[Changleen]

even if you were right, and threatening retaliation was "criminal". (although i´ve seen a lot of maximum ownage threats at gvmt level in the last few years)

would people rather be

a) threatened to death, if a portion of its society attacks. although its likely no single death would happen if the threat is convincing enough.

b) actually dead, when the west launches a "war on terrorism" fulfulling its own "we are the good guys" morality, at the expense of thousands of people in both sides...

threats are effective, thats reality.
a threat is what keeps the US and israel from pounding iran. is what keeps NK from getting pounded by the US. it what kept the indians and the pakistanians from nuking each other out of existance.

could not it be possible that apparently being "the inmoral bad guys" is actually more moral than giving the impression of being "the morally good guys"???

yes, threats arent nice, but they somehow serve avoid dead people. thats good enough me.

i wish i could paste a few pages on a book on decision theory i read lately.
its basically on an introductory economics level, nonetheless pretty interesting, and makes a pretty good analysis on those outguessing games and makes it easier to understand why certain decisions are made.

Look, I can see where you're coming from, you're basically saying 'this is the realpolitik, deal with it' - And whilst I agree neither side is the good guys, I see that as part of the problem, not the solution, and I'd go quite a long way to personally no have anything to do with such a situation. Your argument leads to war, or a cold war type situation and a general state of fear. It's perfectly possible not be in that situation just by having leaders who arn't complete fvckwits.

 

[RenegadeRick]

if hezbollah had been hinted at the kind of response they, and lebanon, are facing now... would they had still kidnapped 2 soldiers?
they have stated they didnt expect a response of this kind.

i believe olmert made a mistake, he didnt hint he would go ape crazy in case of attacks, and likely, hezbollah didnt think he would.
had he made the threat in advance, we might not be having the war of today.
what israel is doing now, IMO, is rationally giving the impression of irrationality, in order to show its willing to return brutal force in the future and gain leverage against future attacks.

The Israeli soldiers you mention were in Lebanon when they were "kidnapped":

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/israeli_solders.html
Lebanese police said that the two soldiers were arrested as they entered the town of Aitaa al-Chaab inside the Lebanese border.

And the attack plans you say Olmert kept quiet about were made in advance:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/israeli_solders.html
Israel's military response by air, land and sea to what it considered a provocation last week by Hezbollah militants is unfolding according to a plan finalized more than a year ago.

What Israel is doing now is murdering Lebanese children.

http://www.uruknet.com
About 55 percent of all casualties at the Beirut Government University Hospital are 15 or younger, hospital records show.

"This is worse than during the Lebanese civil war," Bilal Masri, assistant director of the hospital, one of Beirut’s largest, told IPS.

Not only are most of the patients children, but many of the injured are in serious condition, he said. "Now we have a 30 percent fatality rate here in Beirut. That means that 30 percent of everyone hit by Israeli bombs are dying. It is a catastrophe."

The fatality rate was high, he said, "because the Israelis are using new kinds of bombs which can enter shelters. They are bombing the bomb shelters which are full of refugees."

 

[Secret Squirrel]

Let's just get straight to it..... Two words:

Natural Law.

If you're not the biggest, baddest, MF'er on the planet, someone else will be and you will be killed. Kinda gets the point across pretty fast.

There was a great quote in a movie I saw recently....I believe it was from Swordfish....It was about Dog Day Afternoon and what would happen if the bank robbers started capping people right away. No waiting, no quarter...just "Give us a bus or the pretty blonde gets it in the back of the head." *Bang*

Same thing applies here, just on a larger scale. Why wait? Just start blowin' sh*t up. Gets to the point and someone's got to listen sooner or later.

Why even threaten anymore? No one listens to anyone anymore at governmental levels cause they all lie, cheat, and steal anyway. Even mutually assured destruction (and the stalemate that'll follow) is tenuous at best. All threats do is breed anger and aggression when one nation (or party, hardliner, some crackpot, guerillas, etc. etc.) finally gets fed up. The only reason we're still here is because Russia ran out of money, otherwise the earth would be a quiet neighborhood for, oh...I dunno...about 10,000 years....

60 minutes had an interview with one Iraqi (I believe...) who said that his dream for his son was to die while killing infidels (a.k.a. Us!)....Almost every American dad's dream for his son is to be on t.v. playing on Sunday. Now there's a dichotomy that isn't going to be fixed simply by threatening him with death...He's welcoming it...and he'll prolly take a few 'innocents' out with him....

I'm going to go ride now....f*ck hate!

 

[RenegadeRick]

a threat is what keeps the US and israel from pounding iran.

Iran's military prowess is what keeps the US out of there:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200412/fallows/5
"Compared with Iraq, Iran has three times the population, four times the land area, and five times the problems..."
We just don't have the forces to do that in Iran.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:FgkJEtox6mIJ:www.tpmcafe.com/node/29717+iran+military+size+compared+to+iraq&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=10
And Iran is two to three times the population of Iraq, twice the physical size, and has little or no sectarian divisions to keep fifty to sixty percent of the country out of an insurrection like Iraq's Shia.

 

[rockwool]

Thing is, there is no need for eiter threats or killing. What UK needs to do to prevent it from attacks is to get its hand out of the coockie jar.. British Petroleum should pump oil from British soil, not steal Iraqi.


Good posts RenegadeRick!

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Iran's military prowess is what keeps the US out of there:

and what is that but a threat?
what is a nuke but an implicit threat? what is a 1 million standing army but a threat?

the point with the military capabilities of the US/UK arent a credible threat for the terrorists, because the terrorists know they wont use them against their strongholds. so, is as if they didnt exist. they arent even implicit, because they know those weapons wont be used.

the only reason for those weapons to become credible threats, is for the states who own them to make a credible bluff, or to show willingness to use them. to make them explicit threats.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

The top 5% in Third World countries are always right.

i find funny that you being a white, young, american-born, ac chilled, election-able, top 6% of the world would say something like that..

 

[stevew]

i find funny that you being a white, young, american-born, ac chilled, election-able, top 6% of the world would say something like that..

to quote san pedro's minutemen.....

"a ton of white boy guilt, thats my problem"

 

[RenegadeRick]

and what is that but a threat?
what is a nuke but an implicit threat? what is a 1 million standing army but a threat?

the point with the military capabilities of the US/UK arent a credible threat for the terrorists, because the terrorists know they wont use them against their strongholds. so, is as if they didnt exist. they arent even implicit, because they know those weapons wont be used.

the only reason for those weapons to become credible threats, is for the states who own them to make a credible bluff, or to show willingness to use them. to make them explicit threats.

hmmmm...

I think the USUK has shown its willingness to use its weaponry. It is a pretty clear explicit threat.

So what's the deal then? Assuming there really was a terror plot, what is the reason? Is the USUK simply using too much restraint? Are we not slaughtering enough civilians? Not acting enough like crazed MF'rs?

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

hmmmm...

I think the USUK has shown its willingness to use its weaponry. It is a pretty clear explicit threat.

no it hasnt.
USUK has shown willingness to fight "rationally". this "rational" responde usually means hundreds of dead USUK soldiers, which the terrorists know USUK isnt very willing, which erodes the credibility of the threat.

terrorists know, USUK isnt willing to use their weapons in all their magnitude.
they know USUK would use, if anything, a limited amount of force bounded by rules of engagement... and that has been proved as not very efficient against terrorism. (and very costly to USUK)

USUK has not given any credible threat of truly dropping the hammer "irrationally".
that would be minimizing its casualties while maximizing damage.

So what's the deal then? Assuming there really was a terror plot, what is the reason? Is the USUK simply using too much restraint? Are we not slaughtering enough civilians? Not acting enough like crazed MF'rs?

not necesarily they are not killing enought civilians.
but not acting like crazed mofos could have something to do.

acting like crazed mofos is what give the terrorists the leverage they have. for one, i dont think they are crazy nor stupid. in chicken games, playing the crazy card can pay off more than not. there is a whole lot written on that, and the reasoning behind it. if you want to, i´ll google some later.

imagine the chicken game where you drive against another car and whoever turns first looses.
if you were to play against an apparently obviously maniac individual, i bet you would be less willing than if you were to play against woody allen.

thus, it would be in the best interest of a player to "appear" irrational before a chicken game.
the perseption you cause in the other side can actually be more decisive than actual irrationality (or massive killings for either side). perseption becomes reality.
in an oversimplification, the terrorism/US, US/USSR can be reduced to chicken games.

 

[RenegadeRick]

ALEXIS_DH:

It sounds as if you are saying that BUSHBLAIR are rational individuals.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Alexis,
If I go an threaten someone with bodily harm, it is a crime. We call it assault. If we threaten innocents with bodily harm for things they have no control over, we are guilty of that same crime.

I hear what you are saying, in that you feel terrorists need to know what the results of their actions might be (i.e. total annihilation.) Our military might is an implicit threat. What you are advocating goes well beyond that and makes us just as bad as those we would fight against. What use is it for us to fight the terrorists if we become just like them?

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Alexis,
If I go an threaten someone with bodily harm, it is a crime. We call it assault. If we threaten innocents with bodily harm for things they have no control over, we are guilty of that same crime.

ok, you can say its a crime. but if said crime can stop a bigger crime from being committed, what happens?
on one side you have a subjective crime, "words". on the other you have a pretty quantifiable crime, death people.

I hear what you are saying, in that you feel terrorists need to know what the results of their actions might be (i.e. total annihilation.) Our military might is an implicit threat.

i dont think they need to know what the actual results would be. i feel they need to fear total anhilation (whether total anhilation happens or not is a different thing).

US military is a threat. but it really isnt a very credible and effective threat.
since its bounded to act under certain guidelines that are very favorable to guerrilla fighters.
so its like the army is fighting blind and with one hand tied up. its value as an extortion method isnt very high in that scenario.
plus, terrorists know that because of those constraints... the cost of deployment (in terms on dead american soldiers) is gonna be high too, thus the US would be less willing to do, thus making the threat less solid.

What you are advocating goes well beyond that and makes us just as bad as those we would fight against.

yes, it isnt "right".
but its far from being as bad as those you fight against.
comparing a threat to an actual homicide isnt quite the case.
plus a threat of leveling a city (say, after ordering evacuation) over a threat of murder isnt orders of magnitude worse (and less so if its actually an empty threat, although it has to be very convincing to work).
genocide over homicide is definately orders of magnitude worse.

What use is it for us to fight the terrorists if we become just like them?

survival?
i believe survival and safety of your side are above one´s self image as a moral person, or good guy.

 

[Silver]

survival?
i believe survival and safety of your side are above one´s self image as a moral person, or good guy.

And, like I believe I said upthread, that makes you no different than a thug with a machete.

Don't sugarcoat it with game theory...

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

And, like I believe I said upthread, that makes you no different than a thug with a machete.

i think that being a "loudmouth thug with a machete" is different than a "thug with a machete actually using it".

and i think avoiding being a "thug with a machete" for the sole sake of it (when no other tangible quantifiable actions have been made) and putting that above peoples lives, is just swallowing down too much on the "we are the good guys" and too pricey for a self-indulging moral high-horse ride.

ok, let´s put in other words.

is (say) 1000 lives (from both sides) worth the price to make you "not feel like you are a thug with a machete" (although no actions besides a convincing threat is made)?

what if instead of 1000 we say, a 50% chance of 2000 dying?
and 1000 or 2000 is quite the low number actually. how many death iraquis are there already? how many death arabs would happen if another 9/11 happens, and the US went for another round of the iraq game?

 

[Silver]

is (say) 1000 lives (from both sides) worth the price to make you "not feel like you are a thug with a machete" (although no actions besides a convincing threat is made)?

what if instead of 1000 we say, a 50% chance of 2000 dying?
and 1000 or 2000 is quite the low number actually. how many death iraquis are there already? how many death arabs would happen if another 9/11 happens, and the US went for another round of the iraq game?

That's a stupid hypothetical, along the lines of "Would you torture if a terrorist set a bomb and there was 20 minutes left?"

Because once you agree to that, it really lubricates the incline. All of a sudden minutes turn into weeks and turns into years, and terrorist turns into suspect. And then you have Abu Ghraib.

Bringing the Iraq war into the question is nonsensical. That was clearly NOT a response to the September 11 attacks. In fact, it proves my point: Because we're ok with the idea of "collateral damage" we ended up going to war with a country that had very little, if anything to do with the initial justification.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

That's a stupid hypothetical, along the lines of "Would you torture if a terrorist set a bomb and there was 20 minutes left?"

its not stupid hypothetical.
there is somewhat of a causality relationship between a threat on one side and the decision on the other side to refrain from acting.

Because once you agree to that, it really lubricates the incline. All of a sudden minutes turn into weeks and turns into years, and terrorist turns into suspect. And then you have Abu Ghraib.

are you resorting to a slippery slope?
a threat is a threat.
nobody has to die until that point, and what gets hurt the most is the self-image of those who see themselves in a high moral ground, rather than real people, whose chance to die is likely higher if there was no threat.

Bringing the Iraq war into the question is nonsensical. That was clearly NOT a response to the September 11 attacks. In fact, it proves my point: Because we're ok with the idea of "collateral damage" we ended up going to war with a country that had very little, if anything to do with the initial justification.

its not non-sensical. iraq was the knee jerk reaction to 9/11. independently on the reasons and the inexistant links, 9/11 was the excuse for a knee jerk reaction. iraq was the scapegoat, i wouldnt be surprised if one of the reasons was to reinvindicate the US self-image.
of course, no initial incident, no need for scapegoats (whatever wrong scapegoating in the real tanglible world is)

 

[Silver]

are you resorting to a slippery slope?
a threat is a threat.
nobody has to die until that point, and what gets hurt the most is the self-image of those who see themselves in a high moral ground, rather than real people, whose chance to die is likely higher if there was no threat.



its not non-sensical. iraq was the knee jerk reaction to 9/11. independently on the reasons and the inexistant links, 9/11 was the excuse for a knee jerk reaction. iraq was the scapegoat, i wouldnt be surprised if one of the reasons was to reinvindicate the US self-image.
of course, no initial incident, no need for scapegoats (whatever wrong scapegoating in the real tanglible world is)

I am indeed resorting to a slippery slope. It's not always a fallacy. It is the case that Abu Ghraib happened. Various war crimes in Vietnam also make that case that once you're willing to crack a few eggs fighting "terror" or "the commies" you frequently end up with a lot of messy omelets.

That isn't a unique American trait either. Think of every Communist state or theocracy: Once it is acceptable to harm people for thoughts and writings that are outside of the bounds of "acceptable" you consistently end up harming a much larger circle of people than you may have originally intended.

Also, you recognize that the evidence is pretty damn clear that the invasion of Iraq was not a knee jerk reaction to 9/11. The attacks of September 11 gave the US an excuse to invade, not a reason. In light of this, it is pretty clear that without the attacks of September 11, there is a very good chance that Iraq would have been invaded anyways. You don't always have to hit the trifecta to win.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Threats are empty and useless without the will to back them up. If we threaten to level whole cities if the terrorists act, then when they act (and they will) we have to be ready to back them up, or we show that our threats are empty. Would you be willing to do that?

That's the problem. The terrorists are "terrorists" because they attack targets without regard for who/what those targets are. Usually those targets involve innocent civilians or even are the civilians themselves. If we threaten to attack innocent civilians, then we are no better than the terrorists. In fact, we become terrorists ourselves. We would be no better than Stalin or Hitler or any other totalitarian ruler. That is not acceptable to me, nor to the vast majority of Americans (I hope).

Further, you have no proof that your threats would have the effect that you seem to think they will. I would be willing to bet that they would have no effect, unless you actually followed through with some of them to show that you mean business, and even then it might not have the effect that you think.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Threats are empty and useless without the will to back them up. If we threaten to level whole cities if the terrorists act, then when they act (and they will) we have to be ready to back them up, or we show that our threats are empty. Would you be willing to do that?

there are i believe, 2 levels on a threat.
the threat can be empty (in that you might not be willing to carry it out, or at least to do it at the level you said), but that doesnt mean it cant be convincing for the other side.
the threat has to be credible. the more credible it is, the more effective it might be. the perseption on the other side becomes a reality, whethere reality will reflect what you say or not.

That's the problem. The terrorists are "terrorists" because they attack targets without regard for who/what those targets are.

they are "terrorists" because they DO, not because they bluff.

Usually those targets involve innocent civilians or even are the civilians themselves. If we threaten to attack innocent civilians, then we are no better than the terrorists. In fact, we become terrorists ourselves. We would be no better than Stalin or Hitler or any other totalitarian ruler. That is not acceptable to me, nor to the vast majority of Americans (I hope).

a terrorist is not the one who makes threats, but the one who carries them out.
there is no slippery slope there, nor a equivalence.
there is a whole lot of stairs between threatening something (whatever the credibility of the threat) and actually doing something.

Further, you have no proof that your threats would have the effect that you seem to think they will.

of course you´d have to do some things to make it credible.
a nuclear test maybe? some sort of public "military exercise" where you raze a theorethical town?
signing a law, giving up command (not necesarily more than a bluff) to officers as low as coronels to engage?

there are many ways to make your threat more credible.

I would be willing to bet that they would have no effect, unless you actually followed through with some of them to show that you mean business, and even then it might not have the effect that you think.

it isnt perfect. maybe it wouldnt have the entire i effect i expect.
but thats a bit of a perfect solution fallacy.
if we are going to think "it isnt 100% sure, thus we should not botter doing so" isnt really a good reasoning.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

there are i believe, 2 levels on a threat.
the threat can be empty (in that you might not be willing to carry it out, or at least to do it at the level you said), but that doesnt mean it cant be convincing for the other side.
the threat has to be credible. the more credible it is, the more effective it might be. the perseption on the other side becomes a reality, whethere reality will reflect what you say or not.

And, the threat will be empty unless you actually plan on destroying a couple towns and the civilian inhabitants.

they are "terrorists" because they DO, not because they bluff.

a terrorist is not the one who makes threats, but the one who carries them out.
there is no slippery slope there, nor a equivalence.
there is a whole lot of stairs between threatening something (whatever the credibility of the threat) and actually doing something.

Bin Laden does not do. He threatens. Is he no longer a terrorist?

of course you´d have to do some things to make it credible.
a nuclear test maybe? some sort of public "military exercise" where you raze a theorethical town?
signing a law, giving up command (not necesarily more than a bluff) to officers as low as coronels to engage?

No, I'm sorry. Nothing short of actually destroying a bunch of civilians in cold blood would do in this case. Anything else would be seen as the bluff it was.

there are many ways to make your threat more credible.

For instance?

it isnt perfect. maybe it wouldnt have the entire i effect i expect.
but thats a bit of a perfect solution fallacy.
if we are going to think "it isnt 100% sure, thus we should not botter doing so" isnt really a good reasoning.

No, I think it wouldn't have any affect at all, unless you were willing to actually go and raze a couple villiages and kill all the civilians within. Anything short of that is a bluff, and I highly doubt that you can bluff people that are already willing to die for their cause. You have to show them that you mean business and the only way to do that is to find their families and summarily execute them somehow. So, when you act on your threat, how are you any different from the terrorists, by your own definition?

Of course, I think the threat itself can rise to the same level and goes beyond what I would consider acceptable. Threatening innocents IS what terrorists do, and they do it to inspire fear. We would be engaging in the same tactic and doing what amounts to the dictionary definition of terrorism.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

And, the threat will be empty unless you actually plan on destroying a couple towns and the civilian inhabitants.

you dont necesarily have to raze a town for the threat to be credible. you just have to show you will do it.
big difference right there. take a minute to think about that, and you will realize the show is WAY more important than the actual will.

you can actually rationally show convincing irrationality, without being actually being irrational.
in fact, that´d be a heck of a display of inteligence/rationality if you can pull that off.

Bin Laden does not do. He threatens. Is he no longer a terrorist?

he finances terrorists and belongs to a terrorist organization. thats good enough.
terrorism isnt a definition bounded by "you dont do X", thus "you are not a terrorist". its better defined by "you do this, you are a terrorist". that kind of reasoning is a logical fallacy but i dont remember the name.

No, I'm sorry. Nothing short of actually destroying a bunch of civilians in cold blood would do in this case. Anything else would be seen as the bluff it was.

are you sure? imagine if the next president of the US (or bush himself, who extrapolating from the iraq experience you can tell he shows irrationality) say tomorrow on national tv, they will raze 1 urban sq km for every american dead as a result of a terrorist act, but nothing will happen to anyone if nothing happens to us.
and next week, the USAF starts practicing city-razing in new mexico and the navy detonates a couple low yields nukes underground, and they give reports on new weapons, parafernalia and propaganda included.
what, do you think if the US did that knuckle cracking nobody (specially in the arab side) would pay any attention at all?

For instance?

i dont know, many things, but more importantly, making the tour de force widely known.
like letting eveybody know there are a few carriers in place "loaded and ready". practicing the evacuation of americans from "potential targets", distribuiting gas masks to americans abroad... you see, there are many many things to come up for that.

it sounds cold, but i think you have to stop people from killing each other before to stop them from hating each other.
you cant stop people from hating each other before you stop them from killing each other. so i hope, that eventually, in the long run a tense peace would put enemies closer than a continuous attrition war.

No, I think it wouldn't have any affect at all, unless you were willing to actually go and raze a couple villiages and kill all the civilians within. Anything short of that is a bluff, and I highly doubt that you can bluff people that are already willing to die for their cause.

you are not bluffing them. you are bluffing their families, their towns, their mosques.
its obvious they dont care about themselves, thus there is no posible way to extort them not to die. their "irrationality" overpasses any leverage the US can make directly on them.
but they are fighting "for their land, blablabla". thus you can extort them by that.

You have to show them that you mean business and the only way to do that is to find their families and summarily execute them somehow. So, when you act on your threat, how are you any different from the terrorists, by your own definition?

not really. the US show they meant business in the cuban missile crisis. no nukes nor massive attacks were ever launched.
kennedy and company outguessed the russians, even though the russians had the upper hand (but made the mistake of didnt bluff with the nukes already in place).

imagine this (from a maximizing objective persepective for each side) . is the russians bluffed they had nukes alredy in cuba.... do you think the US would have bluffed?? the US bluffed because they thought no nukes were in cuba, thus they thought the russians would think they would not hesitate to invade, and the russians didnt realize that saying there were missiles in place would have taken away any credibility from the US threat, since the US would not have threatened to invade if they knew their landind force could be wiped out with a tactical nuke.
had kennedy knew there were nukes, he probably wouldnt had bluffed, since he knew krushchev would know he couldnt be serious. thus it was the lack of bluffing in the russians that allowed the americans to get them out of there by mere perseption... even though in reality the russians had the upper hand.
had the russians bluffed and talked about their nukes... they could have gotten a sweeter deal from the americans, since that would have taken leverage out of them.

Of course, I think the threat itself can rise to the same level and goes beyond what I would consider acceptable. Threatening innocents IS what terrorists do, and they do it to inspire fear. We would be engaging in the same tactic and doing what amounts to the dictionary definition of terrorism.

threatening innocents IS what terrorists do.
BUT that alone does NOT satisfy the requirements to be a terrorist. (unless its a extortion in order to make you give them money or something).
threatening somebody so he/she doesnt hurt you... isnt in the same league.
am not arguing whether is "moral" or not. am arguing on the underlying moral system itself btw.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

you dont necesarily have to raze a town for the threat to be credible. you just have to show you will do it.
big difference right there. take a minute to think about that, and you will realize the show is WAY more important than the actual will.

Yeah, actually you would have to raze a town, and with the inhabitants there. More on that later.

you can actually rationally show convincing irrationality, without being actually being irrational.
in fact, that´d be a heck of a display of inteligence/rationality if you can pull that off.

It's possible to bluff, but not with someone crazier than you. Try it the next time you are at the bar. Find a drunk guy and tell him that you are going to kick his ass. See how many of those drunk guys back down. Some will, but some won't.

he finances terrorists and belongs to a terrorist organization. thats good enough.
terrorism isnt a definition bounded by "you dont do X", thus "you are not a terrorist". its better defined by "you do this, you are a terrorist". that kind of reasoning is a logical fallacy but i dont remember the name.

Hey, I was just using your definition.

are you sure? imagine if the next president of the US (or bush himself, who extrapolating from the iraq experience you can tell he shows irrationality) say tomorrow on national tv, they will raze 1 urban sq km for every american dead as a result of a terrorist act, but nothing will happen to anyone if nothing happens to us.
and next week, the USAF starts practicing city-razing in new mexico and the navy detonates a couple low yields nukes underground, and they give reports on new weapons, parafernalia and propaganda included.
what, do you think if the US did that knuckle cracking nobody (specially in the arab side) would pay any attention at all?

Someone might pay attention, but in order for this to work, ALL the terrorists would have to pay attention. As soon as one crazy mf decides to say, "Eff it," you are put in the position of either backing it up or of having your bluff called. Then what will you do?

i dont know, many things, but more importantly, making the tour de force widely known.
like letting eveybody know there are a few carriers in place "loaded and ready". practicing the evacuation of americans from "potential targets", distribuiting gas masks to americans abroad... you see, there are many many things to come up for that.

it sounds cold, but i think you have to stop people from killing each other before to stop them from hating each other.
you cant stop people from hating each other before you stop them from killing each other. so i hope, that eventually, in the long run a tense peace would put enemies closer than a continuous attrition war.

This is really the heart of the matter. If I want person X to stop killing, I don't go and threaten persons Y, Z, A, B, and C. That just heightens tension with all those additional people, and pretty soon now I've got 6 people that want to kill, instead of just one.

you are not bluffing them. you are bluffing their families, their towns, their mosques.

Exactly. You are going after their families. People that are innocent. People that didn't ask to be part of this. You are treating them with complete indifference. How does that make you any better than a terrorist?

its obvious they dont care about themselves, thus there is no posible way to extort them not to die. their "irrationality" overpasses any leverage the US can make directly on them.
but they are fighting "for their land, blablabla". thus you can extort them by that.

If they are that irrational, you can not hope to bluff them into submission.

not really. the US show they meant business in the cuban missile crisis. no nukes nor massive attacks were ever launched.
kennedy and company outguessed the russians, even though the russians had the upper hand (but made the mistake of didnt bluff with the nukes already in place).

imagine this (from a maximizing objective persepective for each side) . is the russians bluffed they had nukes alredy in cuba.... do you think the US would have bluffed?? the US bluffed because they thought no nukes were in cuba, thus they thought the russians would think they would not hesitate to invade, and the russians didnt realize that saying there were missiles in place would have taken away any credibility from the US threat, since the US would not have threatened to invade if they knew their landind force could be wiped out with a tactical nuke.
had kennedy knew there were nukes, he probably wouldnt had bluffed, since he knew krushchev would know he couldnt be serious. thus it was the lack of bluffing in the russians that allowed the americans to get them out of there by mere perseption... even though in reality the russians had the upper hand.
had the russians bluffed and talked about their nukes... they could have gotten a sweeter deal from the americans, since that would have taken leverage out of them.

Not necessarily taking your description of events as gospel, but this is a completely different situation. The same rules do not necessarily apply.

threatening innocents IS what terrorists do.
BUT that alone does NOT satisfy the requirements to be a terrorist. (unless its a extortion in order to make you give them money or something).
threatening somebody so he/she doesnt hurt you... isnt in the same league.
am not arguing whether is "moral" or not. am arguing on the underlying moral system itself btw.

Yes, actually it is in the same league. Person X threatens me, so I go and take it out on that person's family, or their village. How is that any different?

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Yeah, actually you would have to raze a town, and with the inhabitants there. More on that later.
It's possible to bluff, but not with someone crazier than you. Try it the next time you are at the bar. Find a drunk guy and tell him that you are going to kick his ass. See how many of those drunk guys back down. Some will, but some won't.

take out a gun, empty your pockets of pills, apply some coke on your upper lip and start banging chairs.... the more you play along (and the colder you are about it), the more leverage you have.

if the US would play by those rules, it would be like the US was riding an 18 wheeler and the terrorists would be driving a yugo on a chicken game.
the terrorist might be "crazier". but there might be the posibility the leaders are rational persons looking to maximize their chances at their objective and are bluffing by sending suicide pawns to reinforce their image. after all, you see the leaders hiding for their lives getting dialysis done. seems to me those leaders kinda care for their lives.
i dont think they are stupid actually, they have shown to be very smart and cold by leveraging and inflicting so much damage at so little cost, but the US packs a hell lot more punch, although hasnt use it to leverage.

Someone might pay attention, but in order for this to work, ALL the terrorists would have to pay attention. As soon as one crazy mf decides to say, "Eff it," you are put in the position of either backing it up or of having your bluff called. Then what will you do?

well, like i said, its not 100% certain, heck, no solution is, unless you are falling for a perfect solution fallacy.
and the same can be said about giving in, and even swetening the deal by turning all jews to them or something. there isnt a guarantee no whacko will not be satisfied and blow up something, not even for a peace treaty signed by osama, saddam, ahmedinejad, nasralah themselves. even then a mf could say "**** it, i want every american dead too".

firstable (say) 3 groups were planning to attack, and 2 back out.. then you´d be better off.
if the bluff fails, and if the 3rd actually attacks.
you have a few options (firstable its likely you bluff has already minimized your losses at this point) either
raise up the bluff and raze some token place,
raze an entire city,
do the "moral thing" of sending soldiers to "catch up the terrorist", and that will most likely blow up a couple hundred civilians in the process no matter how careful they are.
or play "the good guy" and back up your threat citing some "humanitarian" reason or some PR thing like that to play the victim.

there are many options actually. but you just dont reject a reject a spicy burrito when you are starving to death because "it might give you heartburn later".
in this case the eventual moral dilemma of chickening out of your bluff isnt near the gravity of another 9/11.

This is really the heart of the matter. If I want person X to stop killing, I don't go and threaten persons Y, Z, A, B, and C. That just heightens tension with all those additional people, and pretty soon now I've got 6 people that want to kill, instead of just one.

it definately raises the tension.
but tension is much better than an attrition war by default.
plus, i think you can see terrorists shift objectives with time. the tension can shift their objectives enough that a stable compromise can be made. on the other hand, an attrition war diverts you further away from a compromise.

Exactly. You are going after their families. People that are innocent. People that didn't ask to be part of this. You are treating them with complete indifference. How does that make you any better than a terrorist?

am not killing them.
if anything, i´d be scaring them, yes. but scaring them is much better than the option by default (for both sides) which would be my side getting hit, and then your side getting soldiers "to capture the terrorists" which inevitably (even in the best case scenario of extra care) would mean a lot of dead arabs.

If they are that irrational, you can not hope to bluff them into submission.

they are at least minimally rational to defend something (that is, assuming the irrationality isnt a leverage game by the leaders, which i wouldnt be surprised at all if it was the case).
thus, there is still something you can extort them for. apparently there is something worth more to them than their lives. go for that then. they show irrationality, but they arent absolute nihilist either.

Yes, actually it is in the same league. Person X threatens me, so I go and take it out on that person's family, or their village. How is that any different?

if you "go and take it out on that persons family..." then its not very different.
but if you threat (until that point)l, then you´d be different.
what was the cold war but a threat of retaliation on CIVILIAN targets if civilian targets were attacked?

you see, in the end, i dont deny all the morals you are defending. i agree on the value of human lives.
and i think they are the maximum value to protect, rather than protecting your "moral" for the sake of it.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

take out a gun, empty your pockets of pills, apply some coke on your upper lip and start banging chairs.... the more you play along (and the colder you are about it), the more leverage you have.

Sure, try that. See if someone doesn't try to take you down all the same, because you have become more dangerous than anyone else there!

if the US would play by those rules, it would be like the US was riding an 18 wheeler and the terrorists would be driving a yugo on a chicken game.
the terrorist might be "crazier". but there might be the posibility the leaders are rational persons looking to maximize their chances at their objective and are bluffing by sending suicide pawns to reinforce their image. after all, you see the leaders hiding for their lives getting dialysis done. seems to me those leaders kinda care for their lives.
i dont think they are stupid actually, they have shown to be very smart and cold by leveraging and inflicting so much damage at so little cost, but the US packs a hell lot more punch, although hasnt use it to leverage.

Yeah, pesky things like global opinion and morals get in the way.

well, like i said, its not 100% certain, heck, no solution is, unless you are falling for a perfect solution fallacy.

Problem is that your solution hinges on being 100% right, or it no longer works. The moment your bluff is called, then you have to do something crazy to gain back your street cred. Until then, all your threats will be seen for the bluffs they are.

and the same can be said about giving in, and even swetening the deal by turning all jews to them or something.

Who is talking about giving in? You have set up a false dichotomy.

there isnt a guarantee no whacko will not be satisfied and blow up something, not even for a peace treaty signed by osama, saddam, ahmedinejad, nasralah themselves. even then a mf could say "**** it, i want every american dead too".

firstable (say) 3 groups were planning to attack, and 2 back out.. then you´d be better off.
if the bluff fails, and if the 3rd actually attacks.
you have a few options (firstable its likely you bluff has already minimized your losses at this point)

Minimized at that point, but then the first two groups decide that you were bluffing and go ahead and attack anyway, so in the end you end up doing no good.

either
raise up the bluff and raze some token place,
raze an entire city,

Then, it is no longer a bluff and you are committing war crimes by targeting civilians.

do the "moral thing" of sending soldiers to "catch up the terrorist", and that will most likely blow up a couple hundred civilians in the process no matter how careful they are.

At least that would be by accident instead of by design.

or play "the good guy" and back up your threat citing some "humanitarian" reason or some PR thing like that to play the victim.

It's hard to play the victim when you are threatening genocide.

there are many options actually. but you just dont reject a reject a spicy burrito when you are starving to death because "it might give you heartburn later".

I generally don't reject burritos. Of course, I would reject one if I knew that someone had to die if I chose it.

in this case the eventual moral dilemma of chickening out of your bluff isnt near the gravity of another 9/11.

But, it doesn't stop another 9/11. It may delay it, but that wouldn't last very long at all. The bluff would be called very quickly and that would be that. Unless we were willing to go through with it, however, which would be even worse.

it definately raises the tension.
but tension is much better than an attrition war by default.

I'm sorry, but the plan that you are laying out leads to a war of attrition. Increased tension means more fighting. More fighting leads to more death. Period.

plus, i think you can see terrorists shift objectives with time. the tension can shift their objectives enough that a stable compromise can be made. on the other hand, an attrition war diverts you further away from a compromise.

You don't make compromise by threatening genocide.

am not killing them.
if anything, i´d be scaring them, yes. but scaring them is much better than the option by default (for both sides) which would be my side getting hit, and then your side getting soldiers "to capture the terrorists" which inevitably (even in the best case scenario of extra care) would mean a lot of dead arabs.

You would be resorting to terror. Thus, you would be a "terrorist". That is the definition.

they are at least minimally rational to defend something (that is, assuming the irrationality isnt a leverage game by the leaders, which i wouldnt be surprised at all if it was the case).
thus, there is still something you can extort them for. apparently there is something worth more to them than their lives. go for that then. they show irrationality, but they arent absolute nihilist either.

The leaders are certainly rational, but they aren't the ones that we would be threatening, would we? We would be going after the people that actually commit the deeds, correct?

if you "go and take it out on that persons family..." then its not very different.

Which is what you've been advocating.

but if you threat (until that point)l, then you´d be different.
what was the cold war but a threat of retaliation on CIVILIAN targets if civilian targets were attacked?

Different situation. We are talking here about assaulting innocent civilians that have nothing to do with anything.

you see, in the end, i dont deny all the morals you are defending. i agree on the value of human lives.
and i think they are the maximum value to protect, rather than protecting your "moral" for the sake of it.

I think you think that your way will save lives in the end, which I can respect. But, I think that not only will your plan not work, but the morals that you are willing to sacrifice in order to save lives will simply be sacrificed for nothing.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Sure, try that. See if someone doesn't try to take you down all the same, because you have become more dangerous than anyone else there!

Yeah, pesky things like global opinion and morals get in the way.

Problem is that your solution hinges on being 100% right, or it no longer works. The moment your bluff is called, then you have to do something crazy to gain back your street cred. Until then, all your threats will be seen for the bluffs they are.

Who is talking about giving in? You have set up a false dichotomy.

Minimized at that point, but then the first two groups decide that you were bluffing and go ahead and attack anyway, so in the end you end up doing no good.

Then, it is no longer a bluff and you are committing war crimes by targeting civilians.

At least that would be by accident instead of by design.

It's hard to play the victim when you are threatening genocide.

I generally don't reject burritos. Of course, I would reject one if I knew that someone had to die if I chose it.

But, it doesn't stop another 9/11. It may delay it, but that wouldn't last very long at all. The bluff would be called very quickly and that would be that. Unless we were willing to go through with it, however, which would be even worse.

I'm sorry, but the plan that you are laying out leads to a war of attrition. Increased tension means more fighting. More fighting leads to more death. Period.

You don't make compromise by threatening genocide.

You would be resorting to terror. Thus, you would be a "terrorist". That is the definition.

The leaders are certainly rational, but they aren't the ones that we would be threatening, would we? We would be going after the people that actually commit the deeds, correct?

Which is what you've been advocating.

Different situation. We are talking here about assaulting innocent civilians that have nothing to do with anything.

I think you think that your way will save lives in the end, which I can respect. But, I think that not only will your plan not work, but the morals that you are willing to sacrifice in order to save lives will simply be sacrificed for nothing.

in short, you dont think a well carried threat of massive retaliation would not prevent terrorists from attacking again?.
even though similar threats have worked in the past, against armies and groups with no central authority.

ok, lets assume that and lets imagine for a minute this scenario.
iraq already happened. lebanon already happened. afghanistan already happened.
i believe its rational to believe another one of those would happen if another terrorist attack happens again.
now, lets put ourselves in a best case scenario for this new imaginary intervention (where no abu ghraib will happen, every single marine will follow the book and colateral damage is will be kept to a minumum).

that would still mean a heck lot of dead people though.
i guess you can say thats a sunk cost of business for the terrorists.

why not using that sunk cost (in the form of a threat) to get something out of it?

lets say you make a threat in the most convincing possible way, then it goes like this.

1) terrorist dont attack(it was either because of your threat, or because one morning they saw the light and wanted peace. whatever the condition, both sides end up better off than they would have by default).
then hopefully the threat buy you enough time so that hate fades a little, both sides get closer and lasting peace is eventually reached with some deal sweeteners. (israel and jordan and egypt for instance).

2) terrorist attack, then
2.1 the threat did work for a few, but still some hardcore guys still went full steam ahead.
2.2 the threat didnt work at all

if 2.1, you are still a little bit better off. and you can "negotiate" with those who didnt intervene, thank them for holding back... but not uprooting the threat. and you proceed with the "limited military operation" as it has been done until now. not openly collective punishment, but easily understandable as such for the other side. just like every "limited military operation" so far (even an ideal one) but at least you got something out of it.
if 2.2 then proceed with the programmed "limited military intervention". either way, the sunk cost of a terrorist act is there for the terrorists.

if you word your threat carefully enough, either one of those actions plus a few tours de force for the colosseum (not necesarilly war crimes) could validate your threat. so that for future iterations your word would still be weighted.

if the US had threatened they would have done something like iraq, or if israel would have threatened what they doing in lebanon... am pretty sure the chances of not having to actually carry the threat out would have been lower than 100%.

and that is assuming threats (the most elemental form of conditioning) dont work.

 

[Transcend]

Your idea is silly because: No modern 1st world nation would carry out such an attack as they would be shunned and probably embergoed out of the 1st world. They would lose allies, trading partners and political treaties would fall by the way side.

Therefore, the threat is pointless, as no one would take it seriously.

 

[ukjason]

http://news.aol.co.uk/article.adp?id=20060813142009990011


Terrorists 0 United Kingdom 4

 

[Old Man G Funk]

in short, you dont think a well carried threat of massive retaliation would not prevent terrorists from attacking again?.

Exactly.

even though similar threats have worked in the past, against armies and groups with no central authority.

Examples? And, in those examples were the threats carried out?

ok, lets assume that and lets imagine for a minute this scenario.
iraq already happened. lebanon already happened. afghanistan already happened.
i believe its rational to believe another one of those would happen if another terrorist attack happens again.
now, lets put ourselves in a best case scenario for this new imaginary intervention (where no abu ghraib will happen, every single marine will follow the book and colateral damage is will be kept to a minumum).

that would still mean a heck lot of dead people though.
i guess you can say thats a sunk cost of business for the terrorists.

why not using that sunk cost (in the form of a threat) to get something out of it?

lets say you make a threat in the most convincing possible way, then it goes like this.

1) terrorist dont attack(it was either because of your threat, or because one morning they saw the light and wanted peace. whatever the condition, both sides end up better off than they would have by default).
then hopefully the threat buy you enough time so that hate fades a little, both sides get closer and lasting peace is eventually reached with some deal sweeteners. (israel and jordan and egypt for instance).

2) terrorist attack, then
2.1 the threat did work for a few, but still some hardcore guys still went full steam ahead.
2.2 the threat didnt work at all

if 2.1, you are still a little bit better off. and you can "negotiate" with those who didnt intervene, thank them for holding back... but not uprooting the threat. and you proceed with the "limited military operation" as it has been done until now. not openly collective punishment, but easily understandable as such for the other side. just like every "limited military operation" so far (even an ideal one) but at least you got something out of it.
if 2.2 then proceed with the programmed "limited military intervention". either way, the sunk cost of a terrorist act is there for the terrorists.

if you word your threat carefully enough, either one of those actions plus a few tours de force for the colosseum (not necesarilly war crimes) could validate your threat. so that for future iterations your word would still be weighted.

Hypothetical event number 1 would not come to pass. Someone would attack somewhere.
Hypothetical event number 2 is a pipe dream. Either the threat doesn't work and all the terrorists go about their business anyway, or there is a slight delay while one group tests the waters. Once they see that it was a threat, they all go about their business anyway. Only now, they are upset that you would have the gall to threaten them and their families and all the other innocents that they claim to be fighting for. They have just gained a new recruitment chip that they will use to field more foot soldiers to come and fight us. Besides, how do you negotiate with someone that you just threaten to genocidally destroy, whether it was a threat or not?

if the US had threatened they would have done something like iraq, or if israel would have threatened what they doing in lebanon... am pretty sure the chances of not having to actually carry the threat out would have been lower than 100%.

and that is assuming threats (the most elemental form of conditioning) dont work.

Threats do work, sometimes, and in some situations. They don't work in this one. And, the threats that you are talking about are criminal. I don't know how I can be more clear on this point. You would be acting just like a terrorist.

From Merriam Webster:

terrorism
2 entries found for terrorism.
To select an entry, click on it.
terrorismnarco-terrorism

Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
- ter·ror·ist /-&r-ist/ adjective or noun
- ter·ror·is·tic /"ter-&r-'is-tik/ adjective

That is exactly what you are advocating.