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

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

#701

Post by drumdance » Wed, Nov 18, 2015, 5:01 PM UTC

somebehemoth wrote: post #673

drumdance wrote: post #633

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ISIS wants to conquer Kurdistan, not least because most Kurds ar Sunni -- ISIS is especially vicious to Muslism who aren't Islamic enough. They have no hope in the near term of conquering France. I'm not arguing ISIS are good people. I'm arguing that, if you don't want to be on the receiving end of terrorist attacks from ISIS, the best way to do that is to stop bombing them. Otherwise you should assume that they will…

"I'm arguing that, if you don't want to be on the receiving end of terrorist attacks from ISIS, the best way to do that is to stop bombing them." Thus validating the terrorists' approach. They use fear as a means of control and, according to your argument, it is an effective approach. I don't know what the answer is, but I do not think that allowing marauders to wander around the world staking claim to peoples' land…

a) has worked very well for Spain. No attacks since they pulled out of Iraq in 2004. And as a bonus they didn't have to kill lots of civilians or put their soldiers at risk. How many American citizens and soldiers have died or been severely injured in the meantime?

You may know where you stand, but dollars to donuts you don't know what your government is doing in your name.

I'm not "blaming America first." I'm asking that we behave like adults and take responsibility for the consequences of our behavior.

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

#702

Post by fineman » Wed, Nov 18, 2015, 5:51 PM UTC

Ygg2 wrote: post #576

fineman wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The right answer? Kill Assad and help the people take back Syria. We should have done it three years ago before much of the moderate resistance was killed but it still needs doing. And as for your Israel jab, they're better to the Palestinians than the Arab states in the area are. And none of the Israelis I've talked to seem to have inherently racist beliefs but many of the recently middle-eastern Arabs do. (About th…

Right? Just like killing Saddam and Gadafi stabilized the region. I'm sure nothing bad would happen. It's not like something worse than Al Quaida can happen again. Europe fully deserves the migrant crisis. It went into Middle East guns blazing, and expects to come out of it unscathed.

Cutting and running does not work. We're still in Germany and Japan 70+ years later and we'll have to have that kind of roadmap if we plan to help in the middle east.

And help we must. We can't sit back and watch madmen kill millions, even if doing so would spite our idiot leaders (on all sides) who caused it in the first place.

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

#703

Post by webXL » Wed, Nov 18, 2015, 8:31 PM UTC

fineman wrote: post #702

Ygg2 wrote: post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right? Just like killing Saddam and Gadafi stabilized the region. I'm sure nothing bad would happen. It's not like something worse than Al Quaida can happen again. Europe fully deserves the migrant crisis. It went into Middle East guns blazing, and expects to come out of it unscathed.

Cutting and running does not work. We're still in Germany and Japan 70+ years later and we'll have to have that kind of roadmap if we plan to help in the middle east. And help we must. We can't sit back and watch madmen kill millions, even if doing so would spite our idiot leaders (on all sides) who caused it in the first place.

Germany and Japan have tolerant and compatible cultures, and "world opinion" was controlled by the Allies. I don't think it's possible to shape "world opinion" anymore. The Koran doesn't permit any kind of integration and tolerance. Western "nation building" (rebuilding) is perceived as an attack on that religion. My own libertarian bent tells me that it's at least an unjust attack on their way of life, how alien that might be to Westerners.

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

#704

Post by acqq » Wed, Nov 18, 2015, 10:35 PM UTC

the_af wrote: post #695

acqq wrote: post #686

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I compare the two because if you're looking hard enough in both texts you'll find justification for evil. Wrong again. You're not actually comparing. Go to the sources. It's not about "looking hard" it is on almost every page of Quran. Please try the reading sample, Sura 9: http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/pick/009.htm All those are considered to be the direct words of god by Muslims. As long as they declare them so…

If this was true, how come the vast majority of Muslims are not blood-thirsty maniacs? They believe in the Prophet, do they not? Why aren't they killing infidels left and right? Are they simply not "true" Muslims? Or maybe they modernized their religion, just like the Old Testament is no longer followed to the letter? Recommended reading: "The Phony Islam of ISIS", http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/201…

> If this was true, how come the vast majority of Muslims are not blood-thirsty maniacs?

What "this" you mean? What I've written is true, specify what you doubt. Now...

> Or maybe they modernized their religion

There's no "modernization" as such but not every branch is as fanatic as the Wahhabis, the official branch in Saudi Arabia, and the direct religious base for ISIS. Saudis Invest billions in spreading their fanatical Islam branch.

> Why aren't they killing infidels left and right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Saudi_Ar...

"The death penalty can be imposed for a wide range of offences[4] including murder, rape, false prophecy, blasphemy, armed robbery, repeated drug use, apostasy,[5] adultery,[6] witchcraft and sorcery[7][8][9][10] and can be carried out by beheading with a sword,[11] or more rarely by firing squad, and sometimes by stoning.[12][13]"

> Recommended reading: "The Phony Islam of ISIS"

Balderdash, the whole article. One more writer speaking from his ash instead of reading any primary source. How do I know? Because "the Quran is" "a complex and nuanced text that deals with legal, moral, and metaphysical questions in a subtle and multifaceted way" can be claimed only somebody who never read it himself. Nuanced my foot.

I've given one link (Sura 9). Read it and say what's nuanced there. Here another, Sura 111:

"The power of Abu Lahab will perish, and he will perish. His wealth and gains will not exempt him. He will be plunged in flaming Fire, And his wife, the wood-carrier, Will have upon her neck a halter of palm-fibre."

That's the whole Sura 111. What's nuanced about that? Reading Hadith, you can find that Abu Lahab was Mohammad's uncle who didn't believe in Mohammad's "I've received the message form god" pitch.

And that Sura was from the "peaceful part" of Quran(!). Fire of hell for unbelievers is preached in almost every Sura! Almost only those which are bad retellings of some less drastic Old Testament stories can happen not to mention at least "fire" or "hell" for "unbelievers." I don't care how nuanced is if they should pray five or 18 times per day, the view of unbelievers, Christians and Jews is very clear and repetitive.

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

#705

Post by acqq » Wed, Nov 18, 2015, 10:44 PM UTC

the_af wrote: post #519

acqq wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ISIS beheadings are a matter of form, a propaganda tool Wrong. The beheadings are the things Mohammad did, as written in their holy books, so they just do that, following their role model even without the cameras.

In what sense is this wrong? Everyone from all sides is saying this: that ISIS is different from other radical Muslims in their effective use of propaganda. Have you seen some of their videos? They are crazy, and I'm not talking about the beheadings. They use "Western" techniques, including stuff like slow-motion for dramatic effect. Public beheadings, whether televised or not, are always propaganda, a show of force,…

> I find your explanation about Mohammed utterly unconvincing, because most Muslims don't go around beheading people, only some. ISIS and people from backwards, poverty-stricken countries/communities do,

Saudi Arabia is not poverty stricken, and they actually behead people for, for example, "adultery" or "homosexuality"(!) They invest 56 billion dollar per year for education, out of that billions for "exporting" their view of Islam, exactly the one with which I have problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism

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

#706

Post by yongjik » Wed, Nov 18, 2015, 10:47 PM UTC

acqq wrote: post #704

the_af wrote: post #695

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this was true, how come the vast majority of Muslims are not blood-thirsty maniacs? They believe in the Prophet, do they not? Why aren't they killing infidels left and right? Are they simply not "true" Muslims? Or maybe they modernized their religion, just like the Old Testament is no longer followed to the letter? Recommended reading: "The Phony Islam of ISIS", http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/201…

> If this was true, how come the vast majority of Muslims are not blood-thirsty maniacs? What "this" you mean? What I've written is true, specify what you doubt. Now... > Or maybe they modernized their religion There's no "modernization" as such but not every branch is as fanatic as the Wahhabis, the official branch in Saudi Arabia, and the direct religious base for ISIS. Saudis Invest billions in spreading their fan…

For comparison,

> 27 Then he said to them, “This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.’” 28 The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. 29 Then Moses said, “You have been set apart to the Lord today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day.”

For another,

> 20 When the trumpets sounded, the army shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the men gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so everyone charged straight in, and they took the city. 21 They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.

...I'm afraid that your crusade of trying to prove Muslims violent by reading passages from Quran is not terribly persuasive, to anyone who have read the Old Testament. If you really want to persuade others, you will have to search harder.

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

#707

Post by acqq » Wed, Nov 18, 2015, 11:00 PM UTC

the_af wrote: post #694

acqq wrote: post #688

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> their branding is "pure, original, undiluted Islam" That's actually true, and it's not just "branding," nobody can deny them that they are qouting the words in the primary holy books. And still some people believe in "peacefulness" of that "pure, original, undiluted Islam." It's the opposite: only by "diluting" (honestly reforming) it can the violence induced by it be avoided long-term. But it's easy to imagine how…

Yes: pure, unreformed Abrahamic religions are not very peaceful. They are quite blood-thirsty and vengeful. Let's for a second agree that everyone reasonable wants their religion modernized and adapted to the current world (and ISIS, religious white supremacists, and abortion clinic bombers are not "reasonable"). We can disregard everyone who wants pure, unadulterated, literal Islam or Christianity. That said, there'…

No. You haven't read Quran. You would not be able to write what you do. Even in "Letter To Baghdadi" those who signed quote:

www.lettertobaghdadi.com/14/english-v14.pdf

"God  says in the Qur’an: ‘Because of that, We decreed for the Children of Israel that whoever slays a soul for other than a soul, or for corruption in the land, it shall be as if he had slain mankind altogether; and whoever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers have already come to them with clear proofs, but after that many of them still commit excesses in the land.’ (Al-Ma’idah, 5: 32)."

And that is actually cherry picking. If you read the sentence before and the few sentences after together with 5:32 you get what was said:

"32 For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth.

33 The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom; "

That's 5:32 and 5:33 together. Is there some nuance? The command is the "old" one given to the Jews but they became "prodigals," says "god" speaking in plural about him (as he does on other places in Quran too). The "reward" is specified one verse afterwards.

Or even better read the whole Sura 5, to get the whole message. One clearer translation (start from the verse 1 and beware the following side is behind the left arrow):

http://quran.ksu.edu.sa/index.php?l=en#aya=4_176&m=hafs&qare...

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

#708

Post by acqq » Wed, Nov 18, 2015, 11:11 PM UTC

yongjik wrote: post #706

acqq wrote: post #704

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If this was true, how come the vast majority of Muslims are not blood-thirsty maniacs? What "this" you mean? What I've written is true, specify what you doubt. Now... > Or maybe they modernized their religion There's no "modernization" as such but not every branch is as fanatic as the Wahhabis, the official branch in Saudi Arabia, and the direct religious base for ISIS. Saudis Invest billions in spreading their fan…

For comparison, > 27 Then he said to them, “This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.’” 28 The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. 29 Then Moses said, “You have been set apart to the Lord today, for you were against…

I know Old Testament, but you obviously don't know Quran. Read it and compare, that's all I can tell you. One describes what happened in some ancient times, ancient times even for the first reader of these texts. Another gives pure "instructions." Read and compare.

Or read the "Gospels" from New Testament for the "deeds of Jesus" especially related to stoning:

http://biblehub.com/niv/john/8.htm

and compare with the "deeds of Muhammad" as told by Hadith:

http://quotingislam.blogspot.co.at/2011/06/muhammad-ordered-...

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

#709

Post by the_af » Thu, Nov 19, 2015, 4:49 AM UTC

acqq wrote: post #704

the_af wrote: post #695

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this was true, how come the vast majority of Muslims are not blood-thirsty maniacs? They believe in the Prophet, do they not? Why aren't they killing infidels left and right? Are they simply not "true" Muslims? Or maybe they modernized their religion, just like the Old Testament is no longer followed to the letter? Recommended reading: "The Phony Islam of ISIS", http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/201…

> If this was true, how come the vast majority of Muslims are not blood-thirsty maniacs? What "this" you mean? What I've written is true, specify what you doubt. Now... > Or maybe they modernized their religion There's no "modernization" as such but not every branch is as fanatic as the Wahhabis, the official branch in Saudi Arabia, and the direct religious base for ISIS. Saudis Invest billions in spreading their fan…

"This" means that if Islam is so obviously blood-thirsty, and this is the only possible mainstream interpretation of this religion, then how come the vast majority of Muslims are NOT killing the infidel?

Yes, many Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia support ISIS; it's well-known this is a major source of funding. But how is this a counter to the fact the vast majority of Muslims -- are you aware that not all Muslims are Wahhabis, live in Saudi Arabia or, for that matter, are Arabs? -- are NOT trying to murder nonbelievers?

"Balderdash", you say about the article "The Phony Islam of ISIS". But what you say flies in the face of everything we know about religious texts; that they are anachronistic and self-contradictory in multiple places, and there is NO single interpretation of them. Evidently most Muslims choose not to acknowledge the part about spreading the word of Mohammed by the sword, or maybe you secretly believe they do -- all of them! -- and that they are biding their time?

The author argues that some parts of the Quran contradict other parts; that there are treatises and purported quotations of Mohammed that are meant to explain the Quran, but themselves are subject to interpretation and to varying degrees of reliability. I don't know about you, but I tend to trust the word of someone who studies religion for a living and specifically Islam to have read the Quran. Are you sure it's all "balderdash" and that this professor who teaches religious studies at college "has never read [the Quran] himself"?

But mostly I trust the reality of a world in which most Muslims are not trying to murder non-Muslims. I don't even need to appeal to authority here, just to reality.

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

#710

Post by the_af » Thu, Nov 19, 2015, 4:56 AM UTC

acqq wrote: post #705

the_af wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what sense is this wrong? Everyone from all sides is saying this: that ISIS is different from other radical Muslims in their effective use of propaganda. Have you seen some of their videos? They are crazy, and I'm not talking about the beheadings. They use "Western" techniques, including stuff like slow-motion for dramatic effect. Public beheadings, whether televised or not, are always propaganda, a show of force,…

> I find your explanation about Mohammed utterly unconvincing, because most Muslims don't go around beheading people, only some. ISIS and people from backwards, poverty-stricken countries/communities do, Saudi Arabia is not poverty stricken, and they actually behead people for, for example, "adultery" or "homosexuality"(!) They invest 56 billion dollar per year for education, out of that billions for "exporting" thei…

Thanks, I know what Wahhabism is. Yes, the Saudis who support ISIS are wealthy. Do they represent the majority of Muslims?