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

611–620 of 672 posts

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

#611

Post by kevindeasis »

From reddit

ChickenInASuit8h535: ISIS aren't really trying to "solve" anything in the countries they're attacking, the main motivation behind these attacks is to widen the rift between Islam and the West and bring more moderate Muslims over to their side

alpual7h345: And I'm sure backlash and discrimination resulting from this attack will further alienate Muslims in France. I'm sure that's part of their intention, and I wonder why I don't see that being discussed much. Thanks for pointing that out.

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

#612

Post by cm2187 »

hokkos wrote: post #604
cm2187 wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The French TV mentions that the terrorists were speaking French. And based on previous attacks it is more likely to be home grown terrorists. Syria is probably just a pretext, like a lot of European leftists in the 70s were using the Palestinian situation to justify their terrorist attacks.

This is probably french terrorists, but they probably did this because they couldn't go in Syria or were ordered to do it in France from Syria. There is hundreds of young french men and few women who went there. There is every week in France a group of muslim terrorists that are arrested because they were ordered or prepared a strike. One time a group a 10 terrorists was arrested.

The problem is that there is a very significant portion of the French immigration who absolutely hate France and that ISIS can recruit so easily in this population. In many suburbs of Paris, people were cheering during 9/11. And earlier this year you didn't see any immigrant in the Charlie support demonstrations. The French press is trying to spin this as a foreign attack from the middle-east but I think that the real problem is inside France.

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

#613

Post by eivarv »

0mbre wrote: post #563
threeseed wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not irrational at all. If your goal is to terrify a nation in order to pressure it to change its foreign policy then it is quite rational. And there are quite a few examples of this approach actually working.

Well obvioysly to someone irrational every of his action seem rational. The point is that for a phycologicaly healthy and balanced human being these actions can not be called rational by any stretch of logic

I think you'll find that psychological health has little to do with what people can convince themselves of, or convince themselves to do - i.e. you can't explain away Daesh (or WWII nazis, etc.) with mental illness.

Their actions could absolutely be called rational and logical if you were to accept their premise - which is what I'd argue is irrational.

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

#614

Post by jules »

Chathamization wrote: post #607
jules wrote: post #580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then why is it the case that virtually all these terrorist attacks come from 1 religion, which coincidentally happens to be the religion whose scripture makes this kind of behaviour rational when interpreted literally?

Because people with certain biases who want to ignore evidence and blame this all on Islam to define "these terrorist attacks" in a way that excludes many similar attacks? We've been averaging about one mass shooting a day in the U.S. There are so many that I'd forgotten about some major recent ones, like the Umpqua Community College Shooting just a month ago. These usually get planned well in advance by some very si…

There is a difference between a lone mass shooting and a terrorist attack coordinated by a government. It goes without saying that this is not the fault of Muslims in general. It's the fault of some Muslims, in this case IS.

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

#615

Post by arcadeparade »

facetube wrote: post #197
arcadeparade wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They also carry their religion, genes and culture. And with that comes a clash of civilisations. With open gates: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cb0_1447249820

Are you suggesting that migrants are somehow genetically inferior? Because that'd be, frankly, an insane point of view to have.

Inferior is subjective. Different groups have different traits. Not an insane point of view, but definitely one that is politically incorrect, for now: https://jaymans.wordpress.com/hbd-fundamentals/ Of course we are all human beings equally deserving of compassion, no matter what our differences, but the equality myth that we are all born the same and all have the same chances of having equal outcomes in life, is a very dangerous one that is destroying the social pacts modern Europe was built on.

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

#616

Post by cLeEOGPw »

kevindeasis wrote: post #611

From reddit ChickenInASuit8h535: ISIS aren't really trying to "solve" anything in the countries they're attacking, the main motivation behind these attacks is to widen the rift between Islam and the West and bring more moderate Muslims over to their side alpual7h345: And I'm sure backlash and discrimination resulting from this attack will further alienate Muslims in France. I'm sure that's part of their intention, an…

This is a losing game for us. If we don't make ANY backlash, then the terrorists will be encouraged to repeat attacks, as they see there are no consequences for their actions. Additionally, French will be more afraid of Muslims and will surrender whatever they have to them even more willingly, as they would feel helpless. On the other hand if we make backlash, more muslims will radicalize, again, increasing terrorism frequency. The only solution I see is finally admit that multiculturalism is a lost cause when only one culture actually trying for it to work (us), and expel all muslims that don't fit our culture, PLUS invest heavy money into converting current muslims to be more like us. Ban certain practices, etc.

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

#617

Post by toyg »

jules wrote: post #576
toyg wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know very well what you mention, but you're not reading what I wrote: "either in material or spiritual terms". Well-educated people are the first to know that society is full of lies and deceit, and without some spiritual rooting (be it familial love or something else), they are at high risk of being depressed but functional individuals. Alienation is a very powerful force. We used to say that only the rich can wor…

I'm not sure what your stance is in that case. I certainly agree with you that these people are spiritually maladjusted. They way I see it there are two competing theories. One is that terrorism is mainly the result of economic and political grievances against the west and already present psychological disorders. The other is that in addition to economic and political grievances, religion and theological grievances p…

The two are nonexclusive. If you are a disaffected/disenfranchised third-generation Algerian immigrant, you have a predisposition to pick a fight with the old colonial power, and you just need an excuse. Same if you come from Syria or Egypt and are well-educated; you have no idea of the amount of propaganda and West-blaming people in these countries grew up with for generations, because of things like the never-ending problem with Israel/Palestine, the Iranian coup against Mossadiq, the Iran/Iraq war and all the other conflicts "we" had an active role in. In the '70s, a lot of violent action was justified with marxism or fascism; today they can be justified with wahabism. If a particular religion was so magic, we would have had "islamic" suicide bombers for 5 centuries, and we just hadn't. You can't make chocolate cake with just chocolate.

> Of all western countries, we would not expect these attacks to be against France so many times.

And why not? They have been among the most brutal colonial powers, with shocking behaviour in Northern Africa and ongoing active military engagement across Africa -- in large part because of their ideological bent on absolutist superiority of the French republican model. They actively worked to blow up Lybia and actively support anti-islamic forces there. And of course they have now joined the anti-IS bombing campaign, because they hate to be left behind when there is to engage around the Mediterranean Sea. All the while, they have huge swaths of disenfranchised 2nd and 3rd generation-immigrant youth in their midst that they simply don't know what to do with. They are the easiest target after the UK, but unlike Britain they are not an island, their borders are very porous, and their security services are clearly less effective than the Five Eyes axis. On top of that, this: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/14/france-active-p...

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

#618

Post by Chathamization »

jules wrote: post #614
Chathamization wrote: post #607

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because people with certain biases who want to ignore evidence and blame this all on Islam to define "these terrorist attacks" in a way that excludes many similar attacks? We've been averaging about one mass shooting a day in the U.S. There are so many that I'd forgotten about some major recent ones, like the Umpqua Community College Shooting just a month ago. These usually get planned well in advance by some very si…

There is a difference between a lone mass shooting and a terrorist attack coordinated by a government. It goes without saying that this is not the fault of Muslims in general. It's the fault of some Muslims, in this case IS.

I suppose, in the same way that Dylan Roof is the fault of some Conservatives, or some Southerners, or some Americans, etc. Yes, the existence of terrorist organizations that make use of these lost angry men means that in a minority of these cases a group can tell them to attack on the same day rather than weeks apart, and means they can stamp an ideology on them, like I said. So yes, there is a difference, just as there is a difference between the shooting that are done by a couple of friends (like Columbine) and the ones done by a lone wolf (VTech).

Still, people don't find it inappropriate to bring up Columbine when they talk about VTech or Aurora. When people try very hard to exclude all the other mass attacks and single out only the ones connected to Islam in situations like this speaks more to their personal biases than anything else.

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

#619

Post by coldtea »

jamhan wrote: post #357
coldtea wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, be we could name the famous exponents of non-communist states too, and amass a huge blood toll that rivals and surpasses these people. Heck, there were 2 world wars in which communists countries were only involved in the second, and only on the allies side. How many people were killed there, including civilians? And let's not get started in the 18th-19th century history, before marxism was even invented... War,…

Your comment is irrelevant to the point being discussed, which was specifically about communism. It's akin to saying, "We excuse X for doing something bad because Y (something to which we are ideologically opposed) did the same bad thing". In other words, it's the "side", not the "principle" you are arguing. If you take that position you can be an apologist for practically anything that happens.

>Your comment is irrelevant to the point being discussed, which was specifically about communism.

Only under the naive assumption that we assess things in isolation and not comparatively and in historical perspective.

>It's akin to saying, "We excuse X for doing something bad because Y (something to which we are ideologically opposed) did the same bad thing".

No, it's more akin to saying "You singled out X as the cause of something bad when it's also an attribute of Y".

E.g. something like: "- Python is slow because it's a GC language". "- Nope, Java and Swift also have GC and are very fast".

Also note that I never said anything about "excusing" -- I actually condemn both.

>In other words, it's the "side", not the "principle" you are arguing. If you take that position you can be an apologist for practically anything that happens.

What you can actually be is pragmatic, someone who assesses things in historical and relative perspective, instead of taking sides and singling out.

It's amazing how someone that begins by saying that "this discussion is only about X, anything else is irrelevant", accuses someone adding the stats for Y for comparison as "taking sides".

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

#620

Post by coldtea »

andreasvc wrote: post #341
coldtea wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As soon as people start believing in utopias there's a danger that they will cross a line. More people have been killed in pragmatic endeavours, like colonialism, and land grab/turf wars, than from "utopias". This includes smaller scale utopias -- far less innocent people have been killed by ...hippies than by policemen.

You're not contradicting anything I said, I wouldn't claim utopias are the only reason for people to become violent. I do believe that true believers such as with religions or utopias are particularly dangerous. Did you reply this way because you approve of communism?

>You're not contradicting anything I said, I wouldn't claim utopias are the only reason for people to become violent.

Well, why single them out then if both sides can be dangerous?

If you think they are the "more dangerous", then I think the previous 2 milenia of bloodshed for pragmatic land/power grabbing, including WW I, refute that.

Besides, even so-called utopians are quite pragmatic in their actions. When Mao executed tons of people, it wasn't some "utopianism" guiding him, but a very pragmatic power grab to stay in power and get rid of possible contenders.

(You might say that this was only possible because his subordinates were deluded by some utopian zeal. But lots of other cases, from the Belgian colonies and Pinochet to Indonesian "death squads", prove that you don't need that to have mass killings, just unquestioned power and the upper hand).

>Did you reply this way because you approve of communism?

No, I replied this way because I approve of utopias. The US was one too at some point -- for persecuted from Europe religious nuts.

Also because I like being objective, which needs taking all sides into account. Of any binary (utopia/pragmatism e.g.) I'd never say "the first is dangerous" if the second has been historically proved just as dangerous.

Post reply on HN