Quote:
Originally Posted by seattlelou
Do you think OBL was rational and his thought processes are particularly meaningful? A lot of posters understand the middle east to a far greater extent than I do. I am certain we make foreign policy mistakes. But I don't think this line of thought, appeasing terrorists, is a good one.
Yes I believe he was rational in the sense that he had intelligble reasons behind his actions, regardless of what they were.
His motivations are meaningful in terms of 'understanding your enemy', which all war generals and game theory experts would say is crucial information.
I think it's more of a coinflip about appeasing terrorists, it depends on the terms. If they want 1 million dollars and you are the government who can print money, just print them off a mil and then sniper them later. To be flexible is a strength really and in this war we're fighting we have been entirely rigid and unbending, which I think is the wrong strategy philosophically.