= 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)
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.
polymathwannabe wasn't saying it was, s/he was saying that all three of those things (Patriot Act, TSA paranoia, Tea Party) were consequences of the radicalization of the US right, which was part of the aftermath of 9/11.