Serious answer, I heard somewhere that apparently it’s common to start a war with an attack that will get the population of the opposing country angry. Killing children is an effective way to do that. If I remember correctly, the point is to get the country to attack back, so you can better justify the war to your own population.
That makes no sense. You are already at war. You have already justified it. Getting the other country to defend harder is not what you want. You want to win.
Bombing a school wasn’t 5D chess by Trump. It was incompetence.
Wait what? Worked for who? Al Qaida has been decimated, the Taliban were decimated for aiding them, most people directly involved with 9/11 have been killed in violent ways and the holy land has been so absolutely ravaged by war that it may never recover. From a strategic point of view, 9/11 was a disaster.
Serious answer, I heard somewhere that apparently it’s common to start a war with an attack that will get the population of the opposing country angry. Killing children is an effective way to do that. If I remember correctly, the point is to get the country to attack back, so you can better justify the war to your own population.
That makes no sense. You are already at war. You have already justified it. Getting the other country to defend harder is not what you want. You want to win.
Bombing a school wasn’t 5D chess by Trump. It was incompetence.
what do you mean it doesn’t make sense?
it worked for 9/11 didn’t it?
Wait what? Worked for who? Al Qaida has been decimated, the Taliban were decimated for aiding them, most people directly involved with 9/11 have been killed in violent ways and the holy land has been so absolutely ravaged by war that it may never recover. From a strategic point of view, 9/11 was a disaster.