Live data from Hacker News

Paris: You Don’t Want to Read This

ronpaulinstitute.org

31–40 of 69 posts

Re: Paris: You Don’t Want to Read This

#31
post #3

"Stop disenfranchising the Muslims who live with us." or they will kill us? While a big believer in developing infrastructure, education, etc. I think we also have to address the zealots in every "disenfranchised" group that might start killing us. Not sure how to do that.

> or they will kill us

(I don't think you mean it this way, but I'm going to appropriate your comment to make a point:)

They? Us? Who is "us"? Hacker News readers? Americans? Do any believe in Islam?

The foundation of hatred is the concepts 'they' and 'us'. Once the discussion is framed that way, the haters are empowered. That's how ISIS' worldview. Let's remember that 'us' is the vast majority who want peace, freedom, and justice, of every religion. 'They' are the perpetrators of hate and violence, everywhere. A fundemental tactic of hate groups like ISIS is to drive a wedge in our group, to alienate our Muslim brothers and sisters.

Re: Paris: You Don’t Want to Read This

#32
post #10

> Leave the Middle East alone Not sure if the many 'normal' people who live there would agree. In the end they have to endure their, in most cases, bad governments. I bet the Saudia Arabian blogger who got punished so cruelly with stoneage methods and/or the women who are not even allowed to drive a car, don't want to be left alone. The world has become smaller and maybe it is time to enforce 'universal minimal ethic…

I do not understand how someone can write such nonsense.

Are you familiar with a country called Iraq? It is nearby to Syria, and was often in the news not too long ago, surely you must of heard of this place?

You want the UN to administer ethics, the organization that thinks Saudi Arabia should be in charge of human rights?[0]

But perphaps that's just the normal in an age when some western commenter still believes the developed world has any roll in lecturing others on ethics, should these lectures occur during or after the class on how to torture, or perhaps after the panel discussion of why Cuba is an excellent place to lock up foreigners indefinitely, foreigners we even admit aren't guilty of any crimes.

The extreme myopia on display in this thread is plenty of reason for why violence begets violence, its sad and laughable that commenters believes the western world played no role in the millions of deaths and refugees that have come about since 9-11.

What most commentators have wrong is that the violence in France wasn't an act of terrorism, but just another battle in the decade plus war that's been mostly happening in the Middle East, only this time the battle occurred on the streets of Paris instead of outside Kabul, or in Mosul, or in the outskirts of Damascus. Westerners seen to have forgotten that their politicians have been waging a war for them, and now their politicians want to engage in even more of the same. insanity.

[0]http://blog.unwatch.org/index.php/2015/09/20/saudi-arabia-wi...

Re: Paris: You Don’t Want to Read This

#33
post #6

Well I'm watching MSNBC right now and pretty much every commentator is talking about how the terrorists were communicating using encryption and suggesting the fact that criminals have the ability to communicate secretly is something new that needs to be curtailed. Haven't seen anyone suggest we should read everyones mail yet (maybe they do this in France?). It's pretty crazy the way the media is acting. Am I to reall…

Last spring, France passed a quite intrusive bill that pretty much legalized mass-interception of communications. The general public didn't really care much.

Re: Paris: You Don’t Want to Read This

#34

The only solution to end this is economics. Where people are not economically well off, these will happen, people are terrorists for a reason and it wasn't because their life was great. We left Iraq susceptible without a Marshall Plan like economic effort after the military effort like we did in Japan and Europe after WWII. We downgraded the quality of life and that is not the direction things need to go for peace. T…

On the contrary, surprisingly enough, it does not seem to be the case that poverty causes terrorism--either within a country (poorer people aren't more likely to become terrorists) or between countries (people from poorer countries aren't more likely to become terrorists).

https://www.nber.org/digest/sep02/w9074.html

http://www.economist.com/node/17730424

Re: Paris: You Don’t Want to Read This

#35

The author was right: I did not. I do not want to read another article by someone who thinks the Iraq war was about terrorism, and who seems to have potato levels of knowledge about international politics. > and now in Syria, before in Libya, and only created more failed states and ungoverned spaces that provide havens for terrorists and spilled terror like dropped paint across borders. Yeah, no, that isn't at all wh…

The Syrian civil war might still have happened if the US hadn't already destabilized Iraq. But Iraq directly led to ISIS, which is partly composed of Iraqi ex-Baathists and holds a large amount of ground in Iraq along traditional Sunni divisions; arguably ISIS would not be the organization it is today if its scope had been geographically and politically limited to Syria.

Re: Paris: You Don’t Want to Read This

#36
post #29

Western involvement in the middle east is an imperialist, colonialist action, at the behest of oil companies, military contractors and Zionists. The French have been bombing the Syrians for over a month - where were the mawkish "We are all Syrians" corporate media campaigns at that time? The French bombed the Syrians, so now the Syrians have bombed the French, the French got what was coming to them. When France was t…

This old imperialist stories get... old. I'd say the Syrians bombed the Syrians. And the situation is complicated and nobody knows how to help and/or what to do.

You're comparision between bombing terrorists in Syria and murdering civilists in French is.. (leaving out words what I really think)

Re: Paris: You Don’t Want to Read This

#37
post #11

The author was right: I did not. I do not want to read another article by someone who thinks the Iraq war was about terrorism, and who seems to have potato levels of knowledge about international politics. > and now in Syria, before in Libya, and only created more failed states and ungoverned spaces that provide havens for terrorists and spilled terror like dropped paint across borders. Yeah, no, that isn't at all wh…

Yeah, I also didn't really agree with this: > Whack-a-mole is a game, not a plan. Leave the Middle East alone. Stop creating more failed states. For some reason, I have difficulty thinking that just "leaving the Middle East alone" will somehow lead ISIS to disappear on its own and the Syrian government/Syrian rebels/Kurds/various fundamentalist islamist groups to magically arrive to some peaceful balance. Especially…

How do we know leaving the Mideast alone would not work? We've literally never tried it. Not since then end of World War II anyway.

Human civilization may not be a naturally "stable system" but Western intervention in the Mideast or anywhere has an extremely poor track record.

Re: Paris: You Don’t Want to Read This

#38
post #24

Regarding Iraq (since it comes up in some other comments) one could (I am playing devil's advocate here) make the argument that the Iraq war was a just war on false assumptions. What reasons do you need to remove a dictator? 0) He does not respect territorial integrity of neighbour states 1) He houses international wanted terrorists, makes it possible for them to hide 2) He commits crimes against humanity (unjust pri…

A fair question, but who are we to answer it? Isn't it up to the people of Iraq to decide? Would you want them deciding for your country that invasion, war, and mass death and destruction are worthwhile?

I understand that most Iraqis couldn't express themselves politically under Hussein, but we have no business making this evaluation for them now.

Most importantly, as many do, the question omits what is by far the most important factor, the costs to the people living in Iraqi. Think about it: How many Iraqis died? Were injured? Lost their homes, livelihoods, and dreams? [1] Do you know? I doubt even 1% of people in the invading countries can answer the question, and (IIRC) the U.S. military didn't keep track. Think about that: We invaded their country, cause mass death, and nobody gives a shit about dead Iraqis. When discussing the Iraq War, when is the last time you heard someone even bring it up?

Let's also remember the other costs: Their nation, its economy and its institutions are in ruins for a generation at least. Their own government doesn't even control large parts of the country, other foriegn powers such as Iran and U.S. decide much of what happens in your own country, many Iraqis now live under ISIL's brutal oppression, and you can't even field an effective military. If you were and 18 year old Iraqi in 2003 and planned to go to college, maybe to become a developer or doctor, where are your dreams now? If you survived, maybe you are now a 30 year old former militia member with a high school education, without skills or prospects in a sea of economic and political desolation. [2]

-------------

[1] Over 100,000 died, by the most conservative but serious estimates I've seen. I recently saw a politically conservative publication say it was 150,000.

[2] I don't know enough about Iraq to know what a typical life story would look like, and probably few went to college before the war. But whatever their dreams and plans, they certainly weren't this.

Re: Paris: You Don’t Want to Read This

#39

Yeah like it's a great idea to "leave alone" a culture that is so expansive, so evil at its root, calling each and every one of its member to go and kill for their god, prophet, twisted idea of a perfect world. Yeah, that's a terrific idea to leave them alone, yes.

Which "culture" are you referring to? ISIL?

Re: Paris: You Don’t Want to Read This

#40
post #24

Regarding Iraq (since it comes up in some other comments) one could (I am playing devil's advocate here) make the argument that the Iraq war was a just war on false assumptions. What reasons do you need to remove a dictator? 0) He does not respect territorial integrity of neighbour states 1) He houses international wanted terrorists, makes it possible for them to hide 2) He commits crimes against humanity (unjust pri…

Saddam was a terrible dictator, but what the US created was much, much worse.

We can learn something from Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. Toppling a dictator doesn't automatically create a new, civilized society. Even promising uprisings like the Libyan uprising of 2011 don't guarantee a good outcome.

In Iraq, the US created a huge power vacuum by decapitating the state — removing not just Saddam, but the entire civil and military leadership, through Paul Bremer's completely misguided process of "de-Baathification". There was no power structure left to ensure the continuity of Iraqi society. Even clerk-level Baathists were dismissed, people in charged of everything from health care to utilities. It's like nobody on the US side had studied any history whatsoever.

Post reply on HN