News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Snowden granted 1-year asylum in Russia, leaves airport. Parent comment

Re:Snowden granted 1-year asylum in Russia, leaves airport by dragonwriter on Thursday August 01, 2013 @12:18PM (#6141332)
By the same logic, ff terrorism under the flag of a cause is seen as an effective disincentive for policy change in a particular direction, then we would just have an escalation of false-flag terrorism sponsored by anyone who wants to avoid particular policy changes (whatever the merits) as they adopted the now-proven strategy.

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Snowden granted 1-year asylum in Russia, leaves airport by voodoo123 on Thursday August 01, 2013 @12:31PM (#6141446)
No, because there would be no proof that the false flag terrorism was having an effect, unlike the case where terrorism led to an obvious change in policy, as was the case in Ireland).

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Snowden granted 1-year asylum in Russia, leaves airport by dragonwriter on Thursday August 01, 2013 @12:40PM (#6141528)
> No, because there would be no proof that the false flag terrorism was having an effect

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".

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Snowden granted 1-year asylum in Russia, leaves airport by voodoo123 on Thursday August 01, 2013 @01:24PM (#6141892)
I never said anything about voting or not based on terrorist actions.

mikeash said it was ok not to defend so hard against terrorism because the outcome was good. I was refuting that.

[ Parent | on HN ]