of the US, though the two sentences after are both hilariously untrue and grossly bigoted.)
How much of that was actually due to 9/11?
If it is not insane, then it’s a sane statement, political or otherwise.
I called it insane. Are you calling it sane?
I think this man has it. ‘Fairer’ meaning their religion/culture/etc is dominant.