3 ms·

They've already gotten the better of us because they're within our borders. Now the choice is between doing nothing, thereby accepting the risk of us or our lo

They've already gotten the better of us because they're within our borders. Now the choice is between doing nothing, thereby accepting the risk of us or our loved ones getting blown up or shot going while we go about our daily routine (see: Israel during the second intifada) or trade liberties for security (see: Brussels and France today) until we come up with a more sustainable solution (see: Israel today). They've already gotten the better of us because they are here and they will kill us because their ideology is fundamentally opposed to Western concepts such as freedom of speech, press, religion, and association. Not to mention gay people existing and women having independence. This is a real choice we must make. I doubt most will choose the first one once its them or someone they know that gets murdered/maimed in this way.

jacquesm 11y ago
> Now the choice is between doing nothing, thereby accepting the risk of us or our loved ones getting blown up or shot going while we go about our daily routine (see: Israel during the second intifada) or trade liberties for security (see: Brussels and France today) until we come up with a more sustainable solution (see: Israel today). That risk will always be there no matter what we do. > They've already gotten the better of us because they are here and they will kill us because their ideology is fundamentally opposed to Western concepts such as freedom of speech, press, religion, and association. Not to mention gay people existing and women having independence. No, that's not why they kill people. They kill people because it serves their goals indirectly, it allows them to recruit, get more funding and credibility. > This is a real choice we must make. I doubt most will choose the first one once its them or someone they know that gets murdered/maimed in this way. As unfortunate as it is sometimes solutions are not simple, easy and quick. This on is complex, will be very difficult and will take a lot of time (likely: a generation or more). Of course that's not going to get you voted in anywhere so instead we'll act rashly, counterproductive and quick and in the process we will be a willing partner of IS doing exactly what they want us to do.
- hnamazon123 11y ago
  > That risk will always be there no matter what we do. Yeah, you're correct. I meant significant risk. It's always a risk. > They kill people because it serves their goals indirectly, it allows them to recruit, get more funding and credibility. The stated goal of Islamic State is to establish a caliphate across the world. The stated values and de facto policy of Islamic State is in opposition to Western values such as freedom of speech, press, religion, and association. Yes, these attacks also double as recruiting tools. > we will be a willing partner of IS doing exactly what they want us to do. Who gives a fuck what Islamic State wants us to do? This is the most intellectually bankrupt argument tossed around. It literally makes no sense at all. We need to do what is strategically sound. If that happens to be what IS wants, why should that matter one iota beyond the strategic calculus?
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    > The stated goal of Islamic State is to establish a caliphate across the world. With a bit of our help they might just achieve that. Are you aware that IS is trying to establish itself in Pakistan? > The stated values and de facto policy of Islamic State is in opposition to Western values such as freedom of speech, press, religion, and association. Yes, and why does this bother you? The same goes for many other countries and I don't see us bombing those. > Who gives a fuck what Islamic State wants us to do? Well, I do. If my opponent wants me to make a certain move to further his own goals then the worst thing I can do is to give in to the temptation to act against my own interests and in his interests. That's not 'intellectually bankrupt', that's seeing two moves ahead and deciding that the outcome of the most tempting option is actually a net-negative for our side. > We need to do what is strategically sound. Precisely. > If that happens to be what IS wants, why should that matter one iota beyond the strategic calculus? Because the strategic calculus should involve the long term result of our actions and not taking that element into account will make matters much worse. This is how we got into this mess in the first place. Lots of things that seemed to be good ideas at the time with a very limited strategic horizon in mind and no long term plan.
- Senji 11y ago
  Would it really be so bad to give a death cult what it wants for itself? Oblivion? With our technology we could disrupt their lines of communication and means to recruit among the civilians. But you'll have to actively target them. As people. And you'll have to actively target their message. Their keywords, you could even target them by keywords. This would however dragnet target the entire religion.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
sago 11y ago
> thereby accepting the risk of us or our loved ones getting blown up or shot going while we go about our daily routine A risk which is orders of magnitude smaller than the risk that you or your loved one will perish in your car. Smaller even than the risk you'll choke on your next meal, or harm yourself putting your pants on tomorrow. > the choice is between doing nothing It really isn't. The alternative to bombing isn't doing nothing. The alternative is politics, dirty, compromising international politics. Which, because it involves prime trading partners and sacred cow industries (like arms and energy), that's less palatable than dropping bombs to most politicians, unfortunately. And it is very very dubious that international bombing campaigns will even 'do' anything positive for our security. I doubt anyone knows, but let's not blindly assume that 'doing something' by dropping bombs is necessarily equivalent to 'doing something constructive.'
- Turing_Machine 11y ago
  "A risk which is orders of magnitude smaller than the risk that you or your loved one will perish in your car." By that reasoning, we should just let murderers go free since the chance of being murdered is less than the chance of dying in a car wreck? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. People, in general, don't think that way.
  - sago 11y ago
    > By that reasoning, we should just let murderers go free Perhaps you should read what I said, because I specifically said what I feel should be done. But if you want the facile analogy, then at least stay with the question being addressed. We do not, for example, bomb areas with high numbers of murderers in them. There may be some LEOs who kill potential murders without due process of law, but it is not a tactic we should endorse. In general we respond to murder through the justice system, as we should. The choice isn't doing nothing. That's just a straw man used by people who make a false equivalence between not agreeing with them and capitulating. You can make your own position sound very reasonable if you exclude the middle.
    - Turing_Machine 11y ago
enlightenedfool 11y ago
"they will kill us because their ideology is fundamentally opposed to Western concepts..." This is perpetual lie by western media and politicians. Islam has not been more violent than Christianity until may be the last century. Why has that changed. It's because the west wants to impose its values on others. Let people choose and live their lives. If you meddle with them they will meddle with you. Isn't it common sense?
new_hackers 11y ago
You scared bro?

jacquesm 11y ago

> Now the choice is between doing nothing, thereby accepting the risk of us or our loved ones getting blown up or shot going while we go about our daily routine (see: Israel during the second intifada) or trade liberties for security (see: Brussels and France today) until we come up with a more sustainable solution (see: Israel today). That risk will always be there no matter what we do. > They've already gotten the better of us because they are here and they will kill us because their ideology is fundamentally opposed to Western concepts such as freedom of speech, press, religion, and association. Not to mention gay people existing and women having independence. No, that's not why they kill people. They kill people because it serves their goals indirectly, it allows them to recruit, get more funding and credibility. > This is a real choice we must make. I doubt most will choose the first one once its them or someone they know that gets murdered/maimed in this way. As unfortunate as it is sometimes solutions are not simple, easy and quick. This on is complex, will be very difficult and will take a lot of time (likely: a generation or more). Of course that's not going to get you voted in anywhere so instead we'll act rashly, counterproductive and quick and in the process we will be a willing partner of IS doing exactly what they want us to do.

hnamazon123 11y ago
> That risk will always be there no matter what we do. Yeah, you're correct. I meant significant risk. It's always a risk. > They kill people because it serves their goals indirectly, it allows them to recruit, get more funding and credibility. The stated goal of Islamic State is to establish a caliphate across the world. The stated values and de facto policy of Islamic State is in opposition to Western values such as freedom of speech, press, religion, and association. Yes, these attacks also double as recruiting tools. > we will be a willing partner of IS doing exactly what they want us to do. Who gives a fuck what Islamic State wants us to do? This is the most intellectually bankrupt argument tossed around. It literally makes no sense at all. We need to do what is strategically sound. If that happens to be what IS wants, why should that matter one iota beyond the strategic calculus?
- jacquesm 11y ago
  > The stated goal of Islamic State is to establish a caliphate across the world. With a bit of our help they might just achieve that. Are you aware that IS is trying to establish itself in Pakistan? > The stated values and de facto policy of Islamic State is in opposition to Western values such as freedom of speech, press, religion, and association. Yes, and why does this bother you? The same goes for many other countries and I don't see us bombing those. > Who gives a fuck what Islamic State wants us to do? Well, I do. If my opponent wants me to make a certain move to further his own goals then the worst thing I can do is to give in to the temptation to act against my own interests and in his interests. That's not 'intellectually bankrupt', that's seeing two moves ahead and deciding that the outcome of the most tempting option is actually a net-negative for our side. > We need to do what is strategically sound. Precisely. > If that happens to be what IS wants, why should that matter one iota beyond the strategic calculus? Because the strategic calculus should involve the long term result of our actions and not taking that element into account will make matters much worse. This is how we got into this mess in the first place. Lots of things that seemed to be good ideas at the time with a very limited strategic horizon in mind and no long term plan.
Senji 11y ago
Would it really be so bad to give a death cult what it wants for itself? Oblivion? With our technology we could disrupt their lines of communication and means to recruit among the civilians. But you'll have to actively target them. As people. And you'll have to actively target their message. Their keywords, you could even target them by keywords. This would however dragnet target the entire religion.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

sago 11y ago

> thereby accepting the risk of us or our loved ones getting blown up or shot going while we go about our daily routine A risk which is orders of magnitude smaller than the risk that you or your loved one will perish in your car. Smaller even than the risk you'll choke on your next meal, or harm yourself putting your pants on tomorrow. > the choice is between doing nothing It really isn't. The alternative to bombing isn't doing nothing. The alternative is politics, dirty, compromising international politics. Which, because it involves prime trading partners and sacred cow industries (like arms and energy), that's less palatable than dropping bombs to most politicians, unfortunately. And it is very very dubious that international bombing campaigns will even 'do' anything positive for our security. I doubt anyone knows, but let's not blindly assume that 'doing something' by dropping bombs is necessarily equivalent to 'doing something constructive.'

Turing_Machine 11y ago
"A risk which is orders of magnitude smaller than the risk that you or your loved one will perish in your car." By that reasoning, we should just let murderers go free since the chance of being murdered is less than the chance of dying in a car wreck? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. People, in general, don't think that way.
- sago 11y ago
  > By that reasoning, we should just let murderers go free Perhaps you should read what I said, because I specifically said what I feel should be done. But if you want the facile analogy, then at least stay with the question being addressed. We do not, for example, bomb areas with high numbers of murderers in them. There may be some LEOs who kill potential murders without due process of law, but it is not a tactic we should endorse. In general we respond to murder through the justice system, as we should. The choice isn't doing nothing. That's just a straw man used by people who make a false equivalence between not agreeing with them and capitulating. You can make your own position sound very reasonable if you exclude the middle.
  - Turing_Machine 11y ago

enlightenedfool 11y ago

"they will kill us because their ideology is fundamentally opposed to Western concepts..." This is perpetual lie by western media and politicians. Islam has not been more violent than Christianity until may be the last century. Why has that changed. It's because the west wants to impose its values on others. Let people choose and live their lives. If you meddle with them they will meddle with you. Isn't it common sense?

new_hackers 11y ago

You scared bro?