I'd go with "twisted, insane zealots" rather than try to get into some meaningless zero-sum "brave/cowardly" debate. The former explains the danger succinctly enough.https://twitter.com/NGrossman81/status/1039487271416815616 …
Yes. Had goals, and undertook a strategy to achieve them. Whether the strategy was smart or dumb, and whether it worked or failed, it’s still rational.
-
-
I was taught IR under the framework of realist rational actors vs. ideologues, and it would seem the 9/11 terrorists would certainly fit into the latter, despite having a cogent strategy to achieve their goals, But this is the problem with looking at terrorism under the lens 1/
-
of classic IR theory, because it's asymmetrical warfare. The hijackers didn't represent a nation/alliance of nations per se, yet we (The US under the W Admin) tried to ram that square peg into the round hole - The Iraq and Afghan wars. And we know how that turned out. 2/
-
In the discipline, we still talk some about realists vs. idealists, but don't treat "realist" and "rational" as synonyms. The definition of "rational" from game theory has taken over IR, along with much of social science.
-
It has admittedly been a few years.. so I can see that. Interestingly. I had just started my last undergrad semester in September.. 2001. My professors basically said half of what's on the syllabus is now useless,.. and they tried cobble together post 9/11 curricula in real time.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.