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

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

#291

Post by fauigerzigerk » Tue, Nov 17, 2015, 2:49 PM UTC

DasIch wrote: post #277

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And a very large number of people in my country would happily throw back those fleeing the carnage to become victims of that 40% That statement really doesn't make much sense at all. People are fleeing a war, among them people from the 40% and the 60% group alike. And no one in Europe is advocating throwing anyone back into a war zone. Many want the refugees stay somewhere in the region instead of letting them come…

The majority of the refugees are staying in the region they're from. It's only a tiny minority that even attempts to flee to Europe and fewer still survive that trip.

"Tiny" is probably no longer quite the right word, but yes, most are staying in the region. The poorest ones apparently.

And to make it clear, I'm not concerned about the number of people coming to Europe. I'm concerned about the attitudes of conservative Islam, anywhere in the world.

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

#292

Post by gotchange » Tue, Nov 17, 2015, 2:51 PM UTC

claudius wrote: post #226

gotchange wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they would like to change society to suit their ends. What would be those means employed by non-Muslim radicals to effect social change? I'm inclined to say that urban warfare and terrorizing an entire population with open aggression tactics are not among them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Underground https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oktoberfest_terror_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Republican_Army All these are fairly recent examples of non-Muslim radicals attempting to effect social change by the same means Muslim radicals use to try and effect s…

The problem with terrorist attacks conducted by Islamist radicals compared to their non Islamist counterparts is the scope of those attacks as they transcend national borders and are not confined to a certain region or location, it's more of a global worldwide theater of operations for them unlike the usual terrorist organizations in Europe or the US.

Also, I have reservations including nationalist movements and lone-wolf ops in your rebuttal as the underlying nature of the struggle is completely different than that of the Islamic terrorism. You could reason with a radical nationalist and persuade them to explore other options than an armed struggle to reach political goals but good luck trying that with a faith-driven, theology-loving radical who thinks he's on some divine (read: apocalyptic) mission to cleanse the masses of their imaginary sins.

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

#293

Post by tremon » Tue, Nov 17, 2015, 2:54 PM UTC

saiya-jin wrote: post #205

kr4 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How easy it is to change the policy adopted and executed for over 5 decades [0]. During this period both of the parties have sufficiently ruled Washington with same policy. Glenn Greenwald provides further documentation that the various Middle Eastern and North African wars were planned before 9/11 [1] "General Wesley Clark … said the aim of this plot [to “destroy the governments in … Iraq, … Syria, Lebanon, Libya, S…

Bush jr (may he burn in hell eternally for all the fallback of his reign) being super eager to find any excuse to attack Iraq was super-obvious to anybody outside US during those times. That's why France & Germany didn't join Iraq effort, it was just too ridiculous without any good reason, when another dictatorship just across the border was more than OK (saudis), and let's not forget most attackers including Osama w…

I'm not convinced about the necessary part. They may have forced their own hand (knowingly or not), but no outside force made intervention in Iraq a necessity for the US -- neither the first, nor the second time around.

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

#294

Post by cygx » Tue, Nov 17, 2015, 2:55 PM UTC

steveklabnik wrote: post #283

cygx wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Yet, a significant number of them also do. You can't generalize over a billion people like this. For example, there are many Muslim-majority states that have had multiple women as heads of state. Sounds pretty progressive when you put it that way...

You can't generalize over a billion people like this.

Of course you can. The issue is not that such generalizations are invalid, but what conclusions to draw from them and what actions to take in response.

Also note that I have a black friend^W^W Muslim roommate (in fact a Hafiz) I get along well with. That does not mean I don't consider Islam as it presents itself today on a global scale a dangerous ideology.

For example, there are many Muslim-majority states that have had multiple women as heads of state.

And how many out gay politicians are there in such countries? And anecdotally speaking, remember what happened to Benazir Bhutto.

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

#295

Post by hahainternet » Tue, Nov 17, 2015, 2:55 PM UTC

ptaipale wrote: post #285

claudius wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Underground https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oktoberfest_terror_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Republican_Army All these are fairly recent examples of non-Muslim radicals attempting to effect social change by the same means Muslim radicals use to try and effect s…

You really have to go back in time to find these examples. Their dates of terror operation are 1970's, 1980, 1980's, 1995 and for one which doesn't very well compare, 2010. And then they were largely hounded down and imprisoned (or executed, for McVeigh). Islamist terrorism is a newer and also much bigger trend (even in the West, although the vast majority of people killed are in Muslim countries). I see this line of…

> You really have to go back in time to find these examples

I remember the centre of my local town being blown to shit when I was a teenager.

1996 is not that long ago. You really shouldn't discard it as 'the past'. What's funny is, large segments in the US actively supported these terrorists. All their rhetoric and they're just as guilty.

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

#296

Post by tome » Tue, Nov 17, 2015, 2:56 PM UTC

Natanael_L wrote: post #290

tome wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow. You can argue all you want about the atrocities of western armies versus the atrocities of Islamic terror. What I find very hard to accept is that you can't see them as distinct phenomena (they may be related , but nonetheless they are not the same kind of thing, at all).

Why? Why can't they be the same thing, just in different contexts? On both sides there's people who believe the enemy will destroy the world, and believes in a particular ideal, and who sends out armies to achieve their goals, and both sides are very clearly not very precise in who they actually target (the bombing on Doctor's Without Border, anyone?). Both sides cause tons of civilian casualties, both refuse to apol…

This kind of moral equivocation can only come if you really have no clue about the reality of these conflicts, in my opinion. It's one of the great weaknesses of our civilisation that we are "too broad-minded to take own own side in a quarrel" (to quote a phrase I just learned today).

In the large, one side wants to impose rule based on beliefs about what an omnipotent sky person wants and is willing to sacrifice innocent lives (even celebrate such sacrifice) to do so. The other side wants to propagate individual liberty and democracy and takes great lengths to avoid civilian casualties.

In the small, things don't always play out quite like this, but to draw equivalence between the two sides is morally abhorrent.

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

#297

Post by euroclydon » Tue, Nov 17, 2015, 2:57 PM UTC

ashaiber wrote: post #231

DamnYuppie wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It appears, from what I could find, that Saudia Arabia's yearly spending on education is $57.9B, they spend $42.7B on health, with a total spending of $229.3. So they spend 25% of their budget on education and less then 2% on arms importation. Yes they could spend that money on something else, but please don't make it seem like they are neglecting healthcare or educational spending for arms. http://www.us-sabc.org/cu…

Perhaps considering the total military expenditure will provide a better perspective - $80B for Saudi Arabia in 2014; 3rd highest in the world in $ terms, and highest in the world in terms of percent of GDP (10.7%). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_...

Unlike gold, the treasure Saudi Arabia is sitting on top of is: in higher demand, more easily convertible into wealth and prosperity, and among it's resource class, the most easily accessible in the world. That, combined with the fact they live in a dangerous part of the world, leads me to believe it's a rational decision to try to protect their treasure.

Whether their armed forced are capable is, sadly, depending on your POV, another story. Like in most autocratic societies, a strong military is seen as a threat to the leadership.

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

#298

Post by brohee » Tue, Nov 17, 2015, 3:00 PM UTC

ptaipale wrote: post #152

brohee wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can find pretty horrific stuff in the Bible too (I don't have time to look for much more but http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/22-21.htm is a good example). http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ is a good tool to go to the juicy parts quickly. Both the Qoran and the Bible (and some other sacred books) are full of stuff that is horrific, yet discarded as obviously outdated by 99.9999% of their practitionners. In my boo…

> You can find pretty horrific stuff in the Bible too Yes indeed, but you don't find too many people trying to actually behead or stone people to death based on the Old Testament. You might find a few, but the problem is rather small compared to Islamism.

> Yes indeed, but you don't find too many people trying to actually behead or stone people to death based on the Old Testament.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_God_%28United_States%2...

Funny that when it's Christian fundamentalism, it's the perpretrator fault, but when it's Muslim fundamentalism, it's Islam fault...

Yes, ISIS/Daesh is as removed from mainstream Islam as LRA is from mainstream Christianity. The main difference I think is that Daesh has a few rich patrons in the gulf states, funneling money to them while acting friendly toward the rest of the world...

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

#299

Post by DanBC » Tue, Nov 17, 2015, 3:01 PM UTC

kriztw wrote: post #107

DanBC wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Animal rights extremists don't use religion. Right wing extremists don't use religion. Left wing extremists didn't use religion. Radicalisation does not need religion.

All of those are ideologies with certain views on how the world is and how it should be, which can also said of religions. If religions where purely spiritual and said nothing about the world then I would agree with you, but then I guess there wouldn't be any problems either.

Sure, they're like religion.

But the claim wasn't religion or things like religion lead to extremism.

It's wrong to say that only religion leads to extremism, and it's even more wrong to say that only Islam leads to radicalisation.

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

#300

Post by DanBC » Tue, Nov 17, 2015, 3:01 PM UTC

kriztw wrote: post #107

DanBC wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Animal rights extremists don't use religion. Right wing extremists don't use religion. Left wing extremists didn't use religion. Radicalisation does not need religion.

All of those are ideologies with certain views on how the world is and how it should be, which can also said of religions. If religions where purely spiritual and said nothing about the world then I would agree with you, but then I guess there wouldn't be any problems either.

Sure, they're like religion.

But the claim wasn't religion or things like religion lead to extremism.

It's wrong to say that only religion leads to extremism, and it's even more wrong to say that only Islam leads to radicalisation.