However if that happened as a result of terrorism rather than politics then we would just have an escalation of terrorism anyone who was unhappy with the US (legitimately or not) started to use the now proven strategy. The 'police state' tactics we see now are nothing compared to what we'd see then.
You seem to be advocating terrorism instead of campaigning for justice.
Your position is no less "advocating terrorism" than the one you responded to. The only way not to encourage terrorism is to evaluate policy changes on their own merits, and not be swayed from acting on the merits of the policy changes themselves by the fact that terrorists have stated goals related to those policy changes, either as a positive or negative factor.
I agree totally that policy changes should be considered on their own merits. Therefore we should defend ourselves against terrorist attacks without regard for their stated goals.
There are certainly ways of assessing why particularly policies are and are not chosen. The impact of "Can't do what terrorists want, so we must vote no" is no more difficult to assess than "Must do what terrorists want, so we must vote yes".
mikeash said it was ok not to defend so hard against terrorism because the outcome was good. I was refuting that.
Thank you for the reminder that debating these topics on HN is pointless because everybody's a complete nut.
Sounds like ends (violence stopping) justifying the means (letting the terrorists win) to me.
If you think I said it, then go find it and quote it for me.
That outcome also included dead British cabinet ministers, civilians and infrastructure and decades of fear and hatred.
good means, good ends - no need for justification
bad means, good ends - the ends justify the means
good means, bad ends - the means justify the ends
bad means, bad ends - no possibility of justification
The disconnect is that I don't accept this assumption. I see no evidence that the US method fights terrorism better. In fact, it appears to result in far more and worse attacks than the British method.
Therefore, I am advocating for something that I believe will mitigate terrorism as it happens, and produce a better outcome. Thus falling squarely in the "no need for justification" line of your summary.
They stopped their attacks when their demands were met.
I fail to see what you are advocating other than giving in to terrorism.
Sure, the Irish didn't cease their attacks because of how the British fought them. Likewise, various anti-American terrorists haven't ceased their attacks because of how the US fights them.
Your proposal implies that killing civilians should earn you a seat at the negotiating table.
That said, the UK government certainly did a lot to piss off the Irish and it's not clearly the case that in the events leading up to the conflict all of the UK's actions were great and the Irish's were horrible.
Anyone who cooperates with an abusive power does so because they have been sufficiently terrorized by that power and they don't want to risk further abuse. That kind of cooperation is not a good outcome; it's only the acceptance of coercion, because the alternative is worse.
I was only arguing with this.
> There isn't necessarily a non-evil way to proceed, just worse and less-worse ways. I never said this was all roses and wine.
This is all I mean by bad means, bad ends. This mindset opens up the discussion to debating the pros and cons of different approaches. Anyway, take care.