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

501–510 of 737 posts

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

#501

Post by drumdance »

dragonwriter wrote: post #476
drumdance wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Islamic terror was directed at the US for many years before Iraq! Al Qaeda had very specific grievances. They wanted US troops to leave Saudi Arabia, where they first put bases before the Persian Gulf War. (Aside: Bin Laden offered his irregular forces to Saudi Arabia to help defend the kingdom from Saddam. He was rejected. That pissed him off some, but the presence of infidels in the land of Mecca pissed him off e…

> Al Qaeda had very specific grievances. They wanted US troops to leave Saudi Arabia, where they first put bases before the first Gulf War. That was a position used to justify action, rally supporters, and which was quite overtly an instrumental (rather than terminal) goal in their grand strategy --- which was -- like that of Daesh -- to achieve a pan-Islamic caliphate. (It's worth noting that al-Qaeda was formed sev…

Yes of course they're long term goal is a caliphate. But they attacked the US because our presence was a direct obstacle. They didn't put suicide bombers in China or Copenhagen or Paris for that matter.

Back in 1991 after Saddam invaded Kuwait, I remember thinking "why the hell do we have to solve the problem? Why not force Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States to take responsibility for their security?"

Practically all the Islamist terrorism that the US has experienced since then has flowed from that decision.

The likelihood of terrorism should be part of any decision making process when it comes to the Mideast, no different than estimating potential body counts from land invasion.

At least Eric Shinseki wasn't afraid to estimate the real costs of the Iraq war.

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

#502

Post by dragonwriter »

paki123 wrote: post #494

I think it's important to remember that a lot of muslims are just as "ignorant" of their own text, as many Christians and Jews are. For example, music is strictly forbidden in Islam, except for the beat of a drum. Modern Christians and Jews often fall back on the excuse of interpreting their books as metaphors as opposed to the literal word of god. It's a great cop out. Islam isn't compatible with an open society, bu…

> Modern Christians and Jews often fall back on the excuse of interpreting their books as metaphors as opposed to the literal word of god. It's a great cop out.

While Christians have usually viewed some parts of the Bible literally (though not the same parts for different Christians in different times and places), the idea that the Bible is entirely to be understood literally (and the related idea that the Bible is the entire basis for Christianity) is a relatively new doctrine, belonging to a small (globally, though more prominent numerically and, even moreso, politically, in the US) subset of Christianity. (As the Bible directly contradicts itself on basic things like sequences of events in several places -- even within the first couple chapters of Genesis -- its also an internally inconsistent view, so its hard to see the alternative as a cop-out, since its the only possible internally-consistent approach.)

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

#503

Post by redial »

DanBC wrote: post #299
kriztw wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nobody is saying only religion leads to extremism.

When you recognize that I hope you also recognize that religion is the main cause (or tool) of extremism in the world right now, and that Islam plays the biggest role there.

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

#504

Post by 1_player »

gotchange wrote: post #442
1_player wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I find it really amusing that the general sentiment in France towards guns and a 2nd amendment style right is negative when it is not a stretch to say that some lives could have been saved if armed persons of the populace came to the rescue Please, no. Liberalization of guns (that is, a tool for hurting and killing living beings) doesn't solve terrorism. It doesn't make people safe. It doesn't help. People in USA d…

> it just feels wrong Here's the answer to your doubts. You know that my argument makes sense but you let your ideology and emotions get in the way of making meaningful policy adjustments. First, I am not American and I live in a country that restricts the lawful acquisition of guns for legitimate reasons but I can see that arguments put forward by gun rights advocates make sense from a defense point of view. I think…

> You know that my argument makes sense but you let your ideology and emotions get in the way of making meaningful policy adjustments.

If not ideology (ideals) and emotions, what else are we?

Anyway, you're wrong about me. I feel strongly about this, and I do not have nor am pushing any particular political agenda.

To me, simply, restricting gun ownership is in the same boat of restricting access to grenades, restricting access to RPGs, restricting access to plutonium to the general public. People should not be able to buy a tool that is designed for the sole purpose of doing harm. I keep making the comparison with drugs, but I'm all for drugs legalization, because the only person you are harming is yourself, and you should be free to do so if you want.

And do not think that I loathe weapons: I would love to shoot an M4A1, put my hands on an AK-47, and spend far too much time researching weapons as I come across them in games. They have a kind of forbidden beauty, but still I do not see a valid reason for the public to have them, including safety. There's no safety when anybody could carry a pistol in their handbag, IMHO.

I agree that you can stop or scare away a burglar with your handgun, but the downsides are far too big: much more people will buy guns, the percentage of mentally unstable people with guns increases, bad things happen.

EDIT:

> guns are not available to everyone in the US.

I know, but since many have guns, if I, mentally deranged teenager, want to get one to shoot people at my school, I know plenty of people to get one from.

You know how many people I have ever known with a gun or rifle? One. I don't even know where to buy one, I don't think I've ever seen a gun shop where I lived in 28 years.

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

#505

Post by josu »

wiz21 wrote: post #475
josu wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's my sincerest hope that French troops will be deployed to Syria in the near future, and that such an action will prove useful in protecting him, his family, his neighbors and his culture. Well, the problem is that according to his post, he lives "in the western part of the city [Aleppo] still under the control of the Syrian government[Under the "presidency" of Bashar al-Assad]" and the French Government has bee…

The wikipedia page is very interesting, but the motives are not clear, esp. for France. Any idea ?

The Economist had a good article about the reasons for Russia to support Assad [1]. I know that it doesn't directly answer your question, but I hope it helps.

[1] http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/09/ec...

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

#506

Post by vukmir »

cygx wrote: post #286
Arnt wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. I live in a city with a considerable number of muslims and a considerable number of apostates. Isn't that the kind of place where you'd expect apostates to be killed, if anywhere?

Isn't that the kind of place where you'd expect apostates to be killed, if anywhere? Not necessarily, no. Support for murdering apostates can be low in countries with a majority Muslim population (Albania, Bosnia, Kosovo, Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan are all in the low single-digit percentage range, it's at 8% in Turkey), and the figures for minority Muslim communities in western countries might be comparably low. Also…

A minor correction: Bosnia is not a country with a majority Muslim population. At least 55% of people there are not Muslim.

Christians make up 52% of the population (Serbian Orthodox 36%, Catholic 15%, Protestant 1%). There are also a few percents of atheist, Jews, and others.

Edit: Source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnia_and_Herzegovina#Ethnic_...

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

#507

Post by mercurial »

coldtea wrote: post #360
fauigerzigerk wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There have been over 2 million victims of those interventions in the last 10 years alone I was comparing social attitudes not counting casualties of armed conflict and its repercussions. Comparing these two things quantitatively makes very little sense. The conservative advocates of Sharia who execute people for their sexual orientation are executing people who live right now in those countries. They don't execute E…

> The conservative advocates of Sharia who execute people for their sexual orientation are executing people who live right now in those countries Yes. So other countries should not encourage the tolerant co-patriots of those fanatics to adopt their attitudes -- e.g. by showing a plundering, hypocritical and hateful face of western democracies that destabilize the region, arm dangerous fanatics like ISIS and Laden, me…

I'm with you so far, but let's not forget that Pakistan is/was the primary sponsor of the Talibans, and that the Saudis, Bahrain, Iran... all play the game of thrones. It's not an all-western show.

I'm also not really sure that I'd paint 1985-era Saudi Arabia, Egypt or Death-To-America Iran as markedly better than they are now. The region has historically been ruled by despots. Western intervention has occasionally (by design or accident) made things worse, but the West has the same responsibility in the rise to power of noted humanitarian Khomeiny as France's position during the negotiation of the Treaty of Versailles.

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

#508

Post by xorcist »

lmm wrote: post #363
oblio wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I support freedom of speech - absolute and unrestricted. What if my "free speech" involves drawing masses of people and telling them, persuading them, to kill you, your wife, your kids, your mother and father because you have the wrong skin color, eye color, religion or whatever else I imagine?

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

Nobody does this in practice. Absolutely nobody. Ask any Holocaust survivor.

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

#509

Post by fineman »

toyg wrote: post #429
fauigerzigerk wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 conflic…

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 the Palestinians.)

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

#510

Post by bluehex »

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.

I always wonder about this myself. If my situation were that extreme I think I would try to flee by any means even if I had next to no money. I would put a backpack on packed with non perishable food and as much water as I could carry and I would start marching towards a border.

I'm very ignorant to the viability of this plan though. Would it be possible to escape on foot? Would you be stopped for trying? Killed? Maybe that's why people don't "just flee".

Post reply on HN