= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
polymathwannabe 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)
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.
The most obvious weakness with this evidence is that there exist numerous plausible reasons -- other than Tsipusrky Rage -- for the "implosion of Iraq" as you put it.
For example, the obvious explanation for the "implosion of Iraq" is that the American invasion destabilized the area and left something of a power vacuum. Your evidence provides no way of distinguishing between this factor and Tsipursky Rage. The same is true of the situation in Libya.
In short, your evidence does not stand up to scrutiny.
The Tea Party wasn't in response to the TSA procedures so much as the government's increased interference with people's economic livelihood.