Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Even Guardian readers have had enough with the Guardian's leftist nonsense. Watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JoPearson89)
    I'm well aware that Jihadism existed before the invasion of Iraq.

    That doesn't mean that toppling Iraq and invading Afghanistan didn't have a supremely negative effect.

    What the invasion did was create a power vacuum and mass chaos. Tens of millions of people have been impoverished, had relatives killed, and have had to flee their homes. This climate has allowed extremists to sell the idea to potential recruits that the west was evil and imperialist, and that the islamic world and the west were engaged in a "clash of civilizations" (the same bunkum that neoconservatives are pushing in the opposite direction).

    Going in on the ground is only going to feed and grow that narrative. You have to starve the beast.

    It's not about being 'nice'. It's simply not pragmatic to engage.
    I agree interventionism has just fueled this, I suggest stop toppling governments and start destroying ISIS. Are you suggesting we do nothing about ISIS?
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Karosan)
    I agree interventionism has just fueled this, I suggest stop toppling governments and start destroying ISIS. Are you suggesting we do nothing about ISIS?
    If doing "nothing" (which is never actually "nothing", as there is no such thing as neutral politics) is the best way to minimize the problem, then yes. Of course.

    We should only do "something" if that something actually helps the situation. Otherwise, what's the point?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JoPearson89)
    Severe threat?

    425 people a day die from heart attacks in the UK alone, of which between 66-80% (depending on where you get your statistics from) are preventable. That's 300+ deaths per day. From a single cause of death.

    Even a mild public health campaign will save many more lives than the most severe anti-terror campaign; which in any case is more likely to actually increase terror attacks, if history is our guide.

    Intentions =/= outcomes.



    But it isn't just about lives. It's about the fear that they create, and the nature of the attacks. After this attack, French people will quite understandably be thinking anxiously about it when they're attending Bastille day next year, or in fact when they're at any big event with lots of people. Not only that, thousands of people will have witnessed these attacks, and it will torment them eternally. In fact, the coldness and the horror of these attacks will torment many, many people, even those who aren't French. There's no use taking a utiltarian stand point on these attacks, because these attacks are first and formost an attack on people's psyches, and the effect of that is impossible to measure with any kind of accuracy. All we can say is that the effect is clearly very great. Preventable health illness aren't comparable when those who die of them are at least partly to blame for not preventing them. They had some control. The deaths are very sad but they are not terrifying. Terror attacks are terrifying because the victims could do nothing to stop them, and because they could happen anywhere and to anyone. Lastly, terror attacks are an attack on culture and society. Thus, anyone who feels part of that culture or society feels as if they have been indirectly attacked.

    (Original post by JordanL_)
    Severe threat? You're more likely to get hit by a car than killed in a terrorist attack.

    But it's irrelevant, because most of the "solutions" people suggest make the problem worse. It was military action that spawned ISIS, and now some people think the solution is to increase our military action?
    Miltary action didn't cause jihadism to exist. It has existed for a long time.

    Perhaps interception isn't going to be helpful. But neither is pretending all we need to do is keep calm and carry on. We must consider solutions, even seemingly drastic ones.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    But it isn't just about lives. It's about the fear that they create, and the nature of the attacks. After this attack, French people will quite understandably be thinking anxiously about it when they're attending Bastille day next year, or in fact when they're at any big event with lots of people. Not only that, thousands of people will have witnessed these attacks, and it will torment them eternally. In fact, the coldness and the horror of these attacks will torment many, many people, even those who aren't French. There's no use taking a utiltarian stand point on these attacks, because these attacks are first and formost an attack on people's psyches, and the effect of that is impossible to measure with any kind of accuracy. All we can say is that the effect is clearly very great. Preventable health illness aren't comparable when those who die of them are at least partly to blame for not preventing them. They had some control. The deaths are very sad but they are not terrifying. Terror attacks are terrifying because the victims could do nothing to stop them, and because they could happen anywhere and to anyone. Lastly, terror attacks are an attack on culture and society. Thus, anyone who feels part of that culture or society feels as if they have been indirectly attacked.
    Except that you (and your government) have a choice and the power to help shape the narrative of your response in any way you like. I don't see how getting into a cycle of escalation just to assure people that you're doing something, anything (even if what you're actually doing making the situation worse and putting your citizens in greater danger) is better. Life and politics are complex. You're not doing anyone any favours by doing what they'd like you to do, rather than doing what is best.

    tl;dr a utilitarian approach is exactly what you should do, regardless of how you sell it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JoPearson89)
    Except that you (and your government) have a choice and the power to help shape the narrative of your response in any way you like. I don't see how getting into a cycle of escalation just to assure people that you're doing something, anything (even if what you're actually doing making the situation worse and putting your citizens in greater danger) is better. Life and politics are complex. You're not doing anyone any favours by doing what they'd like you to do, rather than doing what is best.

    tl;dr a utilitarian approach is exactly what you should do, regardless of how you sell it.
    No amount of utilitarianism is going to stop people being understandably terrified of being killed by or witnessing horrific terror attacks. Also, whether we like it or not, we're in a conflict with radical Islam, and no amount of peacefulness and platitudes is going to stop that. Maybe we started it, maybe we didn't, maybe it's a lot more complex than that, but we're in it now. We have to deal with it very ernestly, whether that means beefing up security, tightening the borders, or attacking ISIS, I don't know, but I certainly feel like the former options are worth heavily considering.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    No amount of utilitarianism is going to stop people being understandably terrified of being killed by or witnessing horrific terror attacks. Also, whether we like it or not, we're in a conflict with radical Islam, and no amount of peacefulness and platitudes is going to stop that. Maybe we started it, maybe we didn't, maybe it's a lot more complex than that, but we're in it now. We have to deal with it very ernestly, whether that means beefing up security, tightening the borders, or attacking ISIS, I don't know, but I certainly feel like the former options are worth heavily considering.
    I get where you're coming from, and indeed started off thinking the same way. I followed the news closely from age 14. Over time, and to my great surprise, I discovered that those on the left who I had dismissed as 'weak' and 'foolish' made all the right predictions about what was going to happened if x or y occurred, and those on the right who sounded strong and righteous were repeatedly wrong. So my viewpoint switched.

    Good international politics isn't about displays of strength, but about ensuring we're at each others throats as little as possible. If we overreact to ISIS, a lot of muslims are going to be caught in the crossfire (as millions have been already) and that is only going to support ISIS's narrative, which is far and away the most powerful asset they have.

    ISIS are already dying and dwindling. Their territory has shrunk dramatically. These attacks on foreign soil are born of desperation because they're losing money and men. The beast is starving. We shouldn't surrender our soul just to lash out. We'll only end up hurting ourselves and prolonging the problem.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Are unpaid trial work shifts fair?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.