• Candelestine@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year 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
      ·
      1 year 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
        1 year 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
          ·
          1 year 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
            ·
            1 year 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
              ·
              1 year 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.