4 ms·

> 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 serve

> 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.

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.