3 ms·

Just because something isn't necessary doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. Your comment isn't necessary, and it isn't making a friend of me. Does this mean that it

• nickpsecurity 11y ago
  "Just because something isn't necessary doesn't mean we shouldn't do it." So you're saying we should have committed mass murder and armed terror groups throughout the Middle East in the name of stealing resources or manipulating politics? Did you do any research to back this or are you writing up some far-fetched, sophist comment since you can't counter my points? "And I really don't see how people committing acts of terrorism are making good decisions that we should support by giving them what they want for doing so." Last I checked, the U.S. was still trying to screw with and control much of the Middle East instead of support them. The regions where we have the most meddling are among the least stable. Doing good over there instead of evil might actually accomplish something. Further, areas with groups like ISIS aren't terrorism vs Some Good Government rather than a group of competing evil groups all set on controlling and oppressing the area. So, fighting one isn't fighting terrorism so much as fighting one group while putting another into power. You won't see the U.S. truly fight oppression over there because it's not in power-players financial and political interests. There's benefits to be had from continued partnerships with dictators and theocracies. Just ask Saudi Arabia.
  • Retra 11y ago
    I'm saying you're vastly underestimating how easy it is to maintain peace with other cultures. I'm saying what I said, not what you wish I'd said so you can believe I'm an evil fool. >Did you do any research to back this or are you writing up some far-fetched, sophist comment since you can't counter my points? No, I didn't do any research. I took a class on West Asia and North Africa in school. I lived in Iraq for a year. But I don't think you've done any research, either. You're just saying talking points. >Last I checked, the U.S. was still trying to screw with and control much of the Middle East instead of support them. You checked? Let me know what you checked. Where you checked. Who you checked with. >You won't see the U.S. truly fight oppression over there Truly? Isn't there a term for this kind of waffling? "No true scotsman" or something? > So, fighting one isn't fighting terrorism so much as fighting one group while putting another into power. That's what fighting is. Any fight you do is going to put someone in power. It doesn't matter if you're fighting terrorism or not; that's the whole point of fighting.
    • nickpsecurity 11y ago
      You're doing a lot of sophistry rather than addressing the points. Lots of side points and vague counters rather than any facts. So, let me help you focus your mind so it might product something of substance that's actionable. The point of the discussion is U.S. government and a chunk of America wants to stop foreign terrorists from trying to blow us up. The foreigners doing that have exclusively done it due to interference, often violent and imperialistic, in the Middle East. So, many of us draw the logical connection that this was the cause of actual attacks against us rather than terrorism in general which we don't care about. So, to reduce number of attacks, we must stop doing what caused them and modify our strategy of dealing with the mess we're in to account for this. Otherwise, our actions over there, esp collateral murder (err damage) & weapons distribution, will likely just create the next wave of terrorists like Bush/Cheney Administration just did with ISIS. That's my claims. Now, do you have any counter to those specific points or would you like to add to them? To be extra clear, given your sophistry, I've claimed the following: 1. The U.S. takes overt and covert action against Middle Eastern countries for financial and political reasons rather than for survival. So, it shouldn't have taken that action and should reconsider future behavior like that. 2. Disruptive U.S. actions in the Middle East creates opponents, including the organizations that attacked us. So, they should stop doing that and fewer terrorists that attack us would be created. 3. Previous handling of opponents equipped and trained likely long-term foes before abandoning them. They consistently ended up turning into problems: Taliban; Saddam; ISIS. The U.S. needs to stop doing that. Throw their best minds on fresh strategy before doing any major interventions and with much focus on long-term effects with regard to terrorism blowback.
• iamsohungry 11y ago
  > Just because something isn't necessary doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. Your comment isn't necessary, and it isn't making a friend of me. Does this mean that it's your fault if I attack you? That you should have backed out and minded your own business? Surely you can discern why disagreeing with someone on HackerNews is different from invading their country, seizing their resources, and killing their family members. > So you say. But I can't distinguish that whether that statement is fact or ideology. So I don't believe you, and I shouldn't until you've got some convincing evidence that it's true. You can tell me a story. I don't want a story. And you can distinguish fact from ideology when people say that the solution to terrorism is more of what we're already doing? I can understand you discarding information because you don't believe it's reliable. What I don't understand is that in the absence of information you believe to be reliable, you've still decided to form an opinion and argue for it. If you don't have enough information, it's okay to admit you don't know. > And I really don't see how people committing acts of terrorism are making good decisions that we should support by giving them what they want for doing so. I really don't see anyone proposing that.