Live data from Hacker News

Paris: You Don’t Want to Read This

ronpaulinstitute.org

61–69 of 69 posts

Re: Paris: You Don’t Want to Read This

#61
post #9

A little coincidental but not completely off-topic...I just read this March 2015 piece from The Atlantic that's been passed around as the article about ISIS and its motives: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isi... It's a great, lengthy read...it's been posted a few times on HN but without much discussion. But relevant to the OP's opinion: the Atlantic writer asserts that the success of ISIS is…

This piece from the NY Review of Books is also a good read, and offers a different perspective.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2015/aug/13/mystery...

Re: Paris: You Don’t Want to Read This

#62
post #10

> Leave the Middle East alone Not sure if the many 'normal' people who live there would agree. In the end they have to endure their, in most cases, bad governments. I bet the Saudia Arabian blogger who got punished so cruelly with stoneage methods and/or the women who are not even allowed to drive a car, don't want to be left alone. The world has become smaller and maybe it is time to enforce 'universal minimal ethic…

I do not understand how someone can write such nonsense. Are you familiar with a country called Iraq? It is nearby to Syria, and was often in the news not too long ago, surely you must of heard of this place? You want the UN to administer ethics, the organization that thinks Saudi Arabia should be in charge of human rights?[0] But perphaps that's just the normal in an age when some western commenter still believes th…

some western commenter... and you are from?

Sad imho is that most of 'the middle east' since decades didn't succeed to solve their issues, a.o. become modern states. Always blame others. And you seem to do this also.

Yes I think 'the west' has many good things which could serve as a blueprint for most middle east countries: division of power, respect minorities, confine the influence of the religion(s).

Of course 'the west' is not perfect, far from it. (But your examples don't help in the grand scheme, this is known and won't help the Middle East to get capable governments who care for their citizens).

What happened in Paris (and in Beirut, Bagdad...) is murder. Weak persons who, lamentably - failed for a totalitarian sect. We must make sure that 'problematic things' get focused. It is also for the benefit of the normal people in the Middle East. Or don't you agree?

Re: Paris: You Don’t Want to Read This

#63
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What we call terrorism today is merely the way warfare is conducted when the belligerent party is seriously outgunned, or lacks a 'proper' army. In 1944 you could have called French resistance fighters 'terrorists'. You certainly could attribute the title to the Vikings or Huns, or countless other groups of raiders throughout the millennia. The point that Islamic imperialism in the 1000's and terrorism are linked. Th…

I agree with you that a lot of the warfare over the years was actually "terrorism" in today's lingo. > Islamic imperialism in the 1000's and terrorism are linked How do you think they are linked? I know ISIS rhetoric talks about re-establishing a caliphate, world domination etc, but do you think there is any material connection? To me it sounds about as unconvincing as when sanctimonious leftists say stuff like the I…

> How do you think they are linked? I know ISIS rhetoric talks about re-establishing a caliphate, world domination etc, but do you think there is any material connection?

Pretty much this. ISIS' world-view is that Muslims (by "Muslim" I mean Wahhabi/fundamentalist Sunni, not those dirty Shias/Alawites/Kurds/etc...) should conquer the world, much as Mohammed did (or at least his corner of the world), and the Rashidun caliphate. I wouldn't say there's so much a material connection, however there's certainly a very direct philosophical connection.

Anyhow, ISIS is a symptom, the culprit is Wahhabism. Those who blame the west for the rise of ISIS and Al Qaeda are correct, partially, in that the west destroyed Arab nationalism and Baathism, which was the competing ideology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism The house of Saud first expanded when they allied themselves with the founder of Wahhabism. That's when they expanded into the Saudi state. Wahhabism itself seeks to be a restoration of Islam, free from idolatry and whatever they deem to be non-Islamic influences (the Saudis even went so far as to destroy Mohammed's grave/shrine). And of course the Saudis export this with oil money. You can see Saudi and Gulf sponsored madrassas all over the 3rd world, there's one in my wife's tiny community in a tiny 3rd world country (I've got some stories from there!). The Wahhabi (jihadist) world-view is what the Saudis export. The one thing Sunni terrorist groups have in common is that they've all grown out of Wahhabi ideology.

The connection to Islamic imperialism is partly historic, partly demographic. Historic in the sense that they want to recreate the 'real' caliphate. Demographic in the sense that, where there was Muslim conquest, there are Muslims today, and they have been courted by Wahhabi ideology. This is why IS terrorists come from diverse places, but all belong to one ideology. You won't find Shias or Alawites supporting IS.

Also, I never really addressed the initial post, but leaving the middle east alone won't work. Wahhabism as an ideology needs to be destroyed. It can come from within (I would say an Islamic 'enlightenment', although that came and went), or it can come from outside (military action against IS and eventual action against the Saudis would convince people that Wahhabism is simply a path to destruction). But pretending if we 'leave it alone' it'll go away is silly, because the ideology itself is pervasive, cultural in some places, and conquest is integral to the ideology. The actual solution - there needs to be another Arab nationalist/secular movement. Much like the 'west' became the 'west' after the enlightenment, and especially after the French revolution (the ideas of Liberté, égalité, fraternité and the French philosophers of that era could be considered the backbone of modern secular western culture).

Finally, I thought about it, could have probably made a more insightful first post, but the point stands. Islamic terror is about expansion and ideology, not disenfranchisement, even if the latter indirectly led to an acceptance of the former.

Re: Paris: You Don’t Want to Read This

#64
post #3

"Stop disenfranchising the Muslims who live with us." or they will kill us? While a big believer in developing infrastructure, education, etc. I think we also have to address the zealots in every "disenfranchised" group that might start killing us. Not sure how to do that.

> or they will kill us (I don't think you mean it this way, but I'm going to appropriate your comment to make a point:) They? Us? Who is "us"? Hacker News readers? Americans? Do any believe in Islam? The foundation of hatred is the concepts 'they' and 'us'. Once the discussion is framed that way, the haters are empowered. That's how ISIS' worldview. Let's remember that 'us' is the vast majority who want peace, freedo…

You are correct, what I meant was "people." Or they will kill people. My point is that there are a lot of disenfranchised groups currently. Heck even I, a white male in the U.S, is disenfranchised in that the vast majority of my tax money (which I am happy to pay) goes to war and old people (http://whatwepayfor.com/). I don't support war in any way so I am disenfranchised.

Not all disenfranchised groups are killing people. Perhaps we should look at why certain ones do.

Re: Paris: You Don’t Want to Read This

#65
I think that the article is correct. Look at our (USA) history of over reacting to terrorism (which is what the terrorists want!) and the horrible end effects of dozens of 'regime changes' (often by using radical groups who are our 'moderates'). Also useful, from last April on the same web site: http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2...

Re: Paris: You Don’t Want to Read This

#66

Yeah like it's a great idea to "leave alone" a culture that is so expansive, so evil at its root, calling each and every one of its member to go and kill for their god, prophet, twisted idea of a perfect world. Yeah, that's a terrific idea to leave them alone, yes.

Please keep religious flamewars off HN.

Re: Paris: You Don’t Want to Read This

#68
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I also didn't really agree with this: > Whack-a-mole is a game, not a plan. Leave the Middle East alone. Stop creating more failed states. For some reason, I have difficulty thinking that just "leaving the Middle East alone" will somehow lead ISIS to disappear on its own and the Syrian government/Syrian rebels/Kurds/various fundamentalist islamist groups to magically arrive to some peaceful balance. Especially…

How do we know leaving the Mideast alone would not work? We've literally never tried it. Not since then end of World War II anyway. Human civilization may not be a naturally "stable system" but Western intervention in the Mideast or anywhere has an extremely poor track record.

Well there's egypt. They went their own road didn't they? With "democratic unelections" and all that. I lost count of the coup there, but seems more stable now, even if less free.

Re: Paris: You Don’t Want to Read This

#69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do we know leaving the Mideast alone would not work? We've literally never tried it. Not since then end of World War II anyway. Human civilization may not be a naturally "stable system" but Western intervention in the Mideast or anywhere has an extremely poor track record.

Well there's egypt. They went their own road didn't they? With "democratic unelections" and all that. I lost count of the coup there, but seems more stable now, even if less free.

The US propped up the Mubarak regime for decades. That was instrumental in creating the conditions for their revolution. The US only stopped its intervention when supporting Mubarak was obviously not viable anymore. Sadly it seems like they're back to a somewhat "stable" authoritarianism in spite of it all. In tech parlance, revolutions are hard.
Post reply on HN