Paris Shootings and Explosions Kill Over 100, Police Say

I think you'll agree that giving a charitable reading to what a person says is the best way to have a clear discussion. While that first sentence, taken by itself and without context, could possibly be interpreted as a bigoted or racist statement, in the context of the whole post I took it to mean "Islam has a reputation for violence, but this reputation exists in part because adherents of Islam in the West support violence more than the rest of the population". I don't think I am going particularly out of my way or being overly charitable in reading it this way. Moreover the grammar "X spoils the reputation of X" is not harsh language, nor is it a tautology - it can be proven wrong. Therefore, I don't think this was an inappropriate comment. How am I wrong? If you bother to answer, please be specific.

That said, I don't fully agree with the statement, actually, as I already mentioned. If you look at support for violence and religious law, etc., in places like the US and Germany, it looks like Muslims do not support that stuff any more than the general population, or they support it less. But looking at the data for France OP might have a point. But, I don't know if he meant only France, or Islam in general, or what, because he never clarified. Maybe he didn't clarify because he stopped reading, or because he doesn't care, or because he realizes he's wrong. Maybe after elaboration he would have outed himself as being a simple Islamaphobe who cherry-picks facts to justify his bigotry. We'll never know that now. But, he also may have stopped posting because you inappropriately called him out in this thread before giving what he said due consideration.

Emotions were probably running high at the time as it was shortly after the attacks and so what you did, in that case, is actually quite understandable. Even if I think you were wrong here, I don't hold this one against you at all. But as the moderator of HN I have seen you time and again shutting down discussion because you perceived something that wasn't there. You are making HN into more of a boring echo chamber and that's sad.

ISIS formed in the power vacuum created by the United States toppling Saddam Hussein. [0,1] So yes, the country that had its leader and military demolished was unable to combat the rise of ISIS, you're right. But pinning the failure on them is to ignore the reasons they failed to do so.

>The Middle East has been facing endemic war between Islamic sects basically for the entire history of Islam itself. The "holy wars" (call it barbarism or medievalism) being carried out in the name of Islam (by so-called "Islamic terrorists") is evidence enough that this is not actually problem of foreign policy, but a deep seated and historically pervasive domestic problem.

To collapse the rise of ISIS into the same civil wars that have been raging for the past millennia and a half is the same willful ignorance of the complex cultural history that you deride in your first paragraph. The roots of ISIS are in Wahhabism, a faction that existed mainly in Saudi Arabia. It wasn't until Roosevelt met with King Ibn Saud in 1945 (following the discovery of oil there in 1938) that this nation had any serious ambition at exporting their brand of Islam further in the middle east. Then, with the Oil Crisis of 1973, Saudi Arabia proved its political power and was able to leverage it against the United States. When it came time to expel the Soviets from Afghanistan, the United States armed the Mujahadin, a proudly Wahhabist faction.

The US being the reason that ISIS has flourished is not an opinion, it's the conclusion made over and over by analysis of historical facts.

[0]http://www.cfr.org/iraq/islamic-state/p14811 "The group that calls itself the Islamic State can trace its lineage to the aftermath of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, in 2003. The Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi aligned his Jama’at al-Tawhidw’al-Jihad with al-Qaeda, making it al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI)."

http://www.thenation.com/article/what-i-discovered-from-inte... [1]"More pertinent than Islamic theology is that there are other, much more convincing, explanations as to why they’ve fought for the side they did. At the end of the interview with the first prisoner we ask, “Do you have any questions for us?” For the first time since he came into the room he smiles—in surprise—and finally tells us what really motivated him, without any prompting. He knows there is an American in the room, and can perhaps guess, from his demeanor and his questions, that this American is ex-military, and directs his “question,” in the form of an enraged statement, straight at him. “The Americans came,” he said. “They took away Saddam, but they also took away our security. I didn’t like Saddam, we were starving then, but at least we didn’t have war. When you came here, the civil war started.”

ISIS is the first group since Al Qaeda to offer these young men a way to defend their dignity, family, and tribe."

> there's no serious argument here

That's a pretty ridiculous opinion to have considering the voting in this thread. Even if you're right, I'm clearly far from alone in thinking that what you've done here is wrong. So, in fact, there is an argument to be had here, and trying to preempt discussion like that just shows a false and unjustified confidence in your assertion. A little humility goes a long way, you know?