Re: The Cyber war on Iran

[Kian Mohageri <kian.mohageri () gmail com>]

Paul Schmehl wrote:
> --On April 4, 2007 11:06:24 PM -0400 Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu wrote:
> > Radical idea number 1:  You can always ignore them, or merely accord
> > them a level of concern related to their *actual* threat level.  Figure
> > out the number of deaths and economic damage per year due to cancer,
> > cardiovascular illness, tobacco, various communicable diseases, and
> > terrorism. React accordingly.  Hint: How many Americans have gotten
> > killed due to terrorist action, and how many have gotten killed since
> > then due to our *choosing* to get involved in two wars?  Who's a bigger
> > hazard to American lives - the terrorists or our own commander in chief?
> I absolutely loathe this argument.  It goes something like this:
> Hey, so a few people are dying - I don't know any of them, and I don't
> feel personally threatened, so screw them.  I'm worried about cancer not
> IEDs.  Besides, statistically, I have more chances of dying from cancer
> than I do from an IED.  (Sorry about those folks in New York, London,
> Madrid, Berlin, Paris, Beirut, Bali, Darfur, Singapore, the
> Phillippines, Somalio, the Congo, and all the other places where jihadis
> have bombed and beheaded innocent people, but hey, that ain't in my back
> yard.)


You completely ignored the most important part of Valdis' argument.
Nobody is arguing that terrorism is not a threat.  The argument is about
how many people have died as a result of this war that is supposed to
"end" terrorism (but has probably just made matters worse).

> > Radical idea number 2: This guy Ghandi managed to kick the British out
> > of India without killing or imprisoning anybody - people just sat down.
> > *LOTS* of people.  For those of you who aren't old enough to remember,
> > this dude named Martin Luther King Jr used the same tactic - and keep in
> > mind that some of the people opposing King would easily qualify as
> > "extremists".  Yes, it can take a long time, and you may have a few
> > martyrs of your own - but it's possible to win the conflict while
> > retaining the moral high ground.
> Funny thing about the Brits - they're actually civilized.  They don't go
> around cutting off children's heads and blowing up innocent women.  So
> Ghandi's sit-down actually worked, because the Brits have a conscience.

People are fundamentally the same.  If you put "civilized" British
people in the situations facing many extremists in the Middle East, do
you think they would continue to act civilized?

Do you think no innocent men/women/children have died at the hands of
the civilized Brits?

Sure -- their foreign policy is better than the U.S. at the moment --
but don't make some ridiculous claim that they're "better" and "more
civilized."  Rich nations are just a lot better at covering it up.

> > When you've decided that killing them and imprisoning them are the *only*
> > two options, you've allowed them to frame the question and win the
> > debate, because you're guaranteeing them an endless supply of martyrs.
> > At that point, your only choice for stopping the flow of martyrs is
> > cutting off the supply via genocide.
> Oh, bullshit.  This isn't a debate.  And there isn't an endless flow of
> martyrs.  If you seriously think the vast majority of Muslims are only
> interested in martyring themselves for jihad, then you're a racist in
> the extreme.  Most Muslims are just like you and me.  They want to live
> a peaceable life, earn a decent living and take care of their family. 
> But until the cost of being a jihadi is not worth the reward compared to
> living in peace, they will continue to slaughter people by the millions.
> And just because you don't give a shit about the people dying in Darfur
> or the Muslims being slaughtered every day in Iraq, doesn't mean
> everyone thinks that way.


Do you realize that the U.S. put many of those radicals into power in
the first place?


> Let's see if I can put this in terms you can understand.
>
> A hoodlum is running around the neighborhood killing people.  You think
> it's a good idea to negotiate with him but he's just interested in
> killing people.  Since more people in the neighborhood have died in car
> crashes than the hoodlum has killed, you think he's not much of a
> threat. Unfortunately for Billy, tonight is his turn to be the hoodlum's
> next victim.  But that's OK with you because, hey, statistically, it's
> just a blip on the radar.  Eventually, if enough people die, he'll tire
> of his killing, and we'll be able to get him to reform his ways by
> convincing him there's a better way to live.  If a hundred have to die
> before we get there, it's OK, because 200 will die in car accidents anyway.

A better analogy would be this:

There are hoodlums running around various neighborhoods around the
world, killing people.  YOU think it is a good idea to start invading
other neighborhoods, enforcing curfews, searching their houses (and your
own neighbors'), passing unconstitutional laws, and killing a lot of
innocent people in the process -- oh, and starting "cyber wars" against
the hoodlums (I laughed) -- because if you don't, things are going to
get much worse.

Does that sound like the best approach to you?

This was never all-or-nothing, and YOU are an extremist for thinking it is.

-Kian

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/