This careful response seems sensible at first blush. After all, maybe in 5 years things will be better for Venezuelans! On the other hand, maybe not. In my heart of hearts I believe the odds are not great, but in lieu of a time machine, I think we can do no better than call it 50:50 odds.
In the meantime, though, this action is already having effects beyond the US and Venezuela. Withholding judgement until this conflict has fully played out carries with it an implicitly permission for similar actions in other places and situations. After all, maybe those will be for the better too!
That's why I oppose this action. Not in support the Maduro regime, which in my view has little to nothing that's worth defending, but because of the precedent that it sets for future events. This is hardly the first time a nation has had its sovereignty violated by a stronger power, and I'm not so naive to believe that it will be the last if only enough people spoke out. But at the same time, I strongly believe that accepting it as something that's inevitable (or even good) will only make it happen more often.
Journalists have a long and storied history of standing up for free and independent journalism, and they're right to!. However, they have a rather more spotty record (with highs and lows) of standing up for other fundamental requirements for a well-functioning liberal democracy.
So one possible (admittedly uncharitable) take is that they were OK with all those other things because those things didn't hurt them, and might've helped them. They're not OK with this change not because it makes things worse, but because it makes things worse /for them/.
It is worth pointing out that einpoklum's point is not merely academic: Stallman is old enough that he really did get introduced to computers and programming and software through corporate and university mainframes, and not through personal machines like (I assume) most of us.
The decline of the early open hacker culture in favour of corporate proprietary software during the 70s deeply informed the idea behind Free Software.
> This presumes that playing into their hands would actually bring forth enough support to rebuff the reaction. If forces overwhelmingly squash the terrorist organization, then it doesn't matter if it plays into said organization's hands.
That is true as far as it goes, but the fundamental problem is not IS, nor Al-Qaeda, nor any single terrorist group out there, nor even all terrorist groups taken together. It's the extremist ideology that appeals to young, angry men across the Muslim world. Taking out Al-Qaeda in 2001 didn't have any effect in the long term. Going to war with Iraq in 2003 actively made the problem worse. Killing bin Laden in 2011 didn't really do anything one way or the other. If the West goes in now, and (figuratively) nukes Syria, then why would we think that will solve the problem, when it never has before?
If you want to win this like you win a war, by killing your way to victory, then you have to kill not just everyone who's currently carrying a gun, but everyone who may pick up a gun as a reaction to that killing, and everyone who may pick one up as a reaction to killing them, and so forth. That kind of total war is immoral, in my view.
Our approach to defusing this threat should not be focused on killing individuals, but on removing the motivations they have for fighting us in the first place, without judging whether, in our view, they are valid or not. The fact that they have them, right or wrong, is all that matters. I don't know what will achieve that, but after responding to over 30 years of Islamic violence with force and force alone, and failing to really have much impact, we should recognize that a change in strategy is required.
Or, conversely: with one "dev password" for all machines.