221–230 of 239 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps you talk about the 2000 french terrorists in Syria killing thousand of Syrians ?
I don't think they can be called terrorists, if they fight against the armed forces of ISIS. They don't knowingly attack civilians (surreptitiously).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We don't have to change. The delusional stone age brutal inhuman apes pushing around nonsense have to. The world needs to unite against them, not respect their bullshit religion and ideology. That it is itself a brutal stone age tribal point of view, you have become what you claim to despise.
That is too funny for laughs in the context of this tragedy. You are actually defending a group of people who would be happy to detonate a nuclear weapon in your city if they could, today.
> We are not the problem. They are.
Exactly the same position they claim, and the same position every group who wants to wipe out another groups claims.
No one who derives their morality from a old book has any claim on reason and Muslims aren't any more right or wrong than every other religion out there; they're all equally insane with varying levels of violence.
The problem isn't terrorists, it isn't Islam, it isn't Muslims; the problem, as it always has been, is religion and tribalism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, please. Airports have turned to shit because of the groups you quoted. Right? And the beheadings, that's those crazy Buddhists right? No, it's the NRA guys with their ridiculous guns. Yeah, it's them. Dammit. Please. Let's get real. We know the elephant in the room. It's not "Mother Theresa Gone Wild". You and everyone else fully understand the problem. Let's stop pretending it's something else.
Airports turned to shit because of a particular group of people - namely, politicians of the United States of America. This is an example of totally uncalled for overreaction that by itself probably did more economic damage than all the terrorist attacks in the US combined.
I am not challenging you. I simply want to know what you are thinking because it sounds like you may have thought this through to some depth. You obviously think politicians made the wrong decision (which isn't hard to believe) and might have a better solution than the crap we've had to deal with since 9/11.
What alternatives did these politicians have and ignored? What else could they have done?
I don't think anyone, including myself, likes what air travel has become. Yet, I am not sure I could have come up with a better solution. If terrorism disappeared for ten years perhaps we could go back to the kind of hassle free experience air travel used to be.
What's your idea?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is too funny for laughs in the context of this tragedy. You are actually defending a group of people who would be happy to detonate a nuclear weapon in your city if they could, today.
No, I'm saying you're just like them. You'd be happy to do the same to them, you're as tribal and brutal as they are. > We are not the problem. They are. Exactly the same position they claim, and the same position every group who wants to wipe out another groups claims. No one who derives their morality from a old book has any claim on reason and Muslims aren't any more right or wrong than every other religion out th…
I have no clue where you read that I want to "wipe them out".
That's interesting. If you read my other comments you'll see I have zero interest in wiping them out. For some reason people like to read "kill them all" when someone says we need to deal with them once and for all.
I don't want to kill them, I want to never have them be a part of our world by means of segregation. Total segregation. They obviously hate the western way of life. OK, well, wish granted!
In other words, give them a place to live where they can live by whatever rules they care to live by and be as crazy as they want to be. They --the crazy's-- don't get to live in Paris, New York, Munich or Tokyo. The get to live in their own little part of the world and we sever all contact with them --in or out-- for 200 years. They don't get to benefit from anything the western world and cultures they so despise has to offer and we don't buy anything from them, including their oil. Closed borders, have a great time with your crazy ideology, live long and prosper. Done.
I don't want to kill them. We don't need to. I want to give them exactly what they want: A place and the isolation to live by their rules. We just need them to not be a part of our society in any way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is too funny for laughs in the context of this tragedy. You are actually defending a group of people who would be happy to detonate a nuclear weapon in your city if they could, today.
'gnaritas not defending them but points out that the way you expressed your opinion suggests you have the same hatred in you that makes terrorist radicals a problem. If we accept this attitude, it'll mean that we have already destroyed ourselves and terrorists have won.
Can you please give me an example? Hatred? I think some of you are reading whatever it is you want to read into a comment rather than what is being said. I never said I want to kill them. Anywhere. I actually want to leave them alone, literally. I fail to see any hatred in that at all. I think you guys have completely distorted what I've written and replaced it with a twisted interpretation. Please read it again. And this:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10568450
These ideologies don't belong in the western world. They hate us. So give them exactly what they want: Let them live by their rules within their own kingdom and without any western contact or influence.
What this means is: No planes, trains or automobiles from the west. No medicine from the west. No iphones or computers from the west. They think women should not be educated, so they don't get to benefit from anything from the west where women with even a high school education might have been involved in any capacity. And we don't buy anything from them, including oil. They get their own chunk of land with a beautiful wall around it (let's get Trump on that) and we sever all contact and trade with them for 200 years. They can have a fucking riot of a time with their crazy ideology and they cease to be a part of the western world. It will be like we don't exists to them and they don't exist to us.
I don't want to kill them. I want to give them total freedom to live as they wish to live and have them enjoy total isolation from the cultures they so highly despise.
What is your solution?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have an alternative? All I see is naïve suggestions. As I see it we have several options: 1. We accept the fact that we will have more terror attacks in major European cities as a given. We such it up and we continue to live in a free and liberal society. 2. We accept total surveillance of our society. As the technology becomes more honed, terror attacks might be easier to prevent before they start. 3. We acce…
Maybe we don't expect that we can fuck with other people without getting fucked with ourselves?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, I'm saying you're just like them. You'd be happy to do the same to them, you're as tribal and brutal as they are. > We are not the problem. They are. Exactly the same position they claim, and the same position every group who wants to wipe out another groups claims. No one who derives their morality from a old book has any claim on reason and Muslims aren't any more right or wrong than every other religion out th…
> the same position every group who wants to wipe out another groups claims. I have no clue where you read that I want to "wipe them out". That's interesting. If you read my other comments you'll see I have zero interest in wiping them out. For some reason people like to read "kill them all" when someone says we need to deal with them once and for all. I don't want to kill them, I want to never have them be a part of…
Yes, because that's what "once and for all" means. If you didn't intend that, then my bad, but it's the common interpretation of the phrase.
> I don't want to kill them, I want to never have them be a part of our world by means of segregation. Total segregation.
That's simply not realistic at all.
> In other words, give them a place to live where they can live by whatever rules they care to live by and be as crazy as they want to be.
They already have that in the middle east, we just keep going in and killing them because we're warmongers and we think our economic interests are more important than their lives.
> They --the crazy's-- don't get to live in Paris, New York, Munich or Tokyo.
That's also not realistic, who gets to define "they", you're just pulling some McCarthyism all over again.
Your proposed solution quite simply just isn't realistic, we live in a global society now, the economy of all nations is linked, we need to find ways to get along, not find ways to isolate which will only lead to more wars, more terrorism, and more death.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I would be interested to see what you would think of this, your statement, if you were holding the dismembered body of your father, mother, sib,ing or loved one in your arms. Dead. I pray that I would have enough presence of mind to not be overcome by grief and be able to utter the same statement as I did now. People who are now holding their dead are a fraction of a fraction of percent in Europe. I feel for them,…
> People who are now holding their dead are a fraction of a fraction of percent in Europe See, that, right there, is the problem. As well as the obvious way in which other commenters seem to have interpreted my post through their obviously distorted lens. On the first point, these people are not numbers. They are human beings. They are someone's father, mother, child or sibling. That's where cold statistics fail us.…
Right off the bat you lead with a red herring appeal to emotion, you've already left the realm of reasoned debate by starting off a logical fallacy. This is the premise of your argument, it is fallacious, you cannot build a rational argument on a fallacious premise.
> That's where cold statistics fail us. Nobody should tolerate the idea of people being killed by the hundreds every so often in a theater or futbol field and argue that they are "a fraction of a fraction of percent". Sorry, that's just sick.
It's not sick, it's realistic and rational; statistics aren't failing us, they're showing you the truth that your emotions are blinding you to, that this simply isn't a big problem compared to all the other ways people die in far greater numbers. More people die in mass from plane crashes. Here's the CDC's top 10 leading causes of death in the US.
Heart disease: 611,105
Cancer: 584,881
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 149,205
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 130,557
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,978
Alzheimer's disease: 84,767
Diabetes: 75,578
Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,979
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 47,112
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 41,149
> The problem with this logic is that automobile accidents are a matter of statistics and probability. There is no intent behind it.
That's not a problem with the logic, it's a problem with your emotions caring about intent so much that you ignore how few people are affected. Your reaction is emotional and wildly out of proportion with the size of the problem. Terrorism only changes the world because of the inappropriate reactions of emotionally driven people who happily give up freedoms to power hungry people totally willing to have more control over the populace. The problem isn't terrorism, the problem is your reaction to it, which is the goal of terrorism. By being so emotional, you are quite literally letting the terrorist win as this is their goal. If you want to beat terrorism, stop being terrorized, suppress your emotions, and use reason instead; that's how you beat terrorism.
Terrorism is simply crime, you cannot eradicate crime and your attempts to do so make the world worse for those who currently enjoy freedom. It is the actions of those like you, in your attempts to "protect" people, that makes terrorism worse. As long as there are people, there will be terrorism, accept it, stop overreacting to it, and you'll see it's not the big problem your emotions make it out to be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a person part of this society you speak of, I disagree. Every life is sacred, and even as a full-on anarcho-capitalist I will agree that a ridiculous police-state is justified to defend the individuals within our society. I say that because that is the path we have chosen, by virtue of having a state. Otherwise, we're essentially rehashing the old "the good of the many outweighs the needs of the few".
> Otherwise, we're essentially rehashing the old "the good of the many outweighs the needs of the few". As we should be, because it's the only reasonable and self-consistent moral philosophy you can have! Of course, in real life you need to plug in some numbers and do some math - it's not a binary problem. If you really believe every life is sacred and "a ridiculous police-state is justified to defend the individuals…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the same position every group who wants to wipe out another groups claims. I have no clue where you read that I want to "wipe them out". That's interesting. If you read my other comments you'll see I have zero interest in wiping them out. For some reason people like to read "kill them all" when someone says we need to deal with them once and for all. I don't want to kill them, I want to never have them be a part of…
> For some reason people like to read "kill them all" when someone says we need to deal with them once and for all. Yes, because that's what "once and for all" means. If you didn't intend that, then my bad, but it's the common interpretation of the phrase. > I don't want to kill them, I want to never have them be a part of our world by means of segregation. Total segregation. That's simply not realistic at all. > In…
No it isn't. Maybe to you it is. In what universe does "once and for all" mean "kill them all"?
> That's simply not realistic at all.
It is if the world unites against them. It's actually really simple. The problem is we don't have any leaders who would have the intestinal fortitude to make this happen.
Stop buying anything from them. Stop all flights to and from their country or countries. Unplug the internet routers. Unplug any phone lines in and out, don't allowed packetized communications back and forth, or both. Do not allow financial transactions with the rest of the world, etc.
Easy, no. Does it requires balls. Yup. Does it require absolute unity from the major countries in the world, including Russia and China? Without a doubt. Possible. Yes. Probable? Nearly zero. But it isn't impossible.
Pressure needs to be applied in a major way so that they (their civilization) will wake up and realize they have far, far more to lose than we do. Either they clean-up their act or they get exactly what they've been asking for. They get to live by their twisted rules and ideology without any western intervention or the need interact with us in any way, a people and ideology they hate so much.
We don't need them. And they don't want to accept peaceful coexistence with us. So, why do we have such a hard-on to have a relationship with them? Let. Them. Be. Maybe in 200 years they'll develop a civilization.