• Candelestine@lemmy.worldEnglish
    12·
    2 years 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.worldEnglish
      3·
      2 years 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.worldEnglish
        13·
        2 years 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.worldEnglish
          1·
          2 years ago

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

          • Candelestine@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            2 years 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.