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

VLC contributor living in Aleppo writing about the Paris attacks

mailman.videolan.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 737 posts

Re: VLC contributor living in Aleppo writing about the Paris attacks

#171

Post by Grue3 »

pluma wrote: post #139
Grue3 wrote: post #61

Isn't current Syrian government also guilty of perpetrating acts of genocide against its own populace? This person is quick to denounce the other side, but Assad's forces have killed thousands of civilians as well. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Syria

Better the devil you know. The reason we (i.e. "The West") left Saddam in place until the US needed an easy target after 9/11 is that despite being a dictator and mass-murderer, his reign kept Iraq relatively stable. As soon as he was taken out of the equation other forces began to fight for dominance and now we have a huge mess on our hands that's arguably worse than where we started. The same is true for most of th…

The Kurdish part of Iraq did pretty well once Saddam was deposed. The central government is weak, and wasn't able to fend off ISIS but at least their human rights record is much better than Saddam's. And like, if Saddam still ruled Iraq currently, would he be able to hold back ISIS? I'd say no. In fact, ISIS would get even more sympathisers because by this time everybody would be sick of Saddam's shit. Look at Libya. Khaddafi's "strong man" reputation didn't mean nothing when people started fighting back against his regime. Look at Syria. Assad is supposedly "strong" but this days, and historically he had very weak control of his country.

The idea that these people should be propped up because they are "lesser evil" has no experimental basis. Reminds me of WW2 "appeasement" honestly. It only makes the problem worse in the long run.

Re: VLC contributor living in Aleppo writing about the Paris attacks

#172

Post by jacquesm »

echaozh wrote: post #132
jacquesm wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People will believe whatever it is that they want to believe, religious texts can be twisted to support just about any position, or the opposite to that position.

I think the outermost comment made a great point that religion is basically a tool to manipulate people, to make them make irrational moves. After all, if you want people to move rationally, you make rational suggestions, otherwise even if people are doing the right thing, they're doing it due to irrational reasons. When people are made to do good things due to irrational reasons, they may be made to do bad things du…

I suspect that to those perpetrating all these activities their actions seem perfectly rational. It is to us that they appear irrational. To me they are crazy, to them I'm crazy. But once we start down that road it's just a small step to demonization and saying 'bomb them all' and that's really not a solution that has my vote. So rather than resorting to those methods and getting everybody (including Christianity) up to the standard required for scientific rigor in their thinking we're going to have to walk a different path. Religion is - for better or worse - most likely here to stay and any solution that includes abolishment of religion, no matter how welcome that would be to me personally if it happened - is probably going to achieve the opposite of its stated goal.

Re: VLC contributor living in Aleppo writing about the Paris attacks

#173

Post by jacquesm »

amake wrote: post #116
jacquesm wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People will believe whatever it is that they want to believe, religious texts can be twisted to support just about any position, or the opposite to that position.

> religious texts can be twisted to support just about any position ...which is exactly why I said we should reject irrational beliefs.

You can, I can, which is 'we'. But we can not force others to reject their irrational beliefs.

Re: VLC contributor living in Aleppo writing about the Paris attacks

#174

Post by tellarin »

utku_karatas2 wrote: post #141
omginternets wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I respectfully (and partially) disagree. The invasion of Iraq was stupid, reckless and selfish. It was a for-profit war that destabilized the region and allowed ISIS to take on its present form. I'll have you remember that France staunchly opposed this war. Now the US and the brits have left us with a veritable cesspool, and we're bearing the brunt of the consequences. This isn't a liberation attempt or a preemptive…

Hate to dwell on topics not suited on HN, but I'll just ask you one thing: how would the French troops on the Syrian ground even remotely help securing France? USA can pull off its invasive politics via a) pouring insane amount of resources both militarily and politically b) by getting along pretty good with other Muslims while bombing some (like Saudis, Turks, etc.) c) by being an ocean distance away from the very p…

In some sense, France already does this type of thing in Africa. Most recently in Mali.

Not sure in which way Syria would be significantly different.

Also, Russia is being pulled even more into Syria. So a truly international force may materialise at some point. Not that I'm advocating that's a good thing.

Re: VLC contributor living in Aleppo writing about the Paris attacks

#175

Post by jacquesm »

crusso wrote: post #151
jacquesm wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a significant number of adherents of Islam hold ideas that are incompatible with an open society. Significant numbers of non-Islam subscribers hold ideas that are incompatible with an open society too. All these people have at least one thing in common: they would like to change society to suit their ends. And a very large number of people in my country would happily throw back those fleeing the carnage to become v…

Significant numbers of non-Islam subscribers hold ideas that are incompatible with an open society too If that's your contention then you'd need to account for the high terrorist attack output of Islamists vs other non-Islam subscribers.

That's an open door, I don't need to kick it in. It simply revolves around how you define terrorist and that horse has been beaten to death by now, I really don't see any reason to revive it just to beat it to death again.

Re: VLC contributor living in Aleppo writing about the Paris attacks

#176

Post by Amezarak »

ivanhoe wrote: post #161
Amezarak wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, there is an unconfortable number of Christians who do have a fundamentalist mindset, too (although I didn't find any exact numbers). Even fundamentalist Christians don't have divine commandments to kill apostates. Nor do atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, or Jews (well, they do, but it hasn't been in force since the Exile.) This is a false equivalency.

Well, not anymore, but Holy Inquisition did exactly that for centuries. Protestants burned witches. Buddhist, Jews or Hindus all did the same at some point. So it's not about some religions being good while others are evil, it's about narrow minded people gaining enough power at some point so that they can go with their crazy ideas unpunished. It's not a coincidence that all this started to happen with the collapse o…

It's not about religions being good or evil. But different religions are different and expect their adherents to behave in certain ways.

Christians, ideally, are supposed to behave like Jesus. Buddhists, ideally, are supposed to behave like Buddha. Muslims, ideally, are supposed to behave like Mohammed.

These three individuals were very different.

Of course, adherents aren't ideal adherents. But you can still generally expect different behavior from each set of adherents. That's now calling one set evil and one set good (now that's some cultural imperialism!), that's recognizing reality. Muslims, historically, have taken very seriously that apostasy is a serious crime punishable by death. Christians and Buddhists, not so much; it's the rare exception and not an almost-rule.

Re: VLC contributor living in Aleppo writing about the Paris attacks

#177

Post by jacquesm »

venomsnake wrote: post #155
jacquesm wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a significant number of adherents of Islam hold ideas that are incompatible with an open society. Significant numbers of non-Islam subscribers hold ideas that are incompatible with an open society too. All these people have at least one thing in common: they would like to change society to suit their ends. And a very large number of people in my country would happily throw back those fleeing the carnage to become v…

I think you are mistaking two types of open society: Open inside (market place of ideas, secularity, people generally subscribing to the live and let live) and open outside - welcoming, letting people join or willing to help people that are not from that society. Wanting liberal, secular and socially oriented Europe inside and sealing the borders and isolating oneself from the human suffering outside is definitely la…

Sorry. My country has a pretty long history of being on the wrong side of historical arguments and was on the right side once or twice as well by 'virtue' of being invaded.

We've been refugees, have taken in refugees, have been a battle field and have waged war with neighbors and overseas creating battle fields elsewhere.

An isolationist strategy is given that history to me morally bankrupt and not an option, even if the position is coherent I find that for me personally that's not a road worth walking due to the inherent hypocrisy that would require.

Re: VLC contributor living in Aleppo writing about the Paris attacks

#178

Post by SolaceQuantum »

iamthepieman wrote: post #37

I work with a Muslim and I'm a Christian. Since we are both very conservative, I actually have more in common with him than with my secular coworkers and friends. Unfortunately we both work remotely and live several hundred miles from each other. I think we could be good friends if we lived closer. One thing I have learned talking with my Muslim coworker is that, just like in Christianity, there are many divisions an…

If you're open to discussion I'd like a word less on the tenants of Christianity but more on the experience. Many highly conservative Christians are portrayed as angry, blind, even openly judgemental and rude. E.g. I read an article on NYT discussing some conservative Christians talking about how all gays need to be put to death.

Do you feel judgemental or upset when people exist that are very wrong according to your morality?

What is it like to be so drawn to God? Why God and no one else? How do you feel about people that don't perceive God or don't experience religious experiences that would point to God existing?

Re: VLC contributor living in Aleppo writing about the Paris attacks

#179

Post by gonzo »

cygx wrote: post #64
iamthepieman wrote: post #37

I work with a Muslim and I'm a Christian. Since we are both very conservative, I actually have more in common with him than with my secular coworkers and friends. Unfortunately we both work remotely and live several hundred miles from each other. I think we could be good friends if we lived closer. One thing I have learned talking with my Muslim coworker is that, just like in Christianity, there are many divisions an…

Of course it's not "all Muslisms". But those who claim "it's only the terrorists" or "it's all politics" do not grasp the scope of the problem, ie that globally speaking, a significant number of adherents of Islam hold ideas that are incompatible with an open society. If you naively extrapolate from the 2013 Pew Poll The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society (which in principle represents nations with a tot…

> > a significant number of adherents of Islam hold ideas that are incompatible with an open society.

A significant number of adherents of Christianity also hold ideas that are incompatible with an open society.

Re: VLC contributor living in Aleppo writing about the Paris attacks

#180

Post by jacquesm »

ya3r wrote: post #168
jacquesm wrote: post #6

> They control large areas of land, have their own oil fields, and receive direct support from many countries in the region. Namely from rich oil-producing countries. That's one of those things where we could make a fairly immediate change in policy, it would come at a cost, definitely but it would change the situation for IS for the worse far more effectively than any number of bombs dropped would do.

This is just unacceptable. Given how the "international community" put sanctions on Iran that caused great damages to Iran's economy they could do similar things to ISIS. I say there is no will to stop ISIS similar to the will there was to stop Iran from enriching Uranium. P.S: I'm from Iran.

Strange as it may sound to you, Iran is an easier target than IS because Iran plays more 'by the rules' than IS. Which is part of the reason why the strategies so far have failed to deliver the intended results (in fact, may have made matters worse).

Iran, as a declared nation state with fairly well defined borders, a seat at the table and a lot of connections with the rest of the world is also in a position of having more to lose, so sanctions against Iran have a much higher chance of being effective.

Post reply on HN