4 ms·

The troubles escalated until government ministers were being killed, and two different prime ministers narrowly missed being assassinated. Ultimately the UK ca

The troubles escalated until government ministers were being killed, and two different prime ministers narrowly missed being assassinated. Ultimately the UK capitulated and the terrorist leaders ended up as cabinet ministers in the new Irish government. Are you really suggesting letting the terrorists win?

mikeash 13y ago
If "letting the terrorists win" means getting out of mideast hellholes, ceasing to assassinate civilians with drones, and stopping the continual interference in various places they consider holy, then yes, I'm absolutely suggesting that. We need to let go of the idea that it's us or them, and that either we win and they lose, or they win and we lose. Wouldn't an outcome analogous to the modern-day UK and Ireland be great? People getting along well, no violence, reasonably stable governments? I don't see why you paint this as a bad outcome.
- voodoo123 13y ago
  I totally agree that US foreign policy is terrible and should change. However if that happened as a result of terrorism rather than politics then we would just have an escalation of terrorism anyone who was unhappy with the US (legitimately or not) started to use the now proven strategy. The 'police state' tactics we see now are nothing compared to what we'd see then. You seem to be advocating terrorism instead of campaigning for justice.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    "You seem to be advocating terrorism instead of campaigning for justice." Thank you for the reminder that debating these topics on HN is pointless because everybody's a complete nut.
    - voodoo123 13y ago
      In the Irish case, terrorists achieved their stated objectives by using terrorism. You said that was a good outcome. I don't see how that isn't advocating terrorism.
      - mikeash 13y ago
        If you don't understand that the ends don't justify the means, then I really don't know what to say.
        foobarbazqux 13y ago
        > If "letting the terrorists win" means getting out of mideast hellholes, ceasing to assassinate civilians with drones, and stopping the continual interference in various places they consider holy, then yes, I'm absolutely suggesting that. Sounds like ends (violence stopping) justifying the means (letting the terrorists win) to me.
        mikeash 13y ago
        You have that completely backwards. The means is what you do, and the ends is what happens after. The means here would be ceasing to kill and oppress. That is justified all by itself.
        foobarbazqux 13y ago
        If you like, but it's not simply a choice between what you do (ends) or how you do it (means), it's both how and what that matter.
        voodoo123 13y ago
        Right but you are justifying the terrorist means (killing civilians randomly) based on their ends (inducing political chance).
        mikeash 13y ago
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    By the same logic, ff terrorism under the flag of a cause is seen as an effective disincentive for policy change in a particular direction, then we would just have an escalation of false-flag terrorism sponsored by anyone who wants to avoid particular policy changes (whatever the merits) as they adopted the now-proven strategy. Your position is no less "advocating terrorism" than the one you responded to. The only way not to encourage terrorism is to evaluate policy changes on their own merits, and not be swayed from acting on the merits of the policy changes themselves by the fact that terrorists have stated goals related to those policy changes, either as a positive or negative factor.
    - voodoo123 13y ago
      No, because there would be no proof that the false flag terrorism was having an effect, unlike the case where terrorism led to an obvious change in policy, as was the case in Ireland). I agree totally that policy changes should be considered on their own merits. Therefore we should defend ourselves against terrorist attacks without regard for their stated goals.
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        > No, because there would be no proof that the false flag terrorism was having an effect There are certainly ways of assessing why particularly policies are and are not chosen. The impact of "Can't do what terrorists want, so we must vote no" is no more difficult to assess than "Must do what terrorists want, so we must vote yes".
        voodoo123 13y ago
        I never said anything about voting or not based on terrorist actions. mikeash said it was ok not to defend so hard against terrorism because the outcome was good. I was refuting that.

mikeash 13y ago

If "letting the terrorists win" means getting out of mideast hellholes, ceasing to assassinate civilians with drones, and stopping the continual interference in various places they consider holy, then yes, I'm absolutely suggesting that. We need to let go of the idea that it's us or them, and that either we win and they lose, or they win and we lose. Wouldn't an outcome analogous to the modern-day UK and Ireland be great? People getting along well, no violence, reasonably stable governments? I don't see why you paint this as a bad outcome.

voodoo123 13y ago
I totally agree that US foreign policy is terrible and should change. However if that happened as a result of terrorism rather than politics then we would just have an escalation of terrorism anyone who was unhappy with the US (legitimately or not) started to use the now proven strategy. The 'police state' tactics we see now are nothing compared to what we'd see then. You seem to be advocating terrorism instead of campaigning for justice.
- mikeash 13y ago
  "You seem to be advocating terrorism instead of campaigning for justice." Thank you for the reminder that debating these topics on HN is pointless because everybody's a complete nut.
  - voodoo123 13y ago
    In the Irish case, terrorists achieved their stated objectives by using terrorism. You said that was a good outcome. I don't see how that isn't advocating terrorism.
    - mikeash 13y ago
      If you don't understand that the ends don't justify the means, then I really don't know what to say.
      - foobarbazqux 13y ago
        > If "letting the terrorists win" means getting out of mideast hellholes, ceasing to assassinate civilians with drones, and stopping the continual interference in various places they consider holy, then yes, I'm absolutely suggesting that. Sounds like ends (violence stopping) justifying the means (letting the terrorists win) to me.
        mikeash 13y ago
        You have that completely backwards. The means is what you do, and the ends is what happens after. The means here would be ceasing to kill and oppress. That is justified all by itself.
        foobarbazqux 13y ago
        If you like, but it's not simply a choice between what you do (ends) or how you do it (means), it's both how and what that matter.
        voodoo123 13y ago
        Right but you are justifying the terrorist means (killing civilians randomly) based on their ends (inducing political chance).
        mikeash 13y ago
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  By the same logic, ff terrorism under the flag of a cause is seen as an effective disincentive for policy change in a particular direction, then we would just have an escalation of false-flag terrorism sponsored by anyone who wants to avoid particular policy changes (whatever the merits) as they adopted the now-proven strategy. Your position is no less "advocating terrorism" than the one you responded to. The only way not to encourage terrorism is to evaluate policy changes on their own merits, and not be swayed from acting on the merits of the policy changes themselves by the fact that terrorists have stated goals related to those policy changes, either as a positive or negative factor.
  - voodoo123 13y ago
    No, because there would be no proof that the false flag terrorism was having an effect, unlike the case where terrorism led to an obvious change in policy, as was the case in Ireland). I agree totally that policy changes should be considered on their own merits. Therefore we should defend ourselves against terrorist attacks without regard for their stated goals.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > No, because there would be no proof that the false flag terrorism was having an effect There are certainly ways of assessing why particularly policies are and are not chosen. The impact of "Can't do what terrorists want, so we must vote no" is no more difficult to assess than "Must do what terrorists want, so we must vote yes".
      - voodoo123 13y ago
        I never said anything about voting or not based on terrorist actions. mikeash said it was ok not to defend so hard against terrorism because the outcome was good. I was refuting that.