
Paris: You Don’t Want to Read This - sinak
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2015/november/14/paris-you-don-t-want-to-read-this/
======
danso
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...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-
wants/384980/)

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 heavily contingent on it having material
victories, including territorial conquests:

> _One way to un-cast the Islamic State’s spell over its adherents would be to
> overpower it militarily and occupy the parts of Syria and Iraq now under
> caliphate rule. Al‑Qaeda is ineradicable because it can survive, cockroach-
> like, by going underground. The Islamic State cannot. If it loses its grip
> on its territory in Syria and Iraq, it will cease to be a caliphate.
> Caliphates cannot exist as underground movements, because territorial
> authority is a requirement: take away its command of territory, and all
> those oaths of allegiance are no longer binding._

This could be an argument for or against intervention...for intervention,
because U.S.-powered intervention would likely overwhelm the ISIS forces and
take back territory. But OTOH, the writer asserts that besides unforeseen
problems of U.S. intervention (as seen in Iraq and Afghanistan)...ISIS _wants_
America to invade for prophetic reasons.

The Atlantic writer asserts:

> _Given everything we know about the Islamic State, continuing to slowly
> bleed it, through air strikes and proxy warfare, appears the best of bad
> military options. Neither the Kurds nor the Shia will ever subdue and
> control the whole Sunni heartland of Syria and Iraq—they are hated there,
> and have no appetite for such an adventure anyway. But they can keep the
> Islamic State from fulfilling its duty to expand. And with every month that
> it fails to expand, it resembles less the conquering state of the Prophet
> Muhammad than yet another Middle Eastern government failing to bring
> prosperity to its people._

~~~
Wonderdonkey
Came here to recommend this article as well. It's by far the most informative
piece I've ever read on ISIS. This should be required reading for every
policymaker and military strategist.

~~~
mpatobin
This NPR podcast gives good insight to the rise of ISIS as well
[http://www.npr.org/2015/09/30/444721285/journalist-
discusses...](http://www.npr.org/2015/09/30/444721285/journalist-discusses-
the-rise-of-isis-and-its-future-in-syria-and-iraq)

------
drawkbox
The only solution to end this is economics.

Where people are not economically well off, these will happen, people are
terrorists for a reason and it wasn't because their life was great.

We left Iraq susceptible without a Marshall Plan like economic effort after
the military effort like we did in Japan and Europe after WWII. We downgraded
the quality of life and that is not the direction things need to go for peace.
The downgrade in quality of life fueled extremism even more.

A peaceful place is a comfortable place and usually the cornerstone of that is
an economy where everyone can participate and succeed, the government is
secular, and bombs aren't being dropped where you live.

There is nothing you can do to combat terrorism other than make a better life
for the people susceptible to it and maybe they will decide it is not worth
it. When people are comfortable they are calm. Bombs create more terrorism and
gang like tribal attacks on both sides.

Our strategy in Iran (and Cuba) is actually the best one we have going.
Allowing people to live and let live and prosper as long as there is a mutual
agreement not to attack. This worked in Japan, Germany and other places that
also had idealogical control that was overly strong.

We'll need a smarter economic plan for places we deal with. China is an
emerging world power and their trade routes and economic benefits they bring
will win out if we don't get back to building up after tearing down.

It looks like this idea is out there in some circles [1]

[1] [http://www.ibtimes.com/mideast-marshall-plan-syrian-
refugee-...](http://www.ibtimes.com/mideast-marshall-plan-syrian-refugee-
crisis-after-paris-terrorism-new-calls-invest-2186208)

~~~
enoch_r
On the contrary, surprisingly enough, it does not seem to be the case that
poverty causes terrorism--either within a country (poorer people aren't more
likely to become terrorists) or between countries (people from poorer
countries aren't more likely to become terrorists).

[https://www.nber.org/digest/sep02/w9074.html](https://www.nber.org/digest/sep02/w9074.html)

[http://www.economist.com/node/17730424](http://www.economist.com/node/17730424)

~~~
aikah
Thanks for the links, I found the OP's message just insulting to the poor
people. Those who pull the strings of terrorism are well usually off and with
a political agenda that couldn't care less about poverty.

------
chappi42
> 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 ethics'. Instead that millions of Syrian people flee their home one
maybe should (but how?) rebuild by force a capable democratic government
there. Administrated by the UN for 10 years if their own people are incapable
to compromise.

(A bit naive, I know...)

~~~
yourepowerless
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 the developed world has any roll in lecturing others on ethics,
should these lectures occur during or after the class on how to torture, or
perhaps after the panel discussion of why Cuba is an excellent place to lock
up foreigners indefinitely, foreigners we even admit aren't guilty of any
crimes.

The extreme myopia on display in this thread is plenty of reason for why
violence begets violence, its sad and laughable that commenters believes the
western world played no role in the millions of deaths and refugees that have
come about since 9-11.

What most commentators have wrong is that the violence in France wasn't an act
of terrorism, but just another battle in the decade plus war that's been
mostly happening in the Middle East, only this time the battle occurred on the
streets of Paris instead of outside Kabul, or in Mosul, or in the outskirts of
Damascus. Westerners seen to have forgotten that their politicians have been
waging a war for them, and now their politicians want to engage in even more
of the same. insanity.

[0][http://blog.unwatch.org/index.php/2015/09/20/saudi-arabia-
wi...](http://blog.unwatch.org/index.php/2015/09/20/saudi-arabia-wins-bid-to-
behead-of-un-human-rights-council-panel/)

~~~
chappi42
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?

------
zxcvcxz
Well I'm watching MSNBC right now and pretty much every commentator is talking
about how the terrorists were communicating using encryption and suggesting
the fact that criminals have the ability to communicate secretly is something
new that needs to be curtailed. Haven't seen anyone suggest we should read
everyones mail yet (maybe they do this in France?). It's pretty crazy the way
the media is acting. Am I to really believe they're this dumb and that they're
not trying to push an agenda?

Crazy times we're living in.

~~~
soylentcola
I noticed the same thing on the CNN feed they run in the lobby at work. All
sorts of talk about encryption being the reason that massive international
intelligence apparatus was unable to prevent or predict the recent attacks in
Paris.

I'm not sure how much is talking points or how much is just commercial news
media looking for an angle they can pitch as new insight. Either way, it was
really weird to run across. There are so many factors at work here and so many
conflicting motivations and policies and bits of info...yet the top story is
about how long-existing, commonly available methods may have been used to
thwart the combined intelligence agencies of the western world.

------
cpt1138
"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.

~~~
hackuser
> 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, freedom, and
justice, of every religion. 'They' are the perpetrators of hate and violence,
everywhere. A fundemental tactic of hate groups like ISIS is to drive a wedge
in our group, to alienate our Muslim brothers and sisters.

~~~
cpt1138
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/](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.

------
Someone1234
The author was right: I did not.

I do not want to read another article by someone who thinks the Iraq war was
about terrorism, and who seems to have potato levels of knowledge about
international politics.

> and now in Syria, before in Libya, and only created more failed states and
> ungoverned spaces that provide havens for terrorists and spilled terror like
> dropped paint across borders.

Yeah, no, that isn't at all what happened. The US didn't create Syria or
Libya. They're both civil wars that started organically (see "Arab Spring");
the US (and UK, et al) tried to fund certain factions after the conflicts
kicked off, but they didn't initiate it.

While I agree with the overall thrust that we shouldn't sacrifice freedom for
security, this whole article reads like a YouTube comment (meaning:
uninformed, of low quality, making emotional but vapid arguments).

~~~
seszett
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 with ISIS having the
stated goal of world domination (yeah, just leaving alone those who want to
dominate the world rarely works, we tried that for a while before 1939).

The truth is, human society and civilization isn't a fundamentally stable
system that's being thrown off by US or European interventions. Intervention
is sometimes useful, sometimes bad, and it seems difficult for everyone to
estimate whether interventions will be good or not.

~~~
minimuffins
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.

~~~
LoSboccacc
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.

~~~
minimuffins
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.

------
bantunes
If the War On Drugs is any indication, the Western world will never stop doing
the wrong thing - even with evidence that it's not working.

------
dudul
What other response than "we will find them and kill them one by one" can be
given by democracies? Democracies cannot back down because of terrorists. I
honestly think that, by design, terrorism cannot win against western
democracies.

I wonder if terrorists understand that. People will be afraid, people may be
scared, but at the end, governments will not yield. And to be clear, I'm not
saying politicians are brave or whatever, it's just because of how democracies
work.

------
myztic
Regarding Iraq (since it comes up in some other comments) one could (I am
playing devil's advocate here) make the argument that the Iraq war was a just
war on false assumptions. What reasons do you need to remove a dictator?

0) He does not respect territorial integrity of neighbour states

1) He houses international wanted terrorists, makes it possible for them to
hide

2) He commits crimes against humanity (unjust prison and death sentences,
violent crimes against political opponents)

3) He is ignoring UN Resolutions

Saddam Hussein was guilty of all of the above, that said:

0) There was no direct connection between Hussein and 9/11

1) There were no WMDs found

Three questions:

Should the United States (and the other opposing parties in the Gulf War) have
left him in power or removed him then? Maybe they should have removed him then

Was the Iraq war based on false information, false reasoning and some
deception? I would say yes it was

Was it still "just" to remove Hussein? That's the 1 million dollar question,
and I am not 100% certain how I should answer...

[And to clarify: I am no fan of George W. Bush, indeed no fan of the Bush
family, I do think the Iraq war was wrong, but I am always open to other
arguments. Christopher Hitchens made an interesting pro-Iraq war case, you
should look some of his articles from that time up]

~~~
lobster_johnson
Saddam was a terrible dictator, but what the US created was much, much worse.

We can learn something from Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. Toppling a dictator
doesn't automatically create a new, civilized society. Even promising
uprisings like the Libyan uprising of 2011 don't guarantee a good outcome.

In Iraq, the US created a huge power vacuum by decapitating the state —
removing not just Saddam, but the entire civil and military leadership,
through Paul Bremer's completely misguided process of "de-Baathification".
There was no power structure left to ensure the continuity of Iraqi society.
Even clerk-level Baathists were dismissed, people in charged of everything
from health care to utilities. It's like nobody on the US side had studied any
history whatsoever.

~~~
dragonwriter
> It's like nobody on the US side had studied any history whatsoever.

It certainly seemed like that, though its more likely the actual problem was
that the people at the highest levels of authority on the US side consistently
ignored and overrode the people that had studied history and learned from it,
listening instead to the people that had not, because the latter were saying
more pleasing to the decision-makers ideological preconceptions.

Its not like the uniformed military leadership of the time somehow, in a
historical aberration, managed to include only people who were completely
ignorant of every past experience of occupation of formerly-hostile territory
everywhere, including the occupations of Japan and Germany after WWII.

------
mark_l_watson
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...](http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-
articles/2015/april/27/ron-paul-why-are-us-special-forces-in-81-countries/)

------
Mikeb85
Islamic 'terror' started long before colonialism.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests)

People often forget this, but 1000 years ago Islamic armies were in Spain,
Italy, and had conquered 'Roman' lands. 500 years ago they attacked Russia,
the Balkans, and central Europe.

While the actions of the west may have inflamed things more recently, they
were attacking us long before western 'colonialism'.

~~~
minimuffins
When do you think colonialism started? Christopher Columbus? The British
Empire? Check out these pre-Islamic colonizers:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_history_of_the_Roman_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_history_of_the_Roman_military)

What were those expansionary battles? Hellenistic terrorism?

Saying Islamic imperialism in the 1000's was terrorism (like they were the
only ones doing it!) is like Richard Dawkins levels of tone deaf racist
hyperbole. Do you want to be like Richard Dawkins?

~~~
Mikeb85
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.
The only thing that 's changed is the method of warfare... Why do you think
Russia and Serbia are so bitter about Kosovo?

~~~
minimuffins
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 Iraq war is a continuation of the
crusades.

~~~
Mikeb85
> 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](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.

------
ayushgta
Related to this discussion. For those interested, here is a report by NIA
(Anti terrorism federal agency in India) about recruitment of a 22 year old by
ISIS (It is redacted but kinda readable):

[http://www.nia.gov.in/NIA-Cases/Mumbai/01-2014-NIA-
Mum(CH).p...](http://www.nia.gov.in/NIA-Cases/Mumbai/01-2014-NIA-
Mum\(CH\).pdf)

------
bsaul
i don't think the US had any country destabilisation action occuring while
9/11 took place. french hadn't bomb anyone while the 1995's st michel subway
station took place, etc etc.

i have a test for evaluating those kind of speeches : would it have been a
good speech to give in france or england in the year 1938.

------
wangii
The very idea that any foreigner living thousands miles away could better
understand and solve complex problem local people struggling for decades(even
centuries) makes me sick. So does the idea that any rational organisation
would commit to decades long nation-building projects.

No matter how wealthy the rest of the world combined, we just don't have
enough resource (including political capital to support long term commitment)
to solve the mid-east problem, let alone various calculations every
participating countries might entertains.

------
richmarr
This is a republished copy. The original story is here:

[http://wemeantwell.com/blog/2015/11/14/paris-you-dont-
want-t...](http://wemeantwell.com/blog/2015/11/14/paris-you-dont-want-to-read-
this/)

------
ls66
This ignores the fact that whack-a-mole has almost certainly indeed thwarted
other attacks that would have otherwise sailed through. The problem is
complex, no doubt, but I think for a civilized society pursuing this
individually is almost the only option.

------
GnwbZHiU
> Leave the Middle East alone

That's what the US did by withdrawing army from Iraq. And it doesn't work
either.

------
SFjulie1
J'acquiesce.

------
joesmo
I think it's obvious that our strategies haven't been working. It's also
obvious that no amount of pointing this out is going to change anything.
Attacks will continue. Liberties will continue disappearing. And countries
that aspire to imperialism like France and the UK will continue to follow the
US into un-winnable war after un-winnable war destabilizing whatever country
the "enemy" of the week lives in.

Of course France will not learn from history just as the US hasn't learned.
It's pretty obvious what comes next. And all at our citizens' expense, not
anyone else's. I'd say the terrorists have not only achieved their goals, they
have surpassed even their wildest imaginations. And for that, they had to do
absolutely nothing because the biggest terrorists are the ones passing things
like the Patriot and Freedom acts, the ones who send others to die for their
own cowardice. The biggest terrorists are indeed amongst us, but they're not
Muslim, and you can watch them on CSPAN.

------
obrero
Western involvement in the middle east is an imperialist, colonialist action,
at the behest of oil companies, military contractors and Zionists. The French
have been bombing the Syrians for over a month - where were the mawkish "We
are all Syrians" corporate media campaigns at that time? The French bombed the
Syrians, so now the Syrians have bombed the French, the French got what was
coming to them.

When France was trying to reimpose colonialism on Syria in 1945, Syrians
marched through the streets for independence. The French army shot the
marchers down in the street. For the past month, French bombs have been
attacking Syria and the French attitude toward the Syrians haven't changed a
whit.

The corporate news was telling me the secular Assad was a monster who gassed
his own people in the past years, and the US began arming opposition groups,
_including Islamic fundamentalists_. Now I'm being told ISIS are monsters and
such. And at the same time I'm being told that the Russians are bad because
they are helping Assad fight ISIS. It's risible.

Fox News says the same thing about blacks in the US. Like Oscar Grant, Trayvon
Martin, Eric Garner, Michael Brown. That they're animals and savages that have
to be put down by police. It looks like all the same thing to me.

~~~
chappi42
This old imperialist stories get... old. I'd say the Syrians bombed the
Syrians. And the situation is complicated and nobody knows how to help and/or
what to do.

You're comparision between bombing terrorists in Syria and murdering civilists
in French is.. <not ideal> (leaving out words what I really think)

