Which was why it was widely considered a dumb move on the part of Bin Laden. It attracted all sorts of unwanted attention, that ultimately led to the the core group losing all relevance. The other al-Qaeda franchises might be doing well, but the people who pulled off 9/11 (and their successors) have virtually no influence, on top of being hunted by the US.
I didn't say anything about what al-Qaeda wanted. I said, "Bin Laden wanted to destroy America". Am I wrong for believing the evidence of his actions supports that assertion?
Given that Bin Laden is al-Qaeda's leader, it's approximately correct to treat them as the same entity, unless you're arguing that there's some factional struggle inside al-Qaeda.
I said, "Bin Laden wanted to destroy America". Am I wrong for believing the evidence of his actions supports that assertion?
No, because the "destroy America" objective came afterwards, after his most bombastic attack, so there's a texas sharpshooter fallacy going on, where you're redefining your conditions for success. It's like putin invading ukraine claiming to want to conquer the entirety of it, then after years of stalemate pivoting and claiming all he wanted to do was capture donbas.
"Do not await anything from us but Jihad, resistance and revenge. Is it in
any way rational to expect that after America has attacked us for more than half a century, that we will then leave her to live in security and peace?!!"
Comments
Did they need the real estate under the World Trade Center to establish a caliphate?
Which was why it was widely considered a dumb move on the part of Bin Laden. It attracted all sorts of unwanted attention, that ultimately led to the the core group losing all relevance. The other al-Qaeda franchises might be doing well, but the people who pulled off 9/11 (and their successors) have virtually no influence, on top of being hunted by the US.
I didn't say anything about what al-Qaeda wanted. I said, "Bin Laden wanted to destroy America". Am I wrong for believing the evidence of his actions supports that assertion?
Given that Bin Laden is al-Qaeda's leader, it's approximately correct to treat them as the same entity, unless you're arguing that there's some factional struggle inside al-Qaeda.
No, because the "destroy America" objective came afterwards, after his most bombastic attack, so there's a texas sharpshooter fallacy going on, where you're redefining your conditions for success. It's like putin invading ukraine claiming to want to conquer the entirety of it, then after years of stalemate pivoting and claiming all he wanted to do was capture donbas.
I dunno, man.
Bin Laden's words:
"Do not await anything from us but Jihad, resistance and revenge. Is it in any way rational to expect that after America has attacked us for more than half a century, that we will then leave her to live in security and peace?!!"