The text in question is allegedly called "Al Qaeda's Strategy until Year 2020." My search met a dead end at the website of the newspaper Al Quds al Arabi. I don't read Arabic, and that newspaper doesn't show digital archives for 2005, which was the date when Makkawi's writings were first made available to the general public. Journalist Abdel Bari Atwan wrote a book on the subject, but Google Books doesn't give a complete view of it.

Ok, well your second source states the following:

The immediate question on the above is how much of these strategic theses of al-Qaeda actually predate events, or whether they constitute a ‘moving target' that takes as much from the unfolding of events as it purports to steer them.

It would be interesting if an individual who was known to be a senior Al Qaeda official were known to have written BEFORE the US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq that they had a plan to goad the US into such invasions. But without this kind of evidence, your claim does not stand up to scrutiny.

In this branch of the thread I have already elaborated on the 9/11 example and why should we take it as a warning of what not to do about ISIS.

So you have no evidence for the Sipursky Rage hypothesis besides what you posted about 9/11?

My position was explicit in my comment.

I think you mean "implicit" not "explicit."

Short version: Yes

Ok, and what's your evidence in favor of the Sipursky Rage hypothesis?

Yes, to respond to violence with more violence is counterproductive, to create more enemies is a stupid idea, and the aftermath of 9/11 gives ample evidence of it.

Can you be specific about the evidence? And are you saying that it's always a bad idea for a state to respond violently to a violent attack?

Various journalists have analyzed the writings of Al Qaeda strategist Muhammad Makkawi a.k.a. Saif al-Adel

What exactly did he write and when?

The U.S. response to 9/11 serves as a didactic example of the most counter-productive way imaginable to respond to terrorism. If France follows the U.S. example after these attacks (and the recent news about their military cooperation with Russia seems to indicate so), the potential for stupid mistakes escalates manyfold. Especially considering that the West and Russia have opposite opinions on what the future of Syria should be, adding more guns to the situation can only make it worse.

Umm, do you have a position on the Sipursky Rage hypothesis? Or do you want to change the subject?

It's a simple enough question.

ISIS (or any enemy, for that matter) doesn't need to be led by evil geniuses in order to know how to set a trap for the West to fall into

No, but it would (edit: arguably) help quite a lot.

With 9/11, Al Qaeda set a perfect trap for the U.S. to be blinded by pain and rage (having the simpleminded W. in office certainly helped) and, as a result, the U.S. engaged in what from the White House looked like a righteous campaign for the liberation of oppressed masses, but to those masses looked like a meddlesome intrusion into their already complicated lives. In this case (in every case, actually),

What is the evidence that Al Qaeda's intention with the 9/11 attacks was to goad the United States into invading Afghanistan and later Iraq?

You're forgetting that one of the reasons why ISIS exists in the first place was the chaos the U.S. invasion created in Iraq

Let's assume that's true. How does it follow that in terms of dealing with ISIS (or any other enemy or adversary for that matter) avoiding anger is more productive than creating fear and despair?

I will certainly concede that creating power vacuums is dangerous policy.

Going about purposely making enemies is hardly "productive."

It depends what you get in return. But anyway, the issue on the table is the Sipursky Rage hypothesis. Sipursky seems to believe that air strikes in retaliation for the Paris attacks will be counter-productive since they will make people angry and more likely to support ISIS. My position is that insufficient evidence has been presented to reach such a conclusion.

Do you have a position on this issue? Or do you just want to change the subject?

"Start a war between Islam and the rest of the world. Since our religion basically teaches that we are inevitably going to conquer the world by force, we will be guaranteed victory in such a war."

I agree with this to a large extent.

But it would be an extremely bad thing if it happened at all, regardless of whether they win. So playing into their hands is probably not a good idea anyway, even though they are wrong.

Assuming that's true, it's still not like the situation where your adversary is an evil genius so that doing what he wants you to do is likely to be helping him succeed in his evil goals. In this situation, it's not worth it to put much stock in whether the West is playing into Isis' hands.

But it would be an extremely bad thing if it happened at all, regardless of whether they win.

It depends how far they get in their war, it seems to me.

I would like an answer to my question:

Do you really not see why Sipursky has the burden of proof and I do not have the burden of proof?

Saying someone is making a "ridiculous statement" is not something that I read charitably.

Actually what I said is this:

That said, your point does illustrate how silly Tsipursky's position is if taken to its logical conclusion.

So let's see if I have this straight. You use the principle of charity to reinterpret Tsipursky's position so that my statement becomes less reasonable; then you refuse to offer any such charity to my statement based on your general principles. And you don't disclose any of this until pressed onit, instead you just pretend to be responding to my point.

Please stop being so dishonest.

Also, for future reference please tell me what types of statements you refuse to read charitably.