Hacker News Reader

Comment by mgkimsal | Hacker News Reader

"The very fact that no sabotage has taken place to date is a disturbing and confirming indication that such action will be taken."

THAT is disturbing "logic".

View on HN

There was the Niihau Incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niihau_incident where Hawaiians of Japanese descent helped a crashed Japanese pilot. But then ended up killing the pilot.

I had never heard of this before. You would think it would be better known amongst all the Pearl Harbor trivia.

I'm pretty sure 2 native Hawaiians killed the pilot. The husband and wife. The Japanese locals ran off.

In a more narrative style - https://www.damninteresting.com/incident-on-niihau-island/

If you want more "logic", there's also Korematsu v. United States [1], one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in American history.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States

This is a quote from General John L. DeWitt, head of the U.S. Army’s Western Defense Command. He's basically the guy that convinced the president that this was a good idea. Why we put people like him in power (instead of prison), I'll never understand.

The next United States Secretary of Defense:

"There are some people who think you have to hate them in order to shoot them. I don’t think you do. It’s just business."

"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway. So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them. Actually it’s quite fun to fight them, you know. It’s a hell of a hoot. It’s fun to shoot some people."

"The first time you blow someone away is not an insignificant event. That said, there are some assholes in the world that just need to be shot."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gen-james-mad-dog-mattis-7-memor...

Secretary of Defense?

Yes, my mistake.

Are you equating Mattis to Dewitt?

If so, lets not forget Mattis's approach to things:

Talks to the enemy diplomatically: "I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I'll kill you all"

Promotes thinking rather than force from his subordinates: "You are part of the world's most feared and trusted force. Engage your brain before you engage your weapon."

Works well with others: "I don't get intelligence off a satellite. Iraqis tell me who the enemy is."

I don't know about equating, but drawing parallels, yes.

They are parallel because they don't intersect.

Banned Powerpoint too. Top bloke.

I think the first quote was good and reasonable view.

Rest were just tough talk.

What happens if you apply this logic to others? The Philippines right now for example - that tough talk escalated. Or any of the historical examples available. Assuming someone won't do what they say they will do is not a good way to elect a leader.

It's sound logic, so it's universal.

Going to war should not be based on hate. It should be as rational process as possible.

If hate is a real factor in an actor's utility function, then decisions based on hate are rational while decisions ignoring it are not.

I think incoming national security advisor Michael Flynn would be a more apt point of comparison:

"We are facing another 'ism,' just like we faced Nazism, and fascism, and imperialism and communism," Flynn said. "This is Islamism, it is a vicious cancer inside the body of 1.7 billion people on this planet and it has to be excised." - http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/22/politics/kfile-michael-flynn-a... (apologies for the CNN link, but it's just for the quote).

That's probably one of the worst comments it is possible to make for the quality of the discussion right now.

It's anti-induction. Anti-induction holds that a thing having happened many times before, all else being equal, is evidence that it will happen again. Anti-induction holds that it having never happened before is evidence that it will happen. Just as induction having generally worked in the past indicates, by induction, that it Wil continue to work, anti-induction having generally not worked in the past "indicates", by anti-induction, that it should begin to work now.

Typo: the "Anti-induction" in the second sentence should say "Induction". Also, "it Wil continue" should be "it will continue".

It sounds straight out of Doctor Strangelove. He might as well be ranting about how they're stealing our vital bodily fluids. It's just so insane that this guy was given this kind of power.

It's called "heads I win, tails you lose."

I wouldn't call this "logic" at all :)

Indeed. My brain encountered a segfault attempting to evaluate that expression.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com