= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
brazil84 comments on [Link] A rational response to the Paris attacks and ISIS - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (275)
Let's assume that's true. How does it follow that in terms of dealing with ISIS (or any other enemy or adversary for that matter) avoiding anger is more productive than creating fear and despair?
I will certainly concede that creating power vacuums is dangerous policy.
It depends what you get in return. But anyway, the issue on the table is the Sipursky Rage hypothesis. Sipursky seems to believe that air strikes in retaliation for the Paris attacks will be counter-productive since they will make people angry and more likely to support ISIS. My position is that insufficient evidence has been presented to reach such a conclusion.
Do you have a position on this issue? Or do you just want to change the subject?
The U.S. response to 9/11 serves as a didactic example of the most counter-productive way imaginable to respond to terrorism. If France follows the U.S. example after these attacks (and the recent news about their military cooperation with Russia seems to indicate so), the potential for stupid mistakes escalates manyfold. Especially considering that the West and Russia have opposite opinions on what the future of Syria should be, adding more guns to the situation can only make it worse.
Umm, do you have a position on the Sipursky Rage hypothesis? Or do you want to change the subject?
It's a simple enough question.
My position was explicit in my comment. Short version: Yes, to respond to violence with more violence is counterproductive, to create more enemies is a stupid idea, and the aftermath of 9/11 gives ample evidence of it.
I think you mean "implicit" not "explicit."
Ok, and what's your evidence in favor of the Sipursky Rage hypothesis?
Can you be specific about the evidence? And are you saying that it's always a bad idea for a state to respond violently to a violent attack?
In this branch of the thread I have already elaborated on the 9/11 example and why should we take it as a warning of what not to do about ISIS.
Yes, I'm a pacifist.
So you have no evidence for the Sipursky Rage hypothesis besides what you posted about 9/11?
That's a peculiar choice of wording.
The aftermath of 9/11 is by itself overwhelmingly sufficient evidence for the hypothesis that enraging your enemies is a terrible idea.
What do you mean by"sufficient"? If you mean enough evidence to cause any reasonable person to accept the hypothesis, I'm not sure that anysingle historical example can do that.
(I think the invasion of Iraq was a really bad idea and was "sold" to coalition countries' people on the basis of cynical lies, and I do think enraging your enemies is generally unwise, so I'm not saying this out of general ideological opposition. But I think you're way overstating your case here.)
[EDITED to fix a really bad typo: I had "engaging" where I meant "enraging" in the previous paragraph.]
Your evidence is pretty vague and flimsy.
Actually that's not the issue under discussion. Sipursky's claim seems to be that airstrikes would "radicalize" people who were not necessarily enemies beforehand.
In any event, do you care to cite any specific post 9/11 events which characterize this "aftermath" you refer to?
The implosion of Iraq, which paved the way for the emergence of ISIS. The implosion of Libya, which ended up worsening the conflict in Mali. The radicalization of the U.S. right wing, as illustrated in the Patriot Act, paranoid TSA procedures, and the Tea Party. By all measures, every response by the U.S. to 9/11 has ended up harming U.S. interests even more.