4 ms·

Thank you for doing this! It might help in your campaign to compare "terrorism" as the US media puts it, and George Bush's "Shock & Awe" campaign -- designed to

Thank you for doing this! It might help in your campaign to compare "terrorism" as the US media puts it, and George Bush's "Shock & Awe" campaign -- designed to intimidate and scare their enemy for a political purpose :) That and the Bush's family relations with the Bin Laden family in the decades past.

clavalle 10y ago
"political purpose" in this case meaning deterring people from attacking us. I'm no fan of how Bush handled things but painting flying airliners filled with civilians into skyscrapers filled with civilians and hitting government and infrastructure targets after publicly declaring war with the same brush is ridiculous.
- hellbanner 10y ago
  Why is attacking civilians & government after declaring war "ridiculous" for the aggressor? Or am I misunderstanding your comment?
  - clavalle 10y ago
    You misunderstood. Attacking civilians is bad in any context and strictly illegal. Declaring war then attacking government, military, and critical infrastructure after such a declaration is quite different from flying a plane of civilians into a civilian building out of nowhere. Equating the two is as disingenuous as comparing a loan shark beating someone for non-payment to someone getting evicted.
malandrew 10y ago
Interesting comment. It would be ironic if future videos claiming responsibility for violent attacks start using the exact same terms and language as the US politicians, such as "Shock & Awe". When a major component of allowing a conflict to proceed is support or merely just apathy from the populace that has elected the leaders that are targeting your people, it would seem that the most effective way to highlight the hypocrisy of the elected leaders of your enemies would be to mirror their tactics as precisely as possible as opposed to escalation. Mirroring puts it in people's mind that they need to oppose further violence from their side to stop future attacks against themselves. Sadly, the other side adopting a strict eye for an eye approach to retaliation (tit for tat) might be the only way that either side can actually avoid making the whole world blind, since it would at least promote dialogue where people on both sides at least ask themselves "When we commit X against them, they commit X against us. Maybe we should try to stop committing X and see if they will too". The current approach of planning out attacks that escalate the conflict just makes things worse. I'm curious if there has been any solid game theory research into the impact of tit-for-tat retaliation versus escalating retaliation.
- hellbanner 10y ago
  The videogame nuclear-war simulator "Defcon" ran with the tagline "Everybody Dies": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGHC_aInRPE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGHC_aInRPE and Civilization simulator ends up with the planet in nuclear-winter, 3 nation-states turning all resources into armies, forgoing peace treaties and maintaining borders via nuclear bombardment. https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/uxpil/ive_been_playing_the_same_game_of_civilization_ii/ https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/uxpil/ive_been_play... --- The problem with disarmament, of course, is that if A disarms and B doesn't.. A is vulnerable to B. After being robbed twice, a game developer & his wife seriously considered purchasing a guard dog or a firearm. They were very uncomfortable with the idea of escalation and wondered where it would end. He built "The Castle Doctrine" -- a game where a man with a wife and kids spends his money fortifying his home against invaders, then invades other homes to take their treasure.. to spend on more fortifications. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYBrc8HpPIs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYBrc8HpPIs (interview with the developer) -- Not the scientific rigor you were asking for but an interesting exploration.

clavalle 10y ago

"political purpose" in this case meaning deterring people from attacking us. I'm no fan of how Bush handled things but painting flying airliners filled with civilians into skyscrapers filled with civilians and hitting government and infrastructure targets after publicly declaring war with the same brush is ridiculous.

hellbanner 10y ago
Why is attacking civilians & government after declaring war "ridiculous" for the aggressor? Or am I misunderstanding your comment?
- clavalle 10y ago
  You misunderstood. Attacking civilians is bad in any context and strictly illegal. Declaring war then attacking government, military, and critical infrastructure after such a declaration is quite different from flying a plane of civilians into a civilian building out of nowhere. Equating the two is as disingenuous as comparing a loan shark beating someone for non-payment to someone getting evicted.

malandrew 10y ago

Interesting comment. It would be ironic if future videos claiming responsibility for violent attacks start using the exact same terms and language as the US politicians, such as "Shock & Awe". When a major component of allowing a conflict to proceed is support or merely just apathy from the populace that has elected the leaders that are targeting your people, it would seem that the most effective way to highlight the hypocrisy of the elected leaders of your enemies would be to mirror their tactics as precisely as possible as opposed to escalation. Mirroring puts it in people's mind that they need to oppose further violence from their side to stop future attacks against themselves. Sadly, the other side adopting a strict eye for an eye approach to retaliation (tit for tat) might be the only way that either side can actually avoid making the whole world blind, since it would at least promote dialogue where people on both sides at least ask themselves "When we commit X against them, they commit X against us. Maybe we should try to stop committing X and see if they will too". The current approach of planning out attacks that escalate the conflict just makes things worse. I'm curious if there has been any solid game theory research into the impact of tit-for-tat retaliation versus escalating retaliation.

hellbanner 10y ago
The videogame nuclear-war simulator "Defcon" ran with the tagline "Everybody Dies": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGHC_aInRPE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGHC_aInRPE and Civilization simulator ends up with the planet in nuclear-winter, 3 nation-states turning all resources into armies, forgoing peace treaties and maintaining borders via nuclear bombardment. https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/uxpil/ive_been_playing_the_same_game_of_civilization_ii/ https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/uxpil/ive_been_play... --- The problem with disarmament, of course, is that if A disarms and B doesn't.. A is vulnerable to B. After being robbed twice, a game developer & his wife seriously considered purchasing a guard dog or a firearm. They were very uncomfortable with the idea of escalation and wondered where it would end. He built "The Castle Doctrine" -- a game where a man with a wife and kids spends his money fortifying his home against invaders, then invades other homes to take their treasure.. to spend on more fortifications. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYBrc8HpPIs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYBrc8HpPIs (interview with the developer) -- Not the scientific rigor you were asking for but an interesting exploration.