5 ms·
There is a practical way to reduce terrorism and make the US and the world safer that won't cost a dime and doesn't require compromises on civil liberties. Sto
by danenania 13y ago
There is a practical way to reduce terrorism and make the US and the world safer that won't cost a dime and doesn't require compromises on civil liberties.
Stop starting and getting involved in foreign wars, stop supporting the abusive policies of Israel, and stop supporting corrupt and abusive governments around the world.
You don't hear much about that option on TV, but it's by far the simplest and best course for all concerned save a handful of greedy and duplicitous folks at the top.
- glurgh 13y agoThat's about as practical as asking people to kindly stop flying planes into buildings or blowing up buildings with day-care centers in them.
- danenania 13y agoIt may sound crazy to you, but yes you do actually stand a greater chance of making peace with enemies and therefore reducing attacks from them if you stop shooting at them and bombing them and ask them kindly why they are flying planes into your buildings and then make a good faith effort to address those issues.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- tankenmate 13y agoSome people when oppressed, rightly or wrongly, feel that they are powerless to resolve their grievances, real or perceived, within the social norms around them, lash out. Some are better at lashing out than others. The most dangerous person in the room is the one with nothing to lose. One way, quite possibly not the only way, to stop them being so dangerous is to give them something of worth, then they'll have something to lose. Social security, good healthcare, foreign aid, and taxes do serve some purpose for the greater good. There is justice and pragmatism, the best solutions solve both.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- glurgh 13y agoYou're right, it sounds completely crazy to me. Nobody really bombed or shot Timothy McVeigh. Or the RAF. Or the Brigate Rosse. They did all their shooting and bombing all by themselves, at the cost of hundreds upon hundreds of innocent lives. It's not that the questions of causes or morality of our own actions are illegitimate - they aren't. The idea that we're going to practically stop amoral nutjobs by just being ever so much nicer seems based on nothing but wishful thinking, though.
- jicksta2 13y agoEvolving beyond being amoral nutjobs ourselves is the first step to eliminating amoral nutjobbery elsewhere. There's a lot of extra work that needs to be done on top of that, such as good-faith social programs to help their society recover, etc.
- foxylad 13y agoI think the point is that you can't stop the amoral nutjobs (awesome term BTW!) by killing them (and their family and friends) either, because that just embitters another generation. Your examples actually illustrate this perfectly - Timothy McVeigh justified his murdering in revenge for the murdering done at Waco; and both the RAF and Brigate Rosse were driven partly by the injustice of former Nazis (those nutjobs really took their amorality seriously!) returning to power. I accept that there are psychopaths who murder for no reason, but luckily for our species they are very rare. All the killing discussed above was triggered by severe injustice including murder - revenge. Our civilised societies are practically defined by their rejection of revenge as a reason for anything, replacing it with either rehabilitation or prevention. "An eye for an eye" is the mark of a primitive society (or person) that doesn't understand positive feedback loops.
- jes 13y agoWhat do you recommend when dealing with an enemy that isn't interested in your good-faith efforts?
- danenania 13y agoThen you look at other options. But in this case a good faith effort could resolve the problem very quickly. The people attacking the US aren't really asking for that much. They just want the US to stop sponsoring violence and tyranny in their region.
- lttlrck 13y agoUnless 'other options' encompasses some yet undiscovered diplomacy tack it would escalate back to the status quo pretty damn quick.
- seanmcdirmid 13y agoWell, the Europeans would just send diplomats around until they could conveniently forget about the problems, as usual.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- mladenkovacevic 13y agoThis.. This is the problem. Yes of course Americans are not safe and are under threat. When you are an occupying force you are bound to find a few enemies.
- Ihmahr 13y agoI agree. That is why I try to tell people around me exactly this. US is a terrorizing and terror generating machine.
- personlurking 13y agoIt's the difference of one letter. War oN Terror vs. War oF Terror, with the latter being by the gov't, on the people.
- wslh 13y agoI don't think the solution is trivial. There are cases of terrorism that have nothing to do with foreign wars.
- Ihmahr 13y agoPerhaps, but what if those billions were spend on safer cars or medical advancement? Surely those billions could save a whole lot more lives than by terrorizing the rest of the world.
- danenania 13y agoSo the way to deal with those outlying cases is to start wars and cause widespread violence that will generate 1000x more terrorism?
- PavlovsCat 13y agoFrom the perspective of people who peddle weapons and fear to those who have to pay for the weapons and act on the fear, yes. That is exactly the correct response.
- wslh 13y agoI am not saying that and don't want to enter into an infinite discussion about terrorism. Just saying that the problem is complex. I don't live in US and my country was attacked twice, a hundred people killed, in the last 20 years.
- danenania 13y agoWell, the US has had 3k or so killed in the past 15 years. In response it killed hundreds of thousands and caused widespread devastation and misery in several foreign wars. These wars created multiple large transnational extremist anti-US movements that now have advanced military equipment, are skilled veterans of war, and are spreading their influence to neighboring countries. Not a great trade.
- 13y ago
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- danenania 13y agoYeah, that's not exactly leading edge psychology. It's pretty well known. How does that invalidate my conclusions?
- patrickaljord 13y ago> stop supporting the abusive policies of Israel Really? You had to drag Israel into that? You're aware that the only "abuse" Arabs are actually angry about is the fact that Israel exists at all? I'm an Arab so let me tell you, any stupidity that is committed in the West Bank is overblown by Arabs to delegitimate Israel which is part of Arabs quest to get rid of Israel altogether. They consider the whole of Israel to be occupied territory, this is why whether Israel keeps on building in the West Bank or not is meaningless for peace. They would have to stop building everywhere in Israel, pack up and go somewhere else to end the conflict. This is why many in Israel see the West Bank settlement as a secondary issue when it comes to bringing real peace although they are aware that it's bad for their image...
- rbanffy 13y agodanenania's point remains valid if the Israel part is omitted. I grew up under a military dictatorship endorsed by the US and I can tell you there are still lots of people very resentful of that support. Reducing foreign intervention is the cheapest way to demotivate potential terrorists. Unfortunately, doing so now would risk making them believe they won something.
- seanmcdirmid 13y agoThat would only demotivate terrorists against us. They still have plenty of other targets. I don't see how isolationism for the states will actually make the world better. We tried it before, it didn't work.
- D9u 13y agoIsolationism and non intervention are two divergent ideals...
- rbanffy 13y ago> They still have plenty of other targets. As long as they are internal affairs, it's their problem. If the problems cross borders, there are international organizations with proper authority do deal with them. When one country decides to make a military intervention, the international bodies are further weakened.
- joelrunyon 13y agoThis is copy/paste the same exact response from the top thread on reddit[1] Been seeing this a lot around here lately...Could be the same user, but I've seen it happening enough that I bet it's not. [1] http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1gxehl/chomsky_spying_does_not_protect_you_if_we_had/caorp3s http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1gxehl/chomsky_sp...
- danenania 13y agoWhoa, weird. Nope, I didn't post this on reddit.
- discostrings 13y agoIt looks like the reddit user "kaax" is taking insightful posts from HN and posting them on reddit [for karma?]. See the Bitcoin comments at http://www.reddit.com/user/kaax http://www.reddit.com/user/kaax and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5929622 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5929622 .