VLC contributor living in Aleppo writing about the Paris attacks • Hacker News Board

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

#421

Post by kohanz » Tue, Nov 17, 2015, 4:30 PM UTC

tome wrote: post #403

kohanz wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't understand how branding it as "Islamic" terror, despite the insignificant association between the two populations will make law-abiding Muslims (who make up about 99.99% and practise Islam) feel divided from you, I don't know what to tell you.

Ah, I see your point. Yes, using that word can easily mislead the general population. But what word would you suggest for a site (like this one) where people like to think they have a clue?

I think the tendency to label them as extremists is a step in the right direction. I prefer "extremist" alone to "Islamic extremist", because in the latter the association remains, but let's be honest that association has been cemented by the media already, it's not going away. I am not a Muslim, but live in a Western country with a lot of friends who are and can see the identity struggles they have, wanting to assimilate, but having the media drive this wedge between them and people who don't know them.

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

#422

Post by jjoe » Tue, Nov 17, 2015, 4:30 PM UTC

ctdonath wrote: post #284

jjoe wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would be fair comparison is a country or region with a large Christian population that's at war or serious unrest. One country that comes to mind is Rwanda in 1994.

Poor example. Christianity had nothing to do with that civil war. For reasons incomprehensible to most (as is also currently the case with Shiite vs Sunni), the Hutus and Tutsis had a deep cultural mutual hatred, and eventually acted on it to the slaughter of one side. There was nothing about the motivations related to a [mis-]representation of Christianity. Near as most can tell, Islam _is_ a central factor in recen…

Although Rwanda is among the most Christian countries in Africa, in the 1994 genocide, church buildings became the primary killing grounds. To explain why so many Christians participated in the violence, this book looks at the history of Christian engagement in Rwanda and then turns to a rich body of original national and local-level research to argue that Rwanda’s churches have consistently allied themselves with the state and played ethnic politics. Comparing two local Presbyterian parishes in Kibuye prior to the genocide demonstrates that progressive forces were seeking to democratize the churches. Just as Hutu politicians used the genocide of Tutsi to assert political power and crush democratic reform, church leaders supported the genocide to secure their own power. The fact that Christianity inspired some Rwandans to oppose the genocide demonstrates that opposition by the churches was possible and might have hindered the violence.

Source: http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/history/africa...

The Rwandan genocide, just like the Paris attacks, must've been carried out by a bunch of nutsos. They both used religion and its tools to promote and support their wicked agenda forward.

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

#423

Post by DanBC » Tue, Nov 17, 2015, 4:30 PM UTC

atmosx wrote: post #59

slowmotiony wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, suicide bombers shouting "Allah akhbar" is definitely political, nothing to do with religion at all.

The roots of this mess are political: France wanted Assad ousted at every cost, a policy that suited the US too since Assad was in business with Russia. That's why the ISIS was allowed to grow and receive funding . I know shocking isn't it? Now that France knows that the ISIS, retards as they are, are not easy to control. France will have to decide: Either you leave Syria to the Russians or you leave the ISIS be and…

Lions of Rojava / YPJ / YPG / PKK are anti Assad and anti daish and are fighting in north of Syria. They have some support, if only because they include women in the fighting forces.

Here's some information that (probably?) wont mean you end up on a watch list: https://cccounterterrorismcenter.wordpress.com/2015/01/06/wh...

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

#424

Post by venomsnake » Tue, Nov 17, 2015, 4:31 PM UTC

oblio wrote: post #380

lmm wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then I disagree with what you say, but will defend your right to say it.

That's a very polite way to deal with the problem. I've seen first hand that most people bend easily. A very charismatic leader can do a lot of harm. I'm a firm believer in anti-hate-speech laws.

>I'm a firm believer in anti-hate-speech laws.

And I am firm believer of benevolent dictatorship. The main problems comes with the inheritance - how can we ensure the next is also benevolent?

Same is with speech - we cannot project into the future how laws banning (especially widely defined as the lawmaker bodies love to do them) categories of speech will be abused - so it is better safe to not have them at all.

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

#425

Post by Nursie » Tue, Nov 17, 2015, 4:32 PM UTC

rmc wrote: post #321

steveklabnik wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not Jacques, but from a few months back: "White Supremacists More Dangerous To America Than Foreign Terrorists, Study Says" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/24/domestic-terrorism-... > At least 48 people have been killed stateside by right-wing > extremists in the 14 years since since the September 11 > attacks -- almost twice as many as were killed by > self-identified jihadists in that time. As Jacques says, "…

It depends. For a long time the UK was happy to call Irish nationalists and the IRA terrorists. Terrorism is what other groups do.

Well they were, and the IRA would still be a terrorist organisation, were it to continue, you know, performing acts of terrorism.

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

#426

Post by drumdance » Tue, Nov 17, 2015, 4:33 PM UTC

raverbashing wrote: post #345

jacquesm wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but it would be absolutely trivial to sketch the situation from a point of view where Bush, Blair and whole bunch of others would be seen as the terrorist masterminds causing the deaths of untold numbers of civilians. All in the name of the good of course, which is exactly what makes them just as bad as IS in that respect. They all actually believe they are doing the right thing. And that's a discussion that has…

> I see precious little difference to an attack on Fallujah to 'liberate' it and an attack on Paris to murder a bunch of people. Oh of course, they're the same thing. Bombing civilians (without those being the explicit target) in a military context is exactly the same thing as just invading a concert room or shooting randomly at people You're missing the context and the intent, just that. But I can see your ideology…

It's not the exactly the same thing from your perspective, but I bet it is from the victims'.

Imagine if a drone from Saudi Arabia or better yet Assad's Syria swooped into your community looking for, the leader of a US infantry commander, and instead blew up a wedding party. And not just once, but dozens of times over the course of years.

How would you feel about that? Would you want retribution?

Would you want to spend time debating what a "terrorist" is?

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

#427

Post by alvarosm » Tue, Nov 17, 2015, 4:33 PM UTC

scrollaway wrote: post #409

alvarosm wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could be, depends on the circumstances. Of course you have a point, there are always family ties and so on. But even without leaving Syria I guess you could be at safer places than Aleppo.

That's one hell of a bubble. You do know that for a lot of people, it's simply impossible to move out of their city, especially in countries like Syria and Pakistan? Family ties are the least of their problems. Most people simply don't have a wad of cash to do this with.

4 million out of 17 have fled already. I'm not trying to blame anyone for anything, just saying. His decision to stay is his decision.

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

#428

Post by jon-wood » Tue, Nov 17, 2015, 4:34 PM UTC

tome wrote: post #382

jon-wood wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its entirely consistent to hold the view that Islamic terrorists are a problem for the world without also believing that the majority of Muslims are terrorists. This seems similar to saying that I can't consider people being hit by cars a problem without also saying that the vast majority of car journeys result in someone being hit. A vocal and deplorable minority of Muslims are actively attempted to split the world…

> believing that the majority of Muslims are terrorists Nobody in this thread has suggested this > ... declare all Muslims want me dead ... nor this.

My apologies, I completely misread "It's absolutely not inconsistent" as "It's absolutely inconsistent".

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

#429

Post by toyg » Tue, Nov 17, 2015, 4:34 PM UTC

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #264

jacquesm wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And no one in Europe is advocating throwing anyone back into a war zone. Ah, you must be a bit out of touch with recent developments in NL. We're soon to have elections and it looks like we'll have Geert Wilders for prime minister, his main motto is 'close the borders', the secondary one is 'the problem is the foreigners' and the third is 'let's throw all those refugees out'. And whether it is exactly 40% or not is…

>his main motto is 'close the borders' I'm not out of touch enough to have missed this opinion. But that is not the same as saying that people should be sent back to war zones. We don't have borders with Syria. But you are right that I don't know specifically what that Dutch politician actually demands other than closing the borders.

> that is not the same as saying that people should be sent back to war zones.

"In the region", you can choose whether to send them to:

1) Turkey, an increasingly-authoritarian regime which is already overflowing with millions of refugees, making money with the fanatics and holding mainstream cultural values that tend to despise people from Syria/Kurdistan/Iraq;

2) Lebanon, a country where refugees from other conflicts already account for over a third of the total population, and which is far from stable on its own (half-run by the unofficial Hezbollah militia)

3) Israel. They don't even want "their own" arabs...

4) Iraq, another war-torn country half-owned by the same petro-fanatics;

5) Iran, which is logistically very difficult (being on the other side of warzone Iraq) and, well, not great for people running from religious fanatics;

6) Jordan, another poor and unstable country already full of refugees from previous conflicts.

7) Saudi Arabia. They're the ones funding the fanatics. Enough said.

8) Egypt. Yet another dictator, vaguely more stable, as ruthless as Assad. They also have permanent Palestinian camps which have been there for decades and clearly don't want any more.

9) Palestine/Gaza or Palestine / West Bank. Let's not even go there.

Ok, let's go further then: Libya? Sorry, other war. Tunisia? Another wobbly government, and so close to Europe to make it look silly. Georgia/Armenia/Azerbaijan? Dictators, guerrillas... Yemen? Other war. Oman? Same guy has been in charge for 45 years. We can go on, but tbh, it's all like that. Countries in the region are either f*ed up, autocratic regimes, or are actively sponsoring the lunatics. Decent people have nowhere to go.

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

#430

Post by tome » Tue, Nov 17, 2015, 4:35 PM UTC

kohanz wrote: post #421

tome wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, I see your point. Yes, using that word can easily mislead the general population. But what word would you suggest for a site (like this one) where people like to think they have a clue?

I think the tendency to label them as extremists is a step in the right direction. I prefer "extremist" alone to "Islamic extremist", because in the latter the association remains, but let's be honest that association has been cemented by the media already, it's not going away. I am not a Muslim, but live in a Western country with a lot of friends who are and can see the identity struggles they have, wanting to assim…

OK, I can see more clearly where you are coming from now. Thank you for clarifying. To reiterate, I don't think it's contradictory to be honest about the source of this terror whilst at the same time supporting, nay demanding, the full safety and civil liberties of muslim citizens.