Larry Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 Y'all could be right. I'm not claiming to be a mind reader. However, my reasoning is: If you want the same reaction you got after the Cole, you use the same stimulus you used for the Cole. If I'm OBL, and I want the US to lob a few cruise missles, I have a suicide bomber blow up an american hotel, or shopping center, or some such, in the mideast. I don't pick the most spectacular (and hardest to ignore) target I can find. OTOH, it's certainly possible his intended message was "Look! Even if I do this[/u], they ignore it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 Larry, I think it's also likely OBL didn't expect the attack to succeed so spectacularly. He himself said he didn't think the towers would actually fall. Remember, previous attempts to attack us on our own soil had been thwarted. My guess is he figured if he tried to hijack ten planes, maybe his people would succeed in taking over one or two of them. Sorta like a kid chucking rocks at traffic. He might hope to break a window, but that doesn't mean he's expecting to cause a ten car pile up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 Yes, there are folks who just don't get americans. Sometimes I'm one of 'em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerm Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 Originally posted by mardi gras skin I'm sure he thought we would go to war against terrorism. Just as I'm sure Japan thought we would go to war against them after Perl Harbor. Like Japan, I'm sure OBL expects to win. I was thinking the same thing. Did we play right into Japan's hands? Mass-murderers generally expect a response to their actions. My guess is that OBL's main priority is to get the US out of the mideast and he thought that we would be weak. He also wanted more recruits. He may be getting his second wish, but he is dead wrong if he thinks killing civilians will help him achieve his primary goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpillian Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 It doesn't take a Dr. Evil sorta genius to figure out what our reaction to a major terrorist attack would have been. So yes, in a sense, we have been playing into Bin Laden's hands. He certainly isn't an idiot. Then again, neither are we (despite all opinions to the contrary by us armchair politico-strategists). A confrontation between the West and Islam has been predicted by international relations theorists for a while now. Sammuel Huntington certainly pointed to it in his 1993 paper "Clash of Civilizations" -- which is sort of a benchmark work in IR. Was this the best time for us to start down this path in earnest? Who knows. While the West is still at its apex of power and the Islamic World is still at it's nadir -- sounds like as good a time as any. Sept 11 just provided us a legitimate entry point to begin prosecuting this conflict with the vigor that Islamic extremists have since they started hijacking planes in the 60's and 70's. People love sit back in their comfy Lazy-Boys and overanalyze the heck out of this kind of stuff. The fact of the matter is the Islamists needed to be confronted by the West; whether these first steps have been the optimal solution will be open for debate from here to eternity. Unfortunately, our national leaders have the responsibility to act when faced with such circumstances, and do so in a timely manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 jpillian, you forgot to tell them that if Gore was making the decisions after 9/11, he would have done the same damn thing as Bush. (Would the Rebublican be acting like the Democrats are now? Hmmmm.....) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpillian Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 Actually, ya I think I agree with that Portis. I honestly think that the intelligence available to the President and his Cabinet probably makes most foreign policy decisions "non-decision" -- they're simply self-evident. I've been meaning to start a thread based on that hypothesis. That regardless of who we've got in office, within moderation, the foreign policy will be 90% the same. Huge differences in domestic policy, but the foreign policy decisions would remain the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJWatson3 Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 i'd have to agree with that idea, that when it comes to foreign policy, the same thing would likely get done, no matter who is in office. like after 9-11, what were we gonna do? not go after bin laden... maybe we would have put forth more effort and had less of a PR feel to it, but we were going in there one way or another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.