3 ms·

Unfortunately, goading western countries into wars we can't win is the basis of their strategy. So if your attitude causes you to short-sightedly support milita

by woah 11y ago

Unfortunately, goading western countries into wars we can't win is the basis of their strategy. So if your attitude causes you to short-sightedly support military action out of fear (even if you tell yourself it's anger), you're helping the terrorists win.

joeclark77 11y ago
ISIS isn't trying to goad us into war. They're waging war on us, and doing so effectively. The kind of probabilistic analysis proposed by the OP takes terrorist attacks as if they occur randomly at some rate we have little control over, like car accidents. That is not the case when you have an enemy actively killing you and you have to make a decision: fight back, or signal that you won't fight back. If the latter, the number of "micromorts" is going to increase exponentially.
- woah 11y ago
  No, goading us into war really is their strategy, whether it fits with your worldview or not[1]. They currently rule over lands whose governments we destroyed, using weapons that we brought there and gave to the "good guys". They are well aware of this, and it is what they want. [1] https://azelin.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/abu-bakr-naji-the-management-of-savagery-the-most-critical-stage-through-which-the-umma-will-pass.pdf https://azelin.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/abu-bakr-naji-the...
  - kevinskii 11y ago
    Of course it's their strategy. That doesn't automatically mean that by obliging them the French would be "helping them win."
kevinskii 11y ago
Your ability to discern others' true emotions even as they apparently wallow in self-denial is remarkable. So perhaps you could enlighten us all further: is there any act of aggression that you believe would warrant a military response?
tptacek 11y ago
People say this all the time, and it's true: our most likely military reaction to terrorist attacks probably is the basis of their strategy; they're not stupid, the response is predictable, and so why strike at all if you don't want a reprisal? But it doesn't follow logically that military response is strategically bad for us! Just because ISIS wants us to do something doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. ISIS could be very wrong about wanting to provoke military escalation. In fact: it almost certainly is. That doesn't mean that military strikes are good, or the right option at this point. It just means that saying "that's what ISIS wants us to do" isn't a dispositive argument.

by woah 11y ago

joeclark77 11y ago

ISIS isn't trying to goad us into war. They're waging war on us, and doing so effectively. The kind of probabilistic analysis proposed by the OP takes terrorist attacks as if they occur randomly at some rate we have little control over, like car accidents. That is not the case when you have an enemy actively killing you and you have to make a decision: fight back, or signal that you won't fight back. If the latter, the number of "micromorts" is going to increase exponentially.

woah 11y ago
No, goading us into war really is their strategy, whether it fits with your worldview or not[1]. They currently rule over lands whose governments we destroyed, using weapons that we brought there and gave to the "good guys". They are well aware of this, and it is what they want. [1] https://azelin.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/abu-bakr-naji-the-management-of-savagery-the-most-critical-stage-through-which-the-umma-will-pass.pdf https://azelin.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/abu-bakr-naji-the...
- kevinskii 11y ago
  Of course it's their strategy. That doesn't automatically mean that by obliging them the French would be "helping them win."

kevinskii 11y ago

Your ability to discern others' true emotions even as they apparently wallow in self-denial is remarkable. So perhaps you could enlighten us all further: is there any act of aggression that you believe would warrant a military response?

tptacek 11y ago

People say this all the time, and it's true: our most likely military reaction to terrorist attacks probably is the basis of their strategy; they're not stupid, the response is predictable, and so why strike at all if you don't want a reprisal? But it doesn't follow logically that military response is strategically bad for us! Just because ISIS wants us to do something doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. ISIS could be very wrong about wanting to provoke military escalation. In fact: it almost certainly is. That doesn't mean that military strikes are good, or the right option at this point. It just means that saying "that's what ISIS wants us to do" isn't a dispositive argument.