
VLC contributor living in Aleppo writing about the Paris attacks - etix
https://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2015-November/105002.html
======
iamthepieman
I work with a Muslim and I'm a Christian. Since we are both very conservative,
I actually have more in common with him than with my secular coworkers and
friends. Unfortunately we both work remotely and live several hundred miles
from each other. I think we could be good friends if we lived closer.

One thing I have learned talking with my Muslim coworker is that, just like in
Christianity, there are many divisions and sects within the religion. I am
Atlantean and go to an Atlantean church. I would not want to be called a
Phoenician or Liliputian christian (made up names cause I don't want to offend
anyone this early in the morning).

Just as with anything else, the closer and more involved you are with
something the more you see distinctions between different categories of that
thing. As a total outsider your categories tend to be large, all encompassing
and dominated by the loudest, most visible or most discussed sub category. For
most westerners I think that sub category is, unfortunately radicalised
Muslims.

I'm fortunate that my coworker has given me a different perspective. I never
believed all Muslims were radicalised but the true revelation for me was that
my Muslim coworker was more like me than most non-muslims. It saddens me to
see states in my country rejecting refugees from Syria. They are depriving
their residents of potential friends and coworkers, potential spouses,
neighbors or playmates that can give them a new perspective and help make
their world a little larger and more interesting.

Edit: I'd love to have a discussion with anyone who disagrees with me. (Not
really making an argument but whatever) if you're down voting at least make a
comment please.

~~~
cygx
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
total Muslim population of about 1 billion), 40% of these think you should be
killed for leaving Islam.

To me, that's a scary number.

~~~
jacquesm
> a significant number of adherents of Islam hold ideas that are incompatible
> with an open society.

Significant numbers of non-Islam subscribers hold ideas that are incompatible
with an open society too. All these people have at least one thing in common:
they would like to change society to suit their ends.

And a very large number of people in my country would happily throw back those
fleeing the carnage to become victims of that 40%. Which in my opinion makes
them just about as bad.

~~~
crusso
_Significant numbers of non-Islam subscribers hold ideas that are incompatible
with an open society too_

If that's your contention then you'd need to account for the high terrorist
attack output of Islamists vs other non-Islam subscribers.

~~~
steveklabnik
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-...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/24/domestic-terrorism-
charleston_n_7654720.html)

    
    
      > 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, "terrorist" attacks are only committed by a Muslim majority
because we re-define any attack committed by a non-Muslim as "not terrorism."

~~~
crusso
Are you actually going to put some lone nut jobs here and there on the same
level as organized and determined jihadists? If so, you need to include the
tens of thousands of murdered people that ISIS has been responsible for.
You'll need to include the Russian jet that was blown up, the attack in Paris,
and all those killed by al-qaeda on 9/11, etc.

You'll also need to explain why the FBI terrorist list doesn't show that the
government has a similar concern for white supremacists.

[https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_terrorists](https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_terrorists)

~~~
NotSammyHagar
We define away the problem. White people shooting others is not usually
considered terrorism (such as a mass shooting committed by a white person).
Terrorism is used to label actions by people you don't like. Some politicians
even make statements calling the president a terrorist because he does
something they don't like. We don't call it terrorism when the American
government kidnapped people, took them to other countries, and let them be
tortured (rendition); I do think that was not only wrong but was something you
could use the T word for.

~~~
crusso
_White people shooting others is not usually considered terrorism_

If those white people were part of a religious movement indiscriminately
targeting the larger society, then of course they would be labeled
"terrorists". Do you have an example of where I'm wrong?

 _calling the president a terrorist_

If you'll recall, the White House referred to the GOP as suicide bombers over
debt ceiling negotiations. That's political posturing when either side does it
and has little to do with legitimate use of the word "terrorists" in the
context of labeling organizations seeking to maximize loss of life and
destruction through surprise attacks on civilians.

~~~
tareqak
The Charleston shooting of 2015 comes to mind as the perfect example [0].

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charleston_church_shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charleston_church_shooting)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Confederate_flag_controve...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Confederate_flag_controversy#Reactions_to_2015_Charleston_church_shooting)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Confederate_flag_controve...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Confederate_flag_controversy#Recent_public_opinion)

Edit: spacing

------
omginternets
I'm living in Paris. I heard gunfire from my apartment. My heart goes out to
Salah-Eddin, and all people living in the shadow of unspeakable abominations.
It saddens me to imagine that simply hearing gunfire in the distance is
nothing compared to what my fellow man has witnessed elsewhere.

Salah-Eddin's condolences mean a lot to me and I wish him all the best. 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.

For what it's worth, I've submitted an application to be a reservist in the
French army. It's one month of training and 30 days of active duty per year. I
sincerely hope my small effort will be helpful not only because it puts
another man in the Parisian battlefield (yes... that's sadly what it has
become), but also because it allows a better-qualified soldier to (hopefully)
deploy to the Middle East.

I don't presume to know whether or not my action is helpful, but I sincerely
hope it is. I'm already quite busy with my dissertation defense coming up in a
few short months, but this can do, so I will.

I suppose I needed to get that off my chest as well...

~~~
utku_karatas2
> It's my sincerest hope that French troops will be deployed to Syria in the
> near future

This kind of thinking is exactly why Mid-east is in its current state and that
is exactly the reason why ISIS was born.

ISIS high command mainly consists of Iraqi ex-officers, who were rendered
jobless and aimless by USA's 'liberation' attempt. Al-Qaida was a result of a
'liberation' attempt by Soviets and then consequently another 'liberation'
attempt by USA. Guess how the French 'liberation' will result at the end.

~~~
omginternets
I respectfully (and partially) disagree.

The invasion of Iraq was stupid, reckless and selfish. It was a for-profit war
that destabilized the region and allowed ISIS to take on its present form.

I'll have you remember that France staunchly opposed this war.

Now the US and the brits have left us with a veritable cesspool, and we're
bearing the brunt of the consequences.

This isn't a liberation attempt or a preemptive strike. This is responding to
an immediate threat. And again, it would be foolish and disastrous to _only_
respond militarily, but it's just as foolish not to protect ourselves from
immediate threats while we counter persistent threats through non-military
action.

Yours is a false dichotomy.

~~~
0xFFC
Am pretty angry about what is going on in world , so if you felt insulted , I
am so sorry , and You should understand I don't want to insult you or any
other person specifically,But I want insult Ideologies pretty badly.

As person who _LIVES_ in heart of middle east (Iran) and I have seen shia
militant from very close(I know people who works in IRGC),You are completely
and pure wrong , do you know what would generate another generation of
terrorist ? another invasion. I am atheist and liberal with a little being
gay,I am not gay , but sometime things go wrong - and believe me these are
pretty dangerous thing to be in Iran and would get me killed, without doubt -
but I can realize the only thing will give terrorist another opportunity is
invasion of a country in middle east. This is not your fucking war.This was
not west fucking war at all. They shouldn't come here in any circumstance.You
know what ? because Paris like terrorism act will happen again and again and
again. West should understand they were wrong all the time. What the fuck are
you doing in middle east ? You know what ? no body more than me would be glad
to live in secular community with secular government, but it seems politician
in west do not realize , being in middle east is equal to raising radical
movement against them. YOU SHOULD UNDERSTAND , MIDDLE EAST SHOULD FIGHT FOR
ITSELF, EVEN IF ISIS KILL ALL OF US, this is not your fucking war.I do not
remember reading if any alien did help west during the renaissance. Society
should grow.

PLEASE , do for humanity a favor , understand militarism is equal to
terrorism. I was talking with one idiot yesterday , and he mentioned I do not
believe France invade Iraq. Yes your are right idiot . France did not . but
west did . These fucking killers in middle east , do not see countries , they
see Islam against West.

Do you know who fights in Iran against mullah's ? Christians ? Are you kidding
me, mojahidin ? Those fucking traitors, no way.

Academia fights against mullah's, science fights, liberal people fighting
against mullah's more effective than any other person in whole revolution
history.This regime is almost unbeatable in political sense- because they have
money and manpower and oil- but do you know they are seeing liberals in their
nightmare. They even don't care about West invasion against Iran(some stupid
person like G.W Bush may even consider that option).Because at the end they
know the can manage harm West military pretty badly. Worse than maybe Vietnam
war.BUT THEY CANNOT FIGHT WITH INTERNET, WITH TOR, WITH STUDENTS who USE TOR.

Give them internet , provide them satellite , facebook/twitter/youtube/porn ,
Show them fucking beautiful women in Texas(with respect to women, I just want
show sexual incentives), show them there is no need to kill so many people to
get those woman , you can fuck like heaven in earth without killing people.
And BOOOOOM this is the sound of explosion of foundation of religion.

Ruin their stupid culture , and then you are going to see middle is will
revive. and turn to into secular place.

and Do you know who is supporting ISIS ? Which countries? I would suspect
Saudi Arabia ( the US closest ally after Israel in middle east).Can you
fucking believe it ? This is not double standard. This is fucking fraud
against humanity.At the end we all know , non of the west's politician's give
fucking flying shit about terrorism in middle east. If they did , They weren't
this double standard'ed against corrupted (I would say most corrupted regime
in whole world) regime in Saudi Arabia.What was last time you checked women
condition in Saudi Arabia.And why the hell us have this much relation ship
with country which behead people like candy. This is what I mean when I am
saying double standard.

p.s. if you felt I insult you , I am so sorry , I was talking broadly than
talking with you.I hope respectively, you understand there was something
_HUGE_ wrong with west policy in middle east.

~~~
return0
The middle east is politically undeveloped and unstable so wars would be
inevitable, with or without western involvement. It is unfortunate, but "great
powers" were involved in the nation building of many many different countries.
They seem to fail in middle east - so far. But that doesn't mean that it would
all be peaceful of the westerners stopped being involved.

The problem is, as your comment shows, the idea of a nation is far less
appealing than the idea of religion in middleeastern countries. You need to
first have people willing to fight for their _country_ more than they are for
their religion.

~~~
0xFFC
About first part of your comment that is a simple false, that is simple lie
western politician's they keep telling you . I can see personally what it will
turns when it implemented in real world.Personally ,in my personal life.But
about involvement , You should read my comment again carefully, I did say west
should involve vigorously , but with what? with changing mindset of people,
providing them Internet, free flow of information.It is so funny for me , USA
keeps spending unlimited amount of money for fighting Iran , the one of the
most important thing they should do is to figure out a way for providing free
internet and better proxies and these kind of things(Generally free flow of
information), they are not working on that . You may haven't seen what
internet do with people life in middle east, I have seen it , personally ,
with my own eye. It turn fundamental religious idiots to people's who spend
life time behind the desk reading/watching in internet.

p.s. about the part about country and religious.That was my whole point. YOU
simply should show them your religion is wrong, people can fuck and have sex
like haven (maybe better than that) in L.A. Without killing people.

Believe me , does not matter how much you are going to try and push. I will
guarantee you , there will not any nation in middle east with these
people.maybe a nation will be stabilize , but it will not democracy , it will
be Saddam Hussein like leader and guess what , there is another generation of
terrorist who will grow in Hussein like dictatorship.

Do you want nation. like you have in Scandinavia (in long term) ? keep working
on their mind with free information flow.

------
jacquesm
> They control large areas of land, have their own oil fields, and receive
> direct support from many countries in the region. Namely from rich oil-
> producing countries.

That's one of those things where we could make a fairly immediate change in
policy, it would come at a cost, definitely but it would change the situation
for IS for the worse far more effectively than any number of bombs dropped
would do.

~~~
rihegher
I don't see media speaking much about these countries that allows financing of
ISIS. But if we want to eradicate ISIS, I too think we should deal with its
financial sources first. Maybe because these countries are the same countries
that western companies want to sell weapons to.

~~~
sbarre
Isn't it naive to think of these countries as one entity? Is the US, or any
Western country, one unified allied voice where everyone has the same policies
or supports the same causes?

It's very likely that these "rich oil-producing countries" are made up of
fragmented power centres and viewpoints, just like everywhere else in the
world.

Painting these countries all with one brush is about as foolish as painting
Christianity (or Islam) with one brush too.

~~~
cm2187
But the fact is that they are a safe-heaven from the US anti-terror campaign.
After 9/11, pretty much in any other country of the world the financiers of Al
Qaeda would have been imprisoned or assassinated by the US and its allies. In
Saudi Arabia or Qatar, not only they have not, but they are still heavily
financing ISIS. Whether the monarchies are complicit or not, they are
certainly not doing anything against this financing.

~~~
jacquesm
This is a slightly dated but pretty good primer on how ISIS manages to pay the
bills to keep the lights on:

[http://www.newsweek.com/2014/11/14/how-does-isis-fund-its-
re...](http://www.newsweek.com/2014/11/14/how-does-isis-fund-its-reign-
terror-282607.html)

------
StavrosK
Isn't it sad that this has to be said at all? "Hey, not every adherent of a
religion supports killing innocent people of a different religion". It'd be
like us having to apologize for the Crusades.

Besides, the hits were driven by politics, religion is just a facade.

~~~
rmc
> _It 'd be like us having to apologize for the Crusades._

Or like Americans having to apologise for drone stikes, for Iraq and
Afghanistan, and specific attacks like the MSF hospital in Kunduz.

~~~
StavrosK
Well, those were done by the US government, which the US populace elects, so
there is a measure of responsibility.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Also, since US is a democracy, it means that the people should be able to
influence this behaviour of the government, so there's some responsibility in
that it did not happen.

------
MrPatan
Religion is a smoke screen. Does it matter if you chop bits off your kids
"because a book told me to" or "because my mom told me to"? All religions are
silly ridiculous relics. Let's stop talking about them.

The problem is the culture as a whole. Does it work? Or does it not work?

The way to know if a culture works is to look at migration patterns. People
leave cultures that don't work and go to better cultures.

But people from shitty cultures are still people, so this obvious enormous
fact goes completely unnoticed. They are not going to accept so easily that
their culture is not good. It takes generations.

Or it _took_ generations. Now it may not happen at all, because some people
pride themselves on respecting and _preserving_ other people's silly cultures,
instead of just respecting the people.

~~~
ue_
>All religions are silly ridiculous relics. Let's stop talking about them.

You can't actually reliably say this without first going through every
religion and telling us how ridiculous you find it.

But I'm not really bothered about every religion. Out of interest, what's
ridiculous about Buddhism, and how are you going to quantify the
ridiculousness?

Your argument doesn't work as well with Buddhism. It works to an extent (there
are repressive Buddhist monks etc.) If I lived near a Buddhist (or Christian)
monastery, chances are that I'd respect it, and I would wish to preserve it.
I'd even offer up for an alms round. After all, they do no harm to me.

Note that I'm only picking Buddhism because it's a religion I'm relatively
familiar with. I don't know enough about Christianity (the largest religion in
the world, which doesn't even advocate circumcision) to argue the point on
Christianity.

~~~
jordanpg
Litmus test: does it make any supernatural claims? Yes? Silly, ridiculous
relic.

Buddhism? Yes. Silly, ridiculous relic.

Please don't bore us with the usual equivocating about how Buddhism is
different, and complex, highly personal, etc.

Are there helpful aspects to Buddhist beliefs? Maybe. But it's still Bronze
Age philosophy with _plenty_ of supernatural claptrap mixed in. I'm not aware
of any useful aspects of Buddhism that don't have a purely secular equivalent.

~~~
ue_
>does it make any supernatural claims? Yes? Silly, ridiculous relic.

Not everyone views the world from an empiricist or materialist atheistic
viewpoint. I don't think it's nice to say something is ridiculous simply
because you don't see it that way. Further, many followers of religion
wouldn't say it's supernatural at all - it's part of nature that hasn't been
uncovered, or it can't be uncovered.

>Please don't bore us with the usual equivocating about how Buddhism is
different, and complex, highly personal, etc.

Buddhism is largely different from other religions, first and foremost that it
doesn't mandate the worship of a god, and further can be interpreted in such a
way that can dispense with _most of_ what you see as supernatural. Secondly,
for it's "find out yourself" nature that encourages questioning and going
beyond the realm of logical thinking.

And it is highly personal - it's got the idea that you have to be the one to
set yourself on the path. You can't be saved by someone simply by praying etc.

>I'm not aware of any useful aspects of Buddhism that don't have a purely
secular equivalent.

Buddhists are aware of one - it's called Nibbana - and it can only be realized
by following the Noble Eightfold Path, which I will say relies heavily on the
idea of kamma and "supernatural" ideas.

Please do not be so dismissive.

~~~
jordanpg
I don't really care if anyone's feelings get hurt by me pointing out that
something is very obviously false. Only religion gets that kind of treatment.

Moreover, I think that the fact that grownups can talk about supernatural
religious claims as if they are reasonable and true things about the world is
one of the root causes of what happened in Paris.

As for Buddhism, yes, I agree it has less supernatural nonsense than some of
the other major belief systems. And the supernatural aspects are sort of
optional.

But you've admitted (and I know full well) that there is a great deal of
supernatural nonsense tied up with it, for most real-world practitioners. So,
I dismiss it out of hand. Just like Mormonism, Scientology, Santa Claus, and
the virgin birth.

If there are useful aspects to it, let's tag them with secular labels and move
on with our modern lives. Shrouding it in important-sounding, mystical East
Asian language and symbols is just silly. Like people who have "katanas"
hanging over their mantles.

~~~
ue_
>Moreover, I think that the fact that grownups can talk about supernatural
religious claims as if they are reasonable and true things about the world is
one of the root causes of what happened in Paris.

I don't disagree with this. However I think another root cause is that you can
influence people to do terrible things when you convince them it's in the name
of peace or freedom etc. Humans have no problem getting the ideas of
nationalism into the heads of Neo-Nazis; no supernatural claims are needed
here. Religion can be used as a tool, and a tool can be used in multiple ways.

>But you've admitted (and I know full well) that there is a great deal of
supernatural nonsense tied up with it, for most real-world practitioners.

Whether you think it's nonsense is dependent on whether you believe the Buddha
was enlightened or not. I have faith that he was, and that the things he
related to people are a path to become enlightened ourselves. When I accept
this, it leads to the acceptance of the "nonsense" \- the things that you must
take purely on faith until doubt has been eliminated - and doubt is eliminated
through mindfulness (concentration and insight) meditation. I have faith until
I get there. If I don't get there and I still have faith, I'm not unhappy
about it.

I can spend my time practicing the Noble Eightfold Path, the practice of which
results in happy outcomes for myself (real or not) and being nice to other
people, causing no suffering or death or ill will nor bad feelings et cetera.
If I can accomplish that, then I'll be happy.

I don't even need Buddhism for this; I could go out and follow the principles,
but I will say it will feel _incomplete_. There are various things that may
stand in the way. For example, if I view there being no consequences to
clinging and attachment (if I didn't believe in karma), what reason would I
have to eliminate clinging? With clinging, I'm still unhappy etc. and my own
unhappiness means I will have very little happiness left to give for others.
The belief is a net benefit to me, and I think to the people around me.

>Shrouding it in important-sounding, mystical East Asian language and symbols
is just silly. Like people who have "katanas" hanging over their mantles.

I don't know of any alternative terms to _nibbana_ and _kamma_ aside from
"nirvana" and "karma". I write them like this only because this is how they
are written in the romanisation of the Pali language, the language in which
the Buddha's discourses are written in. To say "karma" leaves the
interpretation slightly more open to the meaning in Hinduism, which I believe
is a little different.

Kamma can, as far as I know, best be described as "cause and effect" on a very
large scale. The idea that actions have consequences; the idea of "bad karma"
and "good karma" is tied up really in interpretation. You can see the
consequences as good or bad. From the Buddhist perspective, it's a "law" of
the universe, not dissimilar to the laws inside physics that model the
universe. I suppose you can use "cause and effect" as a secular term for this,
but if you dismiss the concept of other worlds then using it as "cause and
effect" would be fine.

Nibbana is more difficult to describe in a "secular" way, as there's no way of
knowing that it actually exists unless someone tells you. You need to have
faith in it, or actually experience it in order to see the reality of it. In
fact, it's said that nibbana is beyond words, so any words one uses to
describe it are approximations; e.g, from Samyutta Nikaya 43:

The unfabricated, the uninclined, the truth, the far shore, the subtle, the
very difficult to see, the unaging, the stable, the unintegrating, the
unmanifest, the unproliferated (nippapancan), the peaceful, the deathless, the
sublime, the auspicious, the secure, the destruction of craving, the
wonderful, the amazing, the unailing, the unailing state, Nibbana, the
unafflicted, dispassion, purity, freedom, the unadhesive, the island, the
shelter, the asylum, the refuge, the destination

------
amake
> we are against their so called Islamic state, and against their retarded,
> barbaric version of Islam.

The problem with irrational belief systems is that you have no rational basis
for calling one version legit and one version "barbaric". Who's to say your
interpretation is correct? Maybe theirs is.

Better to recognize irrational beliefs for what they are and discard them
entirely (to the degree that's possible).

~~~
jacquesm
I think with barbaric he means to indicate they are willing to slaughter
innocents. Just like the IRA was nominally Catholic and the
Unionists/Loyalists were nominally protestant but in the meantime were happily
bombing each others schools. Anybody serious about either religion would not
bomb children, they'd be practicing a retarded barbaric version of
Christianity.

~~~
amake
If you accept all of the other irrational tenets of the religion, then why not
accept the idea that god wants you to bomb children? And if you believe that's
really what god wants, then who are you to refuse?

~~~
jacquesm
People will believe whatever it is that they want to believe, religious texts
can be twisted to support just about any position, or the opposite to that
position.

~~~
echaozh
I think the outermost comment made a great point that religion is basically a
tool to manipulate people, to make them make irrational moves. After all, if
you want people to move rationally, you make rational suggestions, otherwise
even if people are doing the right thing, they're doing it due to irrational
reasons.

When people are made to do good things due to irrational reasons, they may be
made to do bad things due to the same or similar reasons the next day. A
religion can teach to love and it can teach to hate. Why not discard such a
tool and let people make their own decisions with better reasoning other than
fear/love of God or wanting to have a better afterlife?

~~~
cookiecaper
There are several elements here. First, most people are not rational, and they
can't be motivated by rational deduction. Most people simply do not have the
intellectual horsepower to overcome their emotional perspectives and
rationalize themselves into good decisions, even when the essential data is
present. This invalidates "just be rational" as a practical solution to social
welfare.

Second, the essential data is rarely objective or complete. There are very few
datasets where a subjective value judgment on some information can be avoided;
if you incorrectly devalue some data, your "rational decision" can turn out to
be very problematic indeed. So not only are most humans incapable of
performing basic rational deduction, they also often lack the perspective
necessary to adequately value a subjective dataset, where "adequate" means
interpreting it to be compatible with general social cohesion and happiness.

The tried and true traditions of the previous generations of a successful
society may err in some smaller things, but in most things, they will be
reliable. Young adults (< 50) often lack the maturity and perspective to
properly understand the decisions they're making. They'd do well to listen to
their elders and try to learn from them.

All of this culminates in "religion" or something very close to it, and it's
essential to social stability. If you don't provide one, a replacement will
automatically generate. People _will_ find and adopt a belief system as
absolutes. You can see this in the "secularist" society of today, that adopts
what they perceive to be "scientific consensus" as effective religious tenets,
or in the "social equality" segment that adopts their interpretation of
"diversity and equality" as effective religious tenets.

------
Steve44
Reading that brought a tear to my eyes, he and many others live with this on a
daily basis. The subject is long and complex and I think his sentence "This is
a war of civilisations and way of life. and trust me. the peaceful one, the
one that always say sorry for everything is not going to win." is striking in
its truth, simplicity and horror.

Stay safe Salah-Eddin and thank you for your words.

------
prodmerc
With the immigration crisis and the Paris attacks, it seems that people
completely forgot the atrocities that these nutjobs commit in their own home
countries.

Perhaps it doesn't really matter to most westerners, but we shouldn't blame a
billion people for the insanity of a small part of them.

It's a crazy situation, for sure...

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
People intentionally forget. Terrorist attacks are a convenient excuse to not
allow refugees fleeing from the full terror of ISIS. We get one Paris. They
get Paris every single day.

------
justboxing
Gaeme Wood over at the Atlantic has a riveting piece on "What ISIS really
wants". Best long form investigative journalism I've read in nearly a decade.
[http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-
isi...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-
wants/384980/)

(Warning: It's really long, but answers a whole lot of questions that a whole
lot of westerners, outsiders have about that group, the region, their funding,
recruiting, idealogy and why they still haven't been defeated. Well worth a
read.)

~~~
marnett
thank you for sharing this. i have been listening to it for the past hour and
it really is a brilliant piece.

~~~
eneveu
How did you listen to it? Are you using some text-to-speech software? I didn't
find a link to download an audio version of the article.

------
msoad
I born Muslim but quit religion as soon as I understood how everything works.
I'm against every single organized religion. It's just a device for
dictatorship in my opinion. But Islam is just like Christianity and other
religions you might know. It's a old school of thought with super vague
sources. Anyone can have their own take. I can read the Bible and say
according to it I should kill and rape, same for Quran. They are all the same
and they are all stupid. Don't discriminate between stupid religions!

------
carlosrg
I'm not sure if he's going to read this, but anyway: be strong. I think
Western countries have finally understood that Daesh is a problem that can't
be "contained", that the only way is to completely eradicate them, even if
this means collaborating with governments that they don't like. This won't
make terrorism disappear of course, but at least a lot of evil people, the
same people trying to seduce young and naive muslims all around the world to
join them, will cease to exist.

------
Wintamute
This is why the response you often hear from some quarters: "these attacks
have nothing to do with religion/Islam" is so objectionable. It silences all
of the majority, ordinary, moderate Muslims that wish to reform their
religion.

[https://twitter.com/MaajidNawaz/status/666305480369831936](https://twitter.com/MaajidNawaz/status/666305480369831936)

------
Grue3
Isn't current Syrian government also guilty of perpetrating acts of genocide
against its own populace? This person is quick to denounce the other side, but
Assad's forces have killed thousands of civilians as well. [1]

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Syria](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Syria)

~~~
pluma
Better the devil you know.

The reason we (i.e. "The West") left Saddam in place until the US needed an
easy target after 9/11 is that despite being a dictator and mass-murderer, his
reign kept Iraq relatively stable. As soon as he was taken out of the equation
other forces began to fight for dominance and now we have a huge mess on our
hands that's arguably worse than where we started.

The same is true for most of the dictatorships toppled during the "Arab
Spring". This is partially why Russia was against intervening in Syria from
day one and why nobody seems to think Saudi Arabia or Qatar or any of the
other bloody dictatorships in that region are worth disrupting.

In many cases the actual borders of these countries are pretty arbitrary and
split up various ethno-religious groups (that often historically hate each
others' guts) in weird ways. As soon as you tell them to self-govern and
dispose of the dictators you end up with all these directly opposing interest
groups suddenly being able to get at each others' throats.

It's not that Assad is a nice person or that it's more ethical to leave an
evil person in place than to dispose of him, it's just that mindlessly handing
out guns and expecting an oppressed people to be rational is pretty much the
worst thing you can do.

Look at WW2 Germany. Sure, we got rid of Hitler, but in order to prevent
Germany from blowing up again (exactly what had happened after WW1) the Allies
actually had to work out long-term plans for the occupation of Germany to make
sure the citizens were educated enough to understand how messed up their world
view used to be and that the country was re-integrated into world economy and
politics.

We need a Marshall Plan for Syria with buy-in from several major influencers.
THEN we can talk about disposing of Assad.

~~~
seren
The problem with supporting dictators is that this is a powerful recruiting
argument for Isis.

"Look at the West, they claim to be democracies and defend human rights, but
they are supporting mass-murders here"

...which makes the West looks like a bunch of hypocrites. And this is an
argument that is factually hard to counter.

Frankly, I don't know what we should be doing. I don't see a solution without
a long political roadmap with likely a partition of Syria & Irak, to have an
Alawite state, next to a Sunni state, next to a Shia Iraq.

~~~
pluma
Except we're already hypocrites. We support all kinds of dictators and
terrorist groups. Though a lot of it has to do with preventing wars with
Israel.

------
downandout
I simply do not understand why we don't bomb every last one of the oil wells
they control. We could issue arrest warrants for the heads of every company
that buys their oil for providing material support to terrorists, and freeze
all assets of these companies in any country where the US has treaties that
allow it. We don't have to shoot them; we can starve them.

~~~
dtf
They've already done a pretty good job.

[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/16/isis-
caliphate-...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/16/isis-caliphate-
setbacks-islamic-state-attacks-paris-tripoli)

------
tim333
An interesting video summary of the history of the Syria war/mess (5 mins).
You don't know who to blame really. It's a shame both Russia and Turkey said
they were sending bombers to attack ISIS and then went after other targets
instead (the anti Assad forces, Kurds respectively).

[http://www.vox.com/2015/11/14/9735102/syria-isis-history-
vid...](http://www.vox.com/2015/11/14/9735102/syria-isis-history-video)

~~~
mildweed
I've learned more about Islam, ISIS, and the state of affairs in Syria from
this article than anywhere else. I wish I could TL;DR this one, but I can't.
It's so full of details and context I wouldn't do it justice. It's a long one,
but absolutely worth it.

[http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-
isi...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-
wants/384980/)

------
ausjke
I'm agnostic so really no prejudice on either side. I see so many
religions/gods on earth and I feel Muslim is the one that stays with their
stone age laws/rules without updating/revising the original released versions.
Other religions seem evolving over time, but Muslim is different and I feel
they are just so out, thus all these tragedies. Anything that has no ability
to upgrade/evolve overtime is doomed to be losers, and losers will go crazy
easily to blame others for their own failures.

Democracy or staying-politically-correct or show-mercy-to-the-murder are all
useless to combat this level of violence, the only way to really fix it, is
either they evolve and modernize quickly, or get erased by a war at a large
scale. It seems more likely the latter will be the case as they're turning
everyone against them quickly.

There are no good Muslim or bad Muslim, Muslim itself indeed is the root cause
here.

~~~
robwilliams
>Democracy or staying-politically-correct or show-mercy-to-the-murder are all
useless to combat this level of violence, the only way to really fix it, is
either they evolve and modernize quickly, or get erased by a war at a large
scale. It seems more likely the latter will be the case as they're turning
everyone against them quickly.

Who is "them"? ISIS or Muslims in general? It's absurd to think that there
aren't "modernized" Muslims in the US.

------
pomfia
I am not advocating blissful ignorance or anything, but I'd be really bothered
if religious and political talk become commonplace here. I mean we are
inundated with apologies, cynicism and hyperbole from facebook/twitter/reddit
already.

I will add something though. Why the apologies? The people apologizing have
nothing to do with these acts and are pointless. Plus, why did all these
barbarians start all this crap so recently ? Like after the 90's ?

------
kushti
It is time to stop terrorist states: ISIS, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and USA.

~~~
ifdefdebug
I can't downvote, so here you got my -1 personally.

edit: ok, let me explain: putting the USA and ISIS into the same bucket
"terrorist states" is just moronic, that's why. happy downvoting.

~~~
zerr
A terrorist act approved with a stamp is still a terrorist act.

------
alvarosm
It never ceases to amaze me to what lengths people go to stay in the land
they're attached to. I'd have fled my country a very long time ago if I had
ISIS that close.

~~~
1_player
I'm afraid it's not as easy as booking a flight and taking a cab to the
airport.

~~~
alvarosm
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.

~~~
scrollaway
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.

~~~
bluehex
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".

~~~
jacquesm
It gets a lot harder to flee if you're not a young male. Women, children,
elderly, disabled, people you care about and people you care for.

------
cs702
By writing that message, he's making himself a potential target of terror,
especially now that this is on the front page of HN and could be picked up by
mainstream media. For safety's sake, I hope he contributes to VLC under a
pseudonym and not under his real name.

~~~
bduerst
What you're communicating is essentially what "terrorists" are aiming to
achieve and draw power from. Their attacks are targeted to maximize disruption
of daily life and make people afraid of some unknown terror.

Better to continue life as you normally would, be alert, and to not give in to
fear.

~~~
jacquesm
That's fairly easy to write in an air conditioned office somewhere in the
west, but it was a pretty brave thing to do this right in the middle of the
action.

~~~
bduerst
Nobody said it's easy. I'm sitting in Paris right now, and it reflects the
attitude of many of the citizens here. I know shop owners that stayed open
over the weekend in defiance of what the terrorists were aiming to achieve.

~~~
jacquesm
I would expect no less from the French, they've always been remarkably
steadfast in their convictions, both on the political stage and in their
internal politics. Here's to hoping that they will be able to maintain this
level of resolve for the future.

------
awjr
So we need to drop a metaphorical bomb on the financial institutions that
support these regimes?

~~~
Hytosys
Why do you think that these financial institutions exist in the first place?

Another piece of the puzzle: [https://theintercept.com/2015/11/16/stock-
prices-of-weapons-...](https://theintercept.com/2015/11/16/stock-prices-of-
weapons-manufacturers-soaring-since-paris-attack/)

------
chappi42
Wow, how brave he is. Once a long time a go I was in Aleppo. Such a nice town.
Terrible how much destruction has happened.

'Normal countries' should help. I.e. fight a war against ISIS, kill them and
rebuild Syria. Including new government (under UN stewardship).

~~~
mtanski
> kill them and rebuild Syria. Including new government (under UN
> stewardship).

Because that has worked so well in the (recent) past?

~~~
chappi42
This hasn't been tried yet afaik. Sure, I don't know how UN stewardship could
be possible atm. But in a smaller better connected world, I think, we
increasingly need a way to police failed/bad-behaving/suffering states. (Or
better said, to help the people living in such states).

The millions of refugees, spread of lunatic but well funded fundamentalism and
the scope of terrorizing local neighborhoods hasn't been happened in the
(recent) past.

What else do you propose?

~~~
mtanski
> What else do you propose?

I don't agree to the We Must Do Something, This Is Something sentiment.

Clearly we have to get our arms around the situation. We UN should actually
coordinate a plan to figure what we can do. Rushing to put soldiers on the
ground always ends up complicating the situation further and it's a choice you
cannot take back (seeing how we're still stuck in many places) years after.

------
wangii
the thing I never understand: why God/Allah even care if I believe in him or
not?

~~~
TheCoelacanth
Because a meme involving a god that doesn't care if you believe in him has low
evolutionary fitness because believers have no reason to spread their belief.

------
crishoj
> [They] receive direct support from many countries in the region. Namely from
> rich oil-producing countries.

I assume the author is alluding to Saudi Arabia here.

How absurd is it not of the West to

* on one hand is claim to oppose Islamic terrorism, while

* on the other hand having among the closest allies in the region what probably amounts to the most radical, fundamentalist, human-rights abusing and not the least culturally and religiously influential states there, preaching religious intolerance to a world-wide audience of susceptible followers.

Recently, Nicholas Nassim Taleb, author of Black Swan, wrote[1] a thoughtful
commentary on the situation:

> Since 2001 our policy for fighting Islamic terrorists has been, to put it
> politely, missing the elephant in the room, sort of like treating symptoms
> and completely missing the disease.

> Policymakers and slow-thinking bureaucrats stupidly let terrorism grow by
> ignoring the roots. So we lost a generation: Someone who went to grammar
> school in Saudi Arabia (our “ally”) after September 11 is now an adult,
> indoctrinated into believing and supporting Salafi violence, hence
> encouraged to finance it — while we got distracted by the use of complicated
> weapons and machinery.

> Even worse, the Wahhabis have accelerated their brainwashing of East and
> West Asians with their madrassas, thanks to high oil revenues.

> * * *

> So instead of invading Iraq, blowing up Jihadi John and individual
> terrorists, thus causing a multiplication of these agents, it would have
> been be easier to focus on the source of all problems: the Wahhabi/Salafi
> education and the promotion of intolerance by which a Shiite or a Yazidi or
> a Christian are deviant people.

> If we absolutely need to put people in Guantanamo, it would be far more
> effective to ship the Salafi preachers and Wahhabi clerics over there, not
> just the people swayed by their teaching. And if we need to correct the
> profound Saudi problem, we need to start by sending to them our preachers,
> educating them into tolerance, explaining the very concept of the separation
> of church and state. Or, better even, encourage Muslim preachers who promote
> religious tolerance (“laka dinak wa li dini“) — instead of seeing them
> ostracized.

> And if you find violence unavoidable, it should be directed at the Saudi and
> Qatari funders of violence, as well as the Salafi theorists, rather than the
> young performers.

> P.S. Beware the usual ISIL crypto-sympathizer who sort of “explains” (that
> is, justifies) what happened (the intentional targeting of civilians) with
> some other Western event that can hark all the way to the Crusades…
> Otherwise it is presented as “biased.” You can spot such people from a mile
> away. For them, you cannot condemn ISIL without at the same time trying to
> be “balanced.” Who are they fooling? This is the technique of bundling
> together problems that should be treated independently, and you need to
> learn to deal with such people by forcing them to discuss the problem of
> ISIL on its own.

[1] [http://www.politico.eu/article/the-saudi-wahhabis-are-the-
re...](http://www.politico.eu/article/the-saudi-wahhabis-are-the-real-foe-
islamic-terrorists-salafi-violence/)

(edited for formatting)

------
ps4fanboy
[http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/int/long.html](http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/int/long.html)

I am not sure how valid these translations are, but there seem to be a lot of
incendiary passages in the Quran, how do we reconcile these view points with
modern society.

I also understand that old testament (I am not christian) is just as bad but I
was under assumption that the old testament was a carry over from
Christianities Jewish roots, and the new testament supersedes it?

~~~
dragonwriter
> I also understand that old testament (I am not christian) is just as bad but
> I was under assumption that the old testament was a carry over from
> Christianities Jewish roots, and the new testament supersedes it?

Christian differ on the effect of the NT on the OT, since the NT contains both
material that seems on the simplest reading to endorse the OT law in full,
material which seems on the simplest reading to provide different and simpler
rules than those in the OT law, and material which seems on the simplest
reading to explicitly limit the application of most OT laws.

In practice, you end up with a whole spectrum of ideologies among Christians
(and the same is true of Muslims.)

------
galfarragem
The mistake, maybe an historical one, is that Europe, or better, the media
insist in treating the symptoms instead of treating the causes.

------
yeonJune
It really makes us angry, but we should also know there are good Muslims who
hope for the world of peace.

------
nononononono
"It's only through God's mercy that we are not under their rule now."

Great way of robbing the people who put their lives to save you of their
contribution.

Thanking god for a series of events is nothing more than ignoring reality. A
series of events happened, and that's that.

------
mtw
Is it possible to donate to a specific VLC contributor?

------
NicoJuicy
This text could be kinda direct, but it's what i think could help to get a
"solution" or more efficient approach to eliminate IS.

\- Bomb the oil fields, forget about politics/economics , don't let IS grow.
Just take away their primary income so they'll internally bleed out... The
people who come from Europe woudn't like it there if they don't receive any
money.

\- Track down the big import behaviour of Western Products ( Red Bull,
Nutella, Hummers, ... ) that IS terrorists love. Elimnate the import of it.
They don't want Western products, no problem. Cut them off the economy and
black market as quick as possible.

\- Make it illegal to buy black market oil from IS, track down people who want
to have some quick money.

\- Invest in rebels that attack IS on the ground ( some people from France and
the UK voluntarely go there)

\- If there is any proof of Middle East supports IS. Then take economic
sanctions. Work together with Russia, America, Europe and China. Invest in oil
alternatives FAST

\- Put a website online www.worldagainstterrorisme.com where there are a
couple of big sections:

\- SnitchTerrrorists, to report abnormal behaviour. Make it so that you can
see which ethicity/religion has reported them. So people would realize that
muslims don't support extremist behaviour

\- LiveTarget, witch the cooperation of America, an online live sattelite map
that limits to Syria and the part that IS controls. Limit the visibility of
known friendly groups ( eg. masking / using older images when a friendly plane
crosses the land). So people in the world can unite and track down extremist
behaviour in the IS country. Make it easy to report suspicious behaviour and
you can bomb the hell out of them as soon as they get out of their building
with the help of the community.

\- The media should make fun with IS instead of addressing them as the big
enemy. Make fun with the people who go there, target them as dumb ( if they
had bad grades, ...) and change the public perspective for people who are
compelled to go there because they hate where they live / feel discriminated
because of social community problems

\- I have another idea, but that is morely to protect western nations. That
should be hidden from public eye ;) - contact me if you would like to know :P

Edit: If you're down voting at least make a comment please, Eg. how you think
states/nations can handle it "better"

My proposition are for the following intentions: less generalisation and less
racisme ( not every muslim is IS! ), more public effort to help ( snitching
extremists, finding IS members in their home country, ...), lessen the media
appeal of IS for people with non-western feelings - living in Europe because
of social problems in a country / community / city, ...

------
yeonJune
It makes me sad that all I can do is just praying for Paris.

------
finnjohnsen2
Powerful stuff.

------
joelgarciajr84
I think we are tech people, whe should do something!

------
zanethomas
i hope he has security

------
enesunal
I'm Muslim and the problem is not about Islam. Problem is all about the people
who want to gain money for themselves. I know a truth that makes sense anytime
I remember; everything is related to money or sex in this world. Nothing else
matters. Religion is just a tool to manage the money.

~~~
sumedh
> I'm Muslim and the problem is not about Islam.

Its time to get our heads out of the sand. Religion is part of the problem
whether its Islam or Christianity etc. I agree other factors play a role too.

Religion is the best tool to brainwash people.

~~~
DanBC
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.

~~~
kriztw
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.

~~~
DanBC
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.

~~~
redial
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.

