Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Paris Shootings and Explosions Kill Over 100, Police Say

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

541–550 of 672 posts

Re: Paris Shootings and Explosions Kill Over 100, Police Say

#541

Post by gozo »

001sky wrote: post #508
gozo wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the murder of Litvinenko is considered state terrorism by those who can afford to say so. Its not considered random at all. They very publicly killed someone who was an outspoken opponent of theirs. KGB has a long history of both state terrorism and state-sponsored terrorism. > THE senior British official was unequivocal. The murder of the former KGB man Alexander Litvinenko was "undeniably state-sponsored terro…

I do appreciate your point and the quote shows its not just yourself arguing the other side of the case. But every act of violence or intimidation is not "an act of terrorism". For god's sake what would you call the USA police vs Black Unarmed people? I mean if that is not worse and more akin instilling intimidation into people I don't know what is.

The problem with declaring the police as terrorist is that they also have legitimate use and the aren't necessarily directly politically motivated. That said, I could see how someone could claim that the crackdown of the civil rights movement in the US in the 60s could be considered a form of state terrorism. A more obvious example would be something like South Africa under apartheid.

This is of course a slightly academic use of the word. Many people have a hard time seeing even traditional domestic terrorism (like the unabomber) as terrorism.

Re: Paris Shootings and Explosions Kill Over 100, Police Say

#542

Post by threeseed »

rdudek wrote: post #445
spdustin wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last I heard, they were doing this to avenge their countrymen. In fact, we don't really know all the whos and the whys , we just know the whats . And what happened was a horrible thing that needs to be investigated, pored over, and responded to in a measured, rational way that doesn't become a nationstate-enabled revenge plot.

When you avenge your countrymen, you avenge by killing the people at fault... not innocent folks enjoying a concert.

To be fair the US et al has killed many innocent civilians in the Middle East.

It's not intentional but I doubt ISIS sympathisers see the distinction.

Re: Paris Shootings and Explosions Kill Over 100, Police Say

#543

Post by Abraln »

jacquesm wrote: post #204
n0us wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The data on terrorist attacks does not support this conclusion. Terrorism is rarely effective in its political goals and studies have concluded that it is not a rational or cost effective strategy.

That depends on what the goal is. My personal belief is that terrorist acts like these are a recruiting tool and a way to split society further enhancing opportunities to recruit and as such they can be effective if the counterparty reacts as they are supposed to do.

Agreed, reputation is critical for a terrorist organization, just like how gang members brag about how "hardcore" they are because the shot someone.

Re: Paris Shootings and Explosions Kill Over 100, Police Say

#544

Post by akshatpradhan »

threeseed wrote: post #535
warsheep wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of "may" and "might" in your reply, and absolutely no facts. The facts are that on ISIS' agenda, fighting Palestinian groups such as Hamas has a higher priority than fighting Israel [1][2], yet people in this thread still manage to "lightly" blame the Israelis, the US, basically anyone except those responsible, as if these people are incapable of independent thought. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/world/…

> lightly" blame the Israelis, the US, basically anyone except those responsible. This argument is so stupid. Everyone is blaming the people responsible. That's a given. The reason people are blaming Israel and the US is because they are indirectly responsible since their actions are used as recruitment tools.

They clearly use scapegoats to push forward with their agenda. Didn't Al-Qaeda declare Jihad on India? That's a scapegoat. India has nothing to do with them, but they've declared Jihad. France has nothing to do with them, but they bombed her citizens.

Re: Paris Shootings and Explosions Kill Over 100, Police Say

#545

Post by mercurial »

scrollaway wrote: post #417
demallien wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not convinced that people linking immigrants and terrorism are particularly worried about the actual immigrants turning out to be terrorists in disguise. It's more a worry that they will just add to the ghettoisation of Islamic communities, which is precisely where this latest crop of French terrorists seem to have sprung from.

> I'm not convinced that people linking immigrants and terrorism are particularly worried about the actual immigrants turning out to be terrorists in disguise. You'd be really surprised. Your point is a valid one, but one I seldom see brought up - most people are just worried that for every 100 immigrants there's a couple of actual terrorists in the lot... Mostly because nobody's told them how stupid that notion is.

Well, it is possible that ISIS would try to infiltrate operators this way (in fact, they caught a convicted terrorist in Italy hiding as a refugee a few days ago).

Re: Paris Shootings and Explosions Kill Over 100, Police Say

#546

Post by tajen »

001sky wrote: post #330
RockyMcNuts wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think they closed their borders. They invoked the Schengen protocol for re-instituting border controls. Under Schengen driving from France to Italy or Germany is like driving from Texas to Louisiana. But there is a clause allowing re-instituting border controls under certain conditions, including a national security emergency. [edit: source France24; http://mashable.com/2015/11/13/france-border-airlines-fligh…

"Live updates: At least 100 dead, multiple sites attacked, France's borders closed" --LA Times Headline

This was corrected by the President's office, clarifying "closing the borders" as "restoring border controls". As a side note, during Shengen, border police still exists but is allowed to place controls wherever they want. It's not clear to my why controls at the borders is more efficient than intense, random in-land controls.

Re: Paris Shootings and Explosions Kill Over 100, Police Say

#547

Post by warsheep »

threeseed wrote: post #535
warsheep wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of "may" and "might" in your reply, and absolutely no facts. The facts are that on ISIS' agenda, fighting Palestinian groups such as Hamas has a higher priority than fighting Israel [1][2], yet people in this thread still manage to "lightly" blame the Israelis, the US, basically anyone except those responsible, as if these people are incapable of independent thought. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/world/…

> lightly" blame the Israelis, the US, basically anyone except those responsible. This argument is so stupid. Everyone is blaming the people responsible. That's a given. The reason people are blaming Israel and the US is because they are indirectly responsible since their actions are used as recruitment tools.

The US, France, and other European countries I can actually understand, since these countries performed military operations in Iraq and/or Syria, but I'll be very surprised if Israel is used as a recruiting tool. If you have some sources implying this I'm interested in reading them!

Re: Paris Shootings and Explosions Kill Over 100, Police Say

#548

Post by camelNotation »

iMark wrote: post #213
andrepd wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's precisely the point. Bar psychopaths, nearly everyone thinks they are doing the right thing, even as they do horrors. These people are so deeply indoctrinated that they think they are ultimately doing good in the eyes of god.

That's equating "do no harm" with "do the right thing". I don't believe the comparison stands.

It does stand, though. "Harm" is a vague concept.

Re: Paris Shootings and Explosions Kill Over 100, Police Say

#549

Post by mercurial »

clock_tower wrote: post #287
usaphp wrote: post #208

I don't understand how can you talk about ISIS, Nazis and Communists in the same sentence? Communism has nothing to do with violence compared to ISIS and Nazis... Edit: Why downvotes? Idea of communism does not propose violence, Nazis and ISIS on the other hand do.

I said that concessions will work no better with ISIS than they will with Nazis and Communists. Both the Nazis and the Communists were revolutionary movements convinced that the world was going their way. When they got concessions, they became emboldened; the only way to be left alone by them was to challenge and defeat them.

Concessions work with people who have "moderate" (asking for more rights or territorial independence) goals. People who are interested in a global caliphate may leave you in peace for a few years if you withdraw from the war (maybe), but they'll be back eventually.

Re: Paris Shootings and Explosions Kill Over 100, Police Say

#550

Post by ordinary »

pistle wrote: post #432
jacquesm wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should do neither and simply carry on with the plans they had to date. Any reaction beyond police action to find out what the chain of command is and then targeting those individuals specifically is playing into their hands.

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. This isn't a game won by winning a debate. When one side can be essentially removed from the field, that is an option, even if the side being removed wanted that line of strategy to u…

> 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.

Post reply on HN