but the fact remains that the likelihood of deterring terrorist attacks is practically nil,
This is disagreeing with the author?
What we learned on 9/11 is that there are people out there who are not deterrable. Given the chance - given the weapons - these people will strike without any regard to consequences. The ultimate horror of a world enveloped in nuclear fire is just peachy keen with them if it will bring about the New Caliphate. We love death the way you Americans love life, they say. They are not kidding. They are serious. You can pretend otherwise, but that will not make it change. There are people who are determined to kill us for who we are and what we believe. They can not be deterred.
But they can be defeated. And the people they depend on for survival can be deterred.
the likelihood of me or anyone I know being injured or killed in one is similarly low.
That's not the case for me. My brother-in-law, damonbradl, was spared a fiery death by being called away from the WTC, where he was staying and working, to an emergency
( ... )
Granted, extrapolating from history is a poor way to predict the future, but if it does happen, what the HELL can the President, or anyone, do afterwards?
The point is not what do to *afterwards*. The point is to *prevent it from happening*.
And if you're talking about Lebed's missing "suicase nukes," they're a myth. Extrapolating from urgan legend is as even worse way to predict the future.
In the first part, the author sets up a few basic assumptions. One of those I have to say I don't understand; he claims that by setting the policy that everyone are either black or white, for or against, somehow accomplishes something - in short, that the world actually is devoid of nuance
( ... )
Good writing, but flawed (some would say completely incorrect, and I would be hard pressed to find counterarguments) premises, leading to flawed results
Well said, that's what I thought by the end of it too. Some good points, but as many logically flawed ones.
One of those I have to say I don't understand; he claims that by setting the policy that everyone are either black or white, for or against, somehow accomplishes something
He even spelled out exactly what it accomplishes: It removed the deniability of terrorism. You can't fund it to carry out your aims, and expect to get away with it, because if you're funding it we're going to come after you, too.
That's not the best defence against terrorism, by any measure.Given that the rest of the world isn't all that willing to do anything about it, we'll just have to manage, I guess
( ... )
The policy doesn't accomplish that though, because it is untenable in practice - and for that matter, not used, all the pretty rhetoric notwithstanding. And Americans still buy shitloads of Chinese stuff, even though China funds and commits terrorism.
And the rest of the world does tons against terrorism. I grew up with terrorism running rampant. The US, as usual, overreacts and behaves like it just woke from deep slumber. Which it probably did. Terrorism has been with the rest of the world since the 19th century, and we've learned to live normally despite it. The US doesn't even appear to be interested in figuring out how to do that.
Terrorism has not gone up recently. There are some spikes, but compared to 20, 30 years ago, there's almost none at all around. When I grew up it seemed there wasn't any given week when an airplane wasn't hijacked, or people travelling through otherwise peaceful countries were kidnapped. These days there is comparatively little terrorism, and most of it is in warzones.
Holy shit. Reading some of these comments makes me fear for the future. If a significant number of people really think the way your interlocutors above seem to, we are well and truly fucked. It's only a matter of time then before some jihadi nukes an American city. Wishful thinking and willful ignorance have become an epidemic. Gah!
Call me a cruel man, but I think it's self-correcting.
Most of the unwillingness to confront Al-Qaeda dead on comes from a few core, politically blue, cities. The countryside and burbs are quite willing to kill terrorists.
Coincidentally, these cities are Osama's main targets.
Sooner or later, either the blue staters will get sick of getting 9/11'd and fight back, or, worst case scenario, they'll get depopulated enough to shift the political balance of power.
Pacificism in the face of murderous zealots has been historically a self-correcting problem.
Comments 114
(The comment has been removed)
This is disagreeing with the author?
What we learned on 9/11 is that there are people out there who are not deterrable. Given the chance - given the weapons - these people will strike without any regard to consequences. The ultimate horror of a world enveloped in nuclear fire is just peachy keen with them if it will bring about the New Caliphate. We love death the way you Americans love life, they say. They are not kidding. They are serious. You can pretend otherwise, but that will not make it change. There are people who are determined to kill us for who we are and what we believe. They can not be deterred.
But they can be defeated. And the people they depend on for survival can be deterred.
the likelihood of me or anyone I know being injured or killed in one is similarly low.
That's not the case for me. My brother-in-law, damonbradl, was spared a fiery death by being called away from the WTC, where he was staying and working, to an emergency ( ... )
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
The point is not what do to *afterwards*. The point is to *prevent it from happening*.
And if you're talking about Lebed's missing "suicase nukes," they're a myth. Extrapolating from urgan legend is as even worse way to predict the future.
Reply
Reply
Well said, that's what I thought by the end of it too. Some good points, but as many logically flawed ones.
Reply
He even spelled out exactly what it accomplishes: It removed the deniability of terrorism. You can't fund it to carry out your aims, and expect to get away with it, because if you're funding it we're going to come after you, too.
That's not the best defence against terrorism, by any measure.Given that the rest of the world isn't all that willing to do anything about it, we'll just have to manage, I guess ( ... )
Reply
And the rest of the world does tons against terrorism. I grew up with terrorism running rampant. The US, as usual, overreacts and behaves like it just woke from deep slumber. Which it probably did. Terrorism has been with the rest of the world since the 19th century, and we've learned to live normally despite it. The US doesn't even appear to be interested in figuring out how to do that.
Terrorism has not gone up recently. There are some spikes, but compared to 20, 30 years ago, there's almost none at all around. When I grew up it seemed there wasn't any given week when an airplane wasn't hijacked, or people travelling through otherwise peaceful countries were kidnapped. These days there is comparatively little terrorism, and most of it is in warzones.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Awful suicide rates. Probably not enough Vitamin D.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Most of the unwillingness to confront Al-Qaeda dead on comes from a few core, politically blue, cities. The countryside and burbs are quite willing to kill terrorists.
Coincidentally, these cities are Osama's main targets.
Sooner or later, either the blue staters will get sick of getting 9/11'd and fight back, or, worst case scenario, they'll get depopulated enough to shift the political balance of power.
Pacificism in the face of murderous zealots has been historically a self-correcting problem.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment