With the amount of Syrian/Afghan refugees flooding into Europe right now and Europes involvement in those wars, I imagine this sort of thing is going to be on the rise.
You may be right, though the sociopaths behind this may have also been home grown terrorists as well. Remember, a lot of organisations like IS are trying to stir up violence among citizens of countries in Europe and the West.
Either way, it's an absolutely awful turn of events, and the kind of horrible thing that I thought would never happen again after the attacks in the early 00s.
That means not allowing people to break the rules of society due to their personal beliefs but enforcing laws above board. No "shadowbanning" (unlawful arrests) or unlawful surveillance.
I believe that what ps4fanboy meant is "Europe's involvement in those wars that the refugees are fleeing". That is, Europe has had some involvement in Libya, Syria, and Iraq.
Do any of the refugees blame Europe for their [Europe's] involvement? Probably some do, yes.
Yes, for the most of the people fleeing that was the sum total of their involvement. And for a small percentage of those people they either are taking the fight with them or have other plans. It's a tough situation, on the one hand no right thinking person has a problem with sheltering refugees, on the other hand those very same people are worried about what the long term consequences of these mass movements of people will be. One thing is fairly certain, the Schengen agreement (which has done more for the unification of Europe than almost any other EU activity short of the launch of the Euro) is going to be a casualty.
It is already changing. Give it a few weeks. Sweden and Hungary have already put border controls back in place, France will likely do as well as a result of this attack at least for the foreseeable future. After that - and coupled with the immense increase of cross-border crime in the last decade - it will be a fairly easy step to rescind Schengen, if not in name then at least in spirit or on a 'temporary' basis. It's the easiest way out of a lot of the current problems and it is a lot cheaper than militarizing the Balkans which has other side-effects that are mostly undesirable.
Border controls are one thing. Freedom of movements is another. Being forced to flash id card at the border is not the same as the border officer being able to refuse entry to a legal EU citizen.
> You've never seen the ag inspection stations at California border crossings, or the Border Patrol posts near the NM/TX line?
The latter has nothing essential to do with the NM/TX border, there are border patrol checkpoints (including mobile ones) in a pretty wide swath "near" the Mexican border. They don't exist to enforce any kind of control on state borders.
What do you mean? They are all women and children. Even that guy with the heavy beard and body of a 25 year old man, he's really 15. He's actually Syrian too, the accent being completely wrong is just a quirk.
He's a child at heart! Seriously though, it's a terrifying thought of having tens of thousands+ of people wandering about unregistered / unscreened first. It is (has) changed now somewhat, but who knows what was let in.
Next thing you know, a new and even more totally total mass surveillance law is passed. (Obviously, attacks will continue to happen from time to time.)
Given the unusually extreme nature of this (at least from the witness reports of the mayhem as it's ongoing), I fear a mass surveillance bill might actually be one of the lesser worries.
which is sickening, and i would also question the use of these sources, will they only be placed at risk if the target is the US, or perhaps only when it is US VIPs on US soil. What if they are never to be at risk? Where is their value?
Or a fairly simple, and unfortunately satisfying, explanation; this attack is an official action intended to provide a political climate conducive to power consolidation.
why is that any more likely than it being a home grown terrorist attack? But my point stands, the US may well have had prior knowledge but want the french onside for future anti-terror wars, if that isnt the case then the millions or billions spent on intelligence gathering since 2001 has been a complete waste.
I think it could wait for a day or two, this is happening right now and it is entirely disrespectful to those involved to derail this into some argument contra the surveillance state.
I think you're in error here. Benevol is talking about we need to talk about what kind of life we want to live, and this is a good time to talk about it. You yourself have been providing a lot of context in this thread (exhausting my upvote muscles...) talking about the same thing - why this is happening, sources of unrest, how to deal with the root problem, how technology is actually contributing to the problem... a tonne of context (thank you). But talking about surveillance laws dovetails into the gestalt of the problem, methinks.
The problem is that as soon as the surveillance issue is put on the table the rest of what is important gets snowed under with a re-hash of the same old very much worn out arguments. I'm fine with giving the surveillance issue a rest. It's patently obvious to me that it is not working at all and it is also patently obvious to me that in spite of it not working attacks like this will be used to justify whatever the 'morons in charge' can come up with next. So we can take that as read and then wonder how we - each of us personally - can do something to halt the advance of that and I'm sure that collectively we could achieve something. My way of helping out has traditionally been to employ as many people on the fringe as possible to help them where I could and to right wrongs where-ever I saw them. I draw my friends from all walks of life and try to be inclusive as much as I can. On a personal scale that's just about all I can do and even though it is nothing to be proud of I definitely think it made a measurable difference. The whole thing boils down to 'circle of concern/circle of influence' for me and a rehash of the surveillance discussion falls entirely outside of that 'circle of influence' even though it concerns me very much and I wished that politicians would wise up. It'll happen hopefully, one day.
No, it's a terrible time to talk about it. Talk about it now and you're going to get emotion-driven reactions, and they aren't going to be what you want.
There isn't any time that would be less effective for your goals than right now.
Then no-one should be talking about anything to do with causes or wider issues. This page should then be nothing other than "this is bad, I hope everyone is safe". Instead we're seeing a lot of discussion and a lot of it is good - I think jacquesm in particular is doing a great job in providing context in a level-headed manner. The thing is, just because you start talking about it now doesn't mean you can't talk about it later. Or that you can't change your mind.
Also, it's like 'teen abstinence' sex ed - you can tell people to refrain all you want, but they're still going to do it. People want to talk about this thing as it's happening; they will find a place to do it regardless.
Now, because the pressure for new government powers is very urgent, and there may well be action in days, not weeks.
But we need to do so with sensitivity, too, now.
Edit: I'll go with jacquem's reply to NewNole2001: It can wait a day or two. It can't wait weeks, though. (The Patriot Act was passed less than 7 weeks after 9/11.)
A mature response is to start discussion ASAP and bring in more information as it becomes known. Entering a state of faux paralysis out of some sort of sense of 'too soon' gets us nowhere. It's also not like terrorist attacks are new to Europe - this one is a bit bigger than normal, but it's not a 9/11-scale outlier.
Care for the living or cry for the dead. Making sure that the living don't sign off too much of their freedom while under shock, duress and scare is indeed a legitimate help. And taking care of them. I cannot resurrect people, I am also not trained commando in France's gendermerie, so preventing the abuse of that tragedy and stopping the surveillance state is the best I can do as an European at the moment.
It is our duty to keep our heads cool and minds clear. When the smoke has cleared - then we will grief.
People are ALWAYS dying. Far more from preventable accidents, disease, and war than from terrorism. That does NOT make terrorism any less despicable. But those who use fear of atrocities to push their own oppressive agendas are little better than terrorists themselves. It's a sad truth that there's no question that many surveillance advocates will use an event like this to push their own agendas.
I'm far from a 'surveillance advocate' and yet I think that it is pretty tasteless of those on the opposite side of that fence to do exactly the same thing.
You are talking as if terrorism was a natural disaster, something you can compare statistically and impossible to confront. Terrorism makes you feel fear, even if it's irrational it impacts you and the society you live.
Terrorism does not make me feel fear. It makes me sad. Sad that there are so many lives lost, sad that so many people are still incapable of thinking critically, sad that we're again one step further from an actual solution. it's mostly a sad affair. But fear, no.
Don't you think that the September 11 attacks produced fear? May be you are different but this is the normal feeling if you are seeing the Twin Towers collapsing while you take your children to preschool.
Fine. How about when somebody creates a thread proposing increased surveillance you combat it there? Or perhaps lay out a powerful argument against it if someone proposes increased surveillance in this thread? Right now there is an active crime with mass fatalities (and some of use know people in France in the Paris area) and really, it's inappropriate, a bit tasteless, and frankly counterproductive to bring it up gratuitously here. If you delete your comment, I'll delete mine.
The Snoopers Charter (Draft Communications Data Bill) is currently being pushed by the UK Government. The timing of Egypt and France is almost beyond belief. Opposition to it surely will fall off a cliff now.
But the opposite argument could be made: look, our British security apparatus is so good, that 1) other countries are being hit, despite "us" being much more involved in topical overt conflicts, and 2) "we" pretty much know right away who caused what (see response to the bombed Russian plane). Clearly they are working fine as they are and they don't need any more powers.
In fact, French and Russian security services are known for their heavy touch. Fat lot of good it's doing for them.
Didn't the French parliament pass a bill recently granting the intelligence and security apparatus greater powers to persecute and watch over people without warrants?
It's working fine, thank you very much. Of course it has little to do with terrorism, but in the political theater one has to make excuses for the unwashed masses.
An attack of this size and coordination was without a doubt electronically communicated. We can't possibly infiltrate every group of radicals with informants. And they are not going to stop.
This probably won't be a popular opinion on Hacker News, but it is it possible to compromise with a limited amount of mass surveillance?
I believe it was LA that had a plane fly above the city and record 24/7. It was just enough resolution to make out cars and people, but not identify anyone. Less invasive than security cameras in that sense. And I don't think it was live. It was just something the police could go back to and look at after a crime as committed, and see where the criminals went or came from.
Given some conditions, like the recordings be deleted after a few days, and that it requires a warrant to look at, I think that would be ok.
Why? This sort of thing is flashy but not a real danger you need to be concerned about (think shark attack not car crash), so even if you take the premise that mass surveillance could stop it (dubious), it's probably not worth paying much for, certainly not any abridgements of our rights.
Obviously don't know yet who is responsible, but I don't understand why France is being targeted in this way. They are hardly terrorist enemy number one.
Certainly they're closer and easier to get to from the Middle East than other parts of the world and contain a larger Arab population making it easier to hide within and recruit from.
But I would imagine French intelligence is deep within that same population and I remember members of the military on patrol in the streets of Paris.
I'd hesitate to assume that French intelligence operatives have thoroughly penetrated terrorist groups and their sympathizers. My experience suggests that French authorities have for years underestimated the threat posed by such groups and are also significantly underfunded/under resourced.
The military patrol is primarily a form of security theatre, though that does depend upon the location. Some areas truly do need greater protection, such as repeatedly targeted venues, and those populations do need reassurance that they are not completely vulnerable. I also want to make clear that those forces can actually intervene in the unlikely situation that the protected venue is attacked, but it's also likely that their presence displaces the attacks to alternative sites.
Anyway, France has a significant population that is sympathetic to jihadi terrorism's goals and practices, and my understanding is that counterterrorism and terrorism response operations in France - both strategically and tactically - leave much to be desired. France/Paris is not like Munich circa 1972 (shit-show level of unpreparedness), but there's significant room for improvement.
Yup, I replied to another comment right above this somewhat detailing my thoughts on the matter, too. To me, France is certainly an easier place to carry out such a terrorist attack than the USA or the UK.
France has a huge body of dis-enfranchised easily radicalized youths. This has already led to many confrontations with the rest of the French and has resulted in riots, bombings and shootings. It's a real problem because for a long time politicians were somewhat in denial that this could become a problem and now that it has emerged it is very hard to change things for the better because of the numbers of people involved. This is complex stuff and there are no easy solutions, if any.
Far right parties are more mainstream in France than other western European countries. This suggests a more racist society. Racism leads to marginalised youths who have nothing to lose. Easy pickings for anyone who wants to use their potential.
They're an ex-colonial power that still throws it's weight around the geopolitical stage, and still sends it's military against the developing world. Just last week they moved their aircraft carrier to Syria, for example.
> I don't understand why France is being targeted in this way. They are hardly terrorist enemy number one.
Maybe because they let into their borders too many losers whose worldview renders them incapable of finding their way around the western the world? Maybe no more reasons are needed? No politics, no aims, nothing to gain, just a bunch of frustrated losers?
France jealously guards its secular republic. Separation of church and state is a top priority (well above the U.S. and U.K. -- for instance, head coverings are not allowed in public schools). The French are notably resilient in the face of intimidation (see the protests and solidarity after the Charlie Hebdo shootings). There's a lot about the French for terrorists to hate, which is worthy of admiration in my opinion.
> Separation of church and state is a top priority (well above the U.S. and U.K. -- for instance, head coverings are not allowed in public schools).
That's not separation of church and state, that's suppression of unpopular religion by the secular state, which is no different than suppression of unpopular religion in favor of a popular religion by the state. (And its not just in schools, though that was one of the focal points in the debates, the ban applies in all public spaces in France.)
I wasn't endorsing, and I think you and I would probably agree about quite a bit. I was pointing out ways in which French values are at odds with the terrorists'. Still, I admire their resilience, solidarity, and the willingness to stand up for their culture and values. I think the West could use more of that.
On the face of it, sure; OTOH, the specific targeting of traditional attire of certain Muslims was overt among the promoters of both the ban you link to and the broader ban on face covering in public spaces.
> well above the U.S. and U.K. -- for instance, head coverings are not allowed in public schools
is that even really about separation of church and state? Somehow I doubt it.
Also the US takes the, IMO, "better" position of saying that individuals practicing private religion doesn't break separation of church and state. Organized religion does.
Of course the US also effectively forces their children to recite a pledge (which includes "under god"), which I find rather distateful.
I'm not endorsing it, but the French attitude (generally) is that religion is a private concern that doesn't belong in the public forum. They view public displays of religion by private individuals with suspicion and distaste, which is different culturally from the U.S. Like I clarified below, I don't admire that specifically -- I do admire that they treasure and protect their civic values in the face of intimidation.
You might think that only because it doesn't resonate in the English-speaking press, but that's far from true. In reality, France is historically involved in any goings-on in Northern Africa, and is a fundamental partner to US and UK in Middle East policies. They were the main proponents for "blowing up" Lybia, while UK and Italy had built bridges with the regime and were preparing for an eventual transition. They started military operations in Syria only a few months ago, but mostly because they have troops continuously engaged in various African countries and have to keep an eye on their limited resources.
Across radicalised groups all over Africa, ME and Asia, France is still seen as an old-school, violent colonial power with an anti-muslim bent. You could be surprised if Spain or (to a lesser degree) Italy were targeted, but France easily makes the "Top 5 Targets List" of most violent nutjobs in that part of the world.
France colonized North Africa, and has approaching 10% Muslim population, many somewhat marginalized. They have a pretty strong historical and current involvement in the Middle East and a lot of people who could potentially be radicalized.
Kind of annoying. Without proper context, it just gives the impression that someone left a stray artifact in a recent commit that got deployed accidentally.
Destruction and creation are a-symmetrical. I had an interesting exchange with another HN'er not that long ago about that very topic. I ran a community of a million people and it took by my estimates less than 50 dedicated assholes to totally wreck it for everybody else. How they managed that and why I couldn't stop it is very much related to how 'open societies' are impossible to defend against a large enough number of idiots hell bent on destroying them. The ease with which you can destroy something has absolutely no bearing on the amount of hard work it took to create it. Societies are no different in this respect.
Unraveling of complex systems is very interesting discipline. We are so fragile. And we intentionally put resilience at the bottom of the priorities. Right now Europe needs people that refuse to be intimidated and simultaneously do not turn into bloodthirsty fiends. But we must have began the process of instilling said culture a decades ago.
In my years and travels, I've settled on the fact that the only solution to those "assholes" that destroy community fabric is overwhelming force. You cannot reason with someone who has nothing to lose.
There is nothing ominous about it. A person that is happy, has a life and a means of self-support as well as a family is likely not going to be easily turned against society. On the other hand if every door you try to open is closed and you're being pushed into the corner of having 'nothing to lose' then you might be influenced in a negative way. So better to make sure people have plenty to lose.
This will probably never happen, though. Opening doors to people in any way like those who just committed acts of terrorism is far too much like giving in to the terrorists to be politically viable. And so, we'll keep on making sure that there are plenty of people with nothing to lose, and that the recruiters keep on finding plenty of willing recruits.
Making sure everyone has something to lose means making sure everyone has fulfilling lifes they'd rather not jepordize with hostility.
The us and them mentality being used to "combat" terrorism is so harmful because it puts people in a position where they have nothing to lose - they're already being discrimminated against etc.
I agree that a few assholes can ruin things for everyone but the reason they can is because they can ruin the trust people have in each other thereby leading to a situation like I described above. The solution is therefore counterintuitive (since they exploit intuition).
This was actually successfully done. I'm having trouble finding the article, but basically a terrorist group (perhaps in Palestine) had trained some men specifically to be some of their most dedicated and zealous terrorists. However, the situation changed and they found that they no longer needed these zealots and had no idea what to do with them. So they held a mixer where the terrorists got to meet potential brides, and basically said that if they promised to live a normal life, they'd receive some financial compensation to get started on that normal life. All of the trainees ended up getting married and having families, and lost all desire to commit terrorist acts.
A very brief NPR commentary from 2005 was, I thought, remarkably prescient -- it draws many parallels between terrorists and gang members in the US (backgrounds of poverty, no job / life prospects, encouragement of elder males, etc).
Sure. But it is likely that the people attacking have a carefully orchestrated plan, and I doubt exploiting the rise of a social media hashtag is included within it. Of course, that's not to say there aren't opportunistic people out there, but...
This is the exact scenario I was worried about as well. Idea seems flawed security-wise; but then again in these kind of situations there is no real security.
I was wondering though if there are some creative ways to improve this initiative and make it more secure. Anyone has anything better than filtering eventual candidates to give shelter to according to rough "trustworthiness" of their Twitter account?
This #PorteOuverte hashtag thing would be cool, if there weren’t a million people talking about how awesome the hashtag is, drowning out the ones actually offering shelter. I browsed through 20 pages of tweets with the hashtag, and only one out of hundreds was actually a Parisian looking for shelter, and none were people offering shelter. Most were talking about how great the hashtag is—inadvertently destroying its usefulness.
Please read the HN guidelines and you will understand that this site is not just about tech. Indeed that's the most important thing to understand about it.
2. Practically important publicization of #porteouverte effort
3. Updated chronology of news as experienced by Parisian local
4. First-person account of person who was present at theatre shooting
5. ... content-light junk starts. More than halfway down the page.
There's interesting commentary in this HN thread that I'm not seeing upvoted to visibility on Reddit, so it is valuable. But there is a ton of uniquely valuable stuff on the Reddit thread, and that is consistently the case in these live serious news situations.
----
And 10 minutes after I posted this, the top comment on this very HN thread and all its replies are all empty sentiment. "vive la france", "hearts go out", "be safe", etc.
I don't want to sidetrack this with an HN vs. Reddit debate.
The top story about this on Reddit has 14500+ comments. I couldn't really skim through them all in between the server timeouts, but it appears that the majority of them are non value-add.
As a story like this ages, my personal experience has been that the quality of comments on HN go UP while the quality of comments on Reddit go DOWN.
In regards to the parent post of this thread, I think that HN provides a valuable outlet for posting stories like this, and I personally feel it is within the overall HN "charter" for stories. It could turn out that this specific case balances out differently, but my personal opinion is that overall HN discussions for a given HN-worthy topic are more valuable than the comparative Reddit thread.
Not to say that this thread doesn't provide value but the Reddit thread is full of useful comments including information from people who are in paris. No memes or useless comments that I can see.
You demonstrate the colonialist mindset that doesn't understand other cultures seek other ideals than your own. Were the 9/11 hijackers "disenfranchised minority youths"?
Well if they have reported it, why did it still happen? You are asking me to prove that the NSA hasn't foiled any attacks instead of asking the agency conducting mass surveillance to provide evidence? Just to give you an idea most terrorist attacks on US soil, foiled or not, have been directed by the FBI. Source is The Intercept.
There's also a comparatively low-tech piece of engineering we law abiding Europeans don't have access to that may help individual citizens in cases like these.
The containment is driving the feedback loop thereby keeping us from improving the situation. We need to take a leap of faith in order to break it.
Like others have said the damage this is causing is mostly mental. The number of random (I mean that as in could happen to anyone not downplaying the significance of human life) deaths caused by terrorism is not so large.
However this does not mean we should tolerate people who refuse to play by the rules of society because of their personal beliefs (whatever they may be). Any countermeasures must be above board and transparently fair.
The primary cause of these incidents seems to be radicalization of segments of society with 'nothing to lose'. The societal problems involved in the creation of such segments and what can be done about them is a large and complex issue in which some technology will for sure be useful but which is first and foremost a people problem. The seeds for these issues were sown many years ago (and in quite a few cases with those JDAMs and Hellfires which now magically are suddenly part of the solution) and will take decades to repair in a way that these incidents will no longer happen. France is (like several other EU countries) shaping up to become a laboratory about how, if and when these problems are going to be solved. I see no major role for technology here, not in mitigating the harm to innocents and not in the eventual solution. In fact, technology - by virtue of eliminating a large number of blue collar jobs, which gave people something to be proud of and something to lose - is also part of the problem.
Technology is a strong force multiplier for whatever potential "solutions" are, whether a person believes them to be increased surveillance, more open political processes, more cultural mingling etc.
Simply discounting the power of technology is short-sighted.
Applying a screwdriver to a nail is the wrong tool for the problem, even tough that tool has excellent properties in many other contexts. Technology is not some kind of magic wand that you can point at every problem and make it smaller or disappear, in fact, for some problems technology is so wrong that it makes the problems worse rather than better. I'm not sold on technology having a positive role to play here but I'm open to specific suggestions (just like Ryan originally asked for) and if there are any that might work I will definitely support those, in spite of my skepticism about such solutions in general in the current context based on what technology has been able to achieve on this front to date.
Some of it is attributable to people with nothing to lose; however a good many have lots to lose, personally as well as socially at large. It's more about ideology than actually personal grievances.
From what I've read on the subject the key unifying element seems to be that those who do these deeds want to 'matter' somehow, even if that can only be in a negative way. How that ties into psychology I have no idea but if you have something to lose that balance shifts measurably, but even then there are still people that can be successfully radicalized. It's a tough problem, that's for sure.
Unfortunately tech has made it easier for terrorism to recruit more terrorists, spread hateful messages and send secure encrypted messages across the world to plan attacks like this.
I am so saddened by this situation with a powerful IS which wants to remove our freedom and change the world into an extreme muslim one.
We must remember not to spread hate towards all the peaceful muslims.
That's fairly easy. Airports are closed right now, the old border posts, even though they have been un-manned for quite a while (but not everywhere, as I found out to my surprise a few months ago, a so called 'spot check' was set up on one of the old border posts) can be easily re-established using military personel.
It's a lot easier to re-establish something that was there before than it is to do it from scratch and this is more of a logistical problem (and a personel one) than one of technicalities about whether or not such a thing can be done. It's not like France didn't have a functioning border patrol a couple of years ago.
Appears like the French military got fully mobilized. So I'd agree, military checkpoints at the borders seems plausible. They've certainly been setting up checkpoints all around Paris.
It's possible even with Schengen. A clause in the Schengen convention (in article 2.2) authorizes states to reinstate border checks in exceptional circumstances.
> Where there is a serious threat to public policy or internal security, these countries may exceptionally reintroduce border controls at its internal borders for a period of no more than 30 days (possible to prolong under conditions established by the code) or for the foreseeable duration of the serious threat. This action should be seen as a last resort.
No, I get that it's legal. But there's no... border. In the map link I posted, you wouldn't be able to tell half of the satellite view was Belgium without Google telling you that's the case.
How do you close that down, especially in the middle of the night? The US can't even do it in places with a wall.
I agree that closing all borders physically would be tough. There would be controls on the roads and airports, but in the zone you posted a physical wall is required to isolate two countries.
Presumably you close this border like every border: by placing guards wherever lines of transportation (e.g. roads) cross it. Yes, without a physical wall this means people can in principle walk across the border by passing through private property, forests, etc., but in practice this is very inefficient and conspicuous.
Every one of those roads would be posted in the past, I very much suspect they'll do the same thing now at least for a while. I've driven a lot in that region and there are a few hundred crossings in all, it's not at all like the Canadian-US border or something like that, closing it off is entirely possible.
To anybody with basic reasoning capabilities. There are millions of Muslims in France. You could try to make it look like Islam is the cause of all this, but that would be hard to prove.
And that's your argument? Negative correlation based on your own incredulity?
The terrorists themselves claim a religious muslim tradition. The best you have is that they're brainwashed victims, because, well, there's lots of other muslims who don't become terrorists?
You have no basic reasoning capabilities yourself. At least the poster you were responding to had a correlation. You have nothing.
All terrorists are humans. That's a correlation just like all terrorists are Muslims. Maybe you should continue narrowing it down to a more specific cause/group instead of spreading this hatred against Muslims in general.
That would require honest research and inquiry, which is impossible now. Multiculturalism, as envisioned by the New Left is a sacred cow and any inquiry into the original claims and models behind it is dealt with harshly. Just witness the flagellation of Robert Putnam among the sociological left.
> The terrorists themselves claim a religious muslim tradition.
And other terrorists claim other traditions. We could look at all those traditions as unrelated, unconnected causes of terrorism because, hey, that's what each of the terrorists said was important to them -- or we could look for common features that link them to try to understand why people become terrorists.
Only looking at post-WWII, you have far-right groups, far-left groups, Corsican regionalists, Basque regionalists, various independentists (Breton, New Caledony, Caribbean, etc.), extension of the Algerian civil war of the 90s, etc. Those account for hundreds of attacks, with a various amount of deads. Only recently have Islamist attacks begun. The most lethal single attack until today in France was in fact from a far-right group in the 60s.
Many of the cultures inundating Europe now are from the 16th century and earlier.
Maybe if you stumble onto some of these terrorists in Paris now, you can inform them that their cause is just oh-so démodé? You can let us know how that works out.
This is an incredibly thoughtless and heartless thing to say. It doesn't even make sense.
Usually, I'd argue your point but.. today, I don't want to, my country was attacked and I feel horrible already. This is neither the time nor the place. It doesn't matter where they're from, I hope each and every one of those fuckers get caught, and I truly hope this is the last comment like this I'll see today. Unfortunately I know it won't be.
Crystallizing on the fact that every terrorists are muslims is like saying that most serial killers are on average 1m75 and each pedophile have one left foot and one right foot.
The people of France elected a government which began bombing Syrians last year, I guess some Syrians thought turn about is fair play and decided to bomb some Frenchmen. The French should just throw in the towel on the imperialism game.
I think I'll go watch my copy of "The Battle of Algiers".
And here come the "Obviously this is going to happen, France is 10% muslim" posts.
If you marginalize people, mistrust them, do not make an effort to integrate them, and make them feel like the only place where they are welcome is segregated communities, don't be surprised when they radicalize. This has happened all throughout history, and will continue without changes.
Conservatives scream that Liberals are too soft on immigration, and are too focused on "political correctness". They want them to wake up and recognize that scary "others" are around every corner and can't wait to harm us. Well, the irony is that it is those social policies and that ostracization that creates the conditions in which resentment grows.
And here we are. Screaming more about "those muslims". Which only pushes moderate muslims further to feel like there is no tolerance for nuiance in the West.
This will do gangbusters for ISIS recruitment.
edit: Just so people understand, I'm not victim blaming anyone. I am traumatized as one of my favourite cities and areas that I've been to only weeks ago are in the grips of panic and terror at the hands of horrific monsters.
I'm not saying "Well yeah, of course, that's what's going to happen. France had it coming". I'm responding to the people who are saying "Well, yeah, of course, that's what's going to happen. When you allow so many immigrants and muslims have free reign".
I'm looking ahead at the next few weeks as people take this opportunity to just blame everything on Islam. And make the situation worse longer term.
> If you marginalize people, mistrust them, do not make an effort to integrate them, and make them feel like the only place where they are welcome is segregated communities, don't be surprised when they radicalize. This has happened all throughout history, and will continue without changes.
@deanCommie
Please, stop with the excuses , nobody marginalized anybody. The terrorists are not victims , the islamists are not victims. so don't give them excuses. The wide majority of muslims in France are integrated, they are bakers, plumbers , computer scientists , my baker is a muslim , so stop with that bull. There is no excuse none.
10% of the french people are muslims, that's a fact, out of that fact it increases the chances of people chosing an extreme vision of islam. There was attacks in Spain , UK and obviously USA, is it because muslims were marginalized ? so stop please, you are ignorant trying to apply your post modernist canvas on things when some people are still taken hostage as we speak, you should be ashamed of yourself.
FYI : I'm black and come from a muslim family though i'm not muslim, those who fail are those who don't try hard enough, nobody said it will be easy. Everything is "free" in France, education , college, healthcare , you feel "marginalized" , well there is Europe and you can basically pick and choose the country you want to live in today. So no excuses, enough.
>The wide majority of muslims in France are integrated
Sooooo many studies have been done where the same resume gets shown to recruiters, except one has a French name and the other has an Arabic name. The results were an overwhelming amount of french resumes were chosen over the Arabic one. Not to mention constant issues like police harassment
The issue of integration of purely the fault of a country that pretends that race doesn't matter while simultaneously punishing minorities every step of the way
> Sooooo many studies have been done where the same resume gets shown to recruiters, except one has a French name and the other has an Arabic name. The results were an overwhelming amount of french resumes were chosen over the Arabic one. Not to mention constant issues like police harassment
Sure, but it doesn't make my point false. Is there some discrimination going on ? absolutely we need to fight it. Is it widespread absolutely not, I've been victim of racism in France because of the color of my skin , and you know what ? we have a lot of charities , organizations , and anti discrimination laws to fight against it. So what does it have to do with people killing 50+ innocents ? nothing.
And the racism I endured didn't make me want to join ISIS or some bullshit Islamist movement, because I knew that for every racist ahole there are 10 000 people that are not and don't care about the color of my skin.
But people like the OP and their "oppressor/oppressed" mindset are just giving excuses to the crazies , but there is no excuse , there is no explanation other than the terrorists a f.ed up and part of a death cult.
The problem seems to me to be that a very small minority of gullible people wants to make their mark on society, and since they have no way to do that in a positive way they use a negative one.
Just like there will be people blaming 'all of Islam' for this atrocity there will be people on the other side that blame 'all of the West' either for their own inability and failure or as as a reaction to the inequalities in the society they are a part of an which they will find it hard to overcome. It is these people that are at risk of being radicalized, the smart ones (like yourself) never were at risk in the first place, have found their niche and simply want to live their lives as good as they can, like everybody else.
It's a pity because these few would be harmless fools if they weren't given the tools and instructions with which they then proceed their crimes, and probably they relish at the thought of the headlines they will be making.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of people that would very much like to blame their own personal failure on others or that would exact blind revenge on innocents for perceived or real sleights instead of seeking redress in a less violent manner.
I'm not excusing the terrorists. I'm trying to keep in check the people who are commenting on this and just saying "well yeah, this is what happens when you have 10% muslims in your country".
I'm not defending the terrorists. I'm defending people like your family who will be lumped in with them in the next couple of weeks as people blame all of this on immigration and islam, like they do every time.
The fact is, we are living in an age of muslim extremism and sympathies are at an all time high. We could look at it at that fact and blame 1.57 billion people for all sharing this radical ideology, or we could look at what other forces are nudging a small section of those people to radicalize. And avoid denial.
> I'm not excusing the terrorists. I'm trying to keep in check the people who are commenting on this and just saying "well yeah, this is what happens when you have 10% muslims in your country".
You're not trying to keep people in check, you are as ignorant as the people saying racist comments with your stupid pomo explanations.
> I'm not defending the terrorists. I'm defending people like your family who will be lumped in with them in the next couple of weeks as people blame all of this on immigration and islam, like they do every time.
I won't be lumped in with anybody because most of the french can tell the difference and I don't need anyone defending me, thank you, i'm capable of defending myself. You're talking about a problem you know nothing about, with a specific school of thinking that is stupid at first place. You want to talk about a population that is really marginalized in France? talk about the Roma, I didn't see anyone of them killing 50+ people because of it. and they have it much , much worse than any arab or black in France.
France is not an apartheid where blacks, arabs and white people are separated and often ,those who claim being victim of society are the one with an intolerant and bigoted mindset. People like you give the crazies ammo to fuel their hatred toward a country that feed them , treat them , give them an education for free and a whole lot of percs. And again ,don't like it ? move , Europe is huge and go see if the grass is greener elsewhere.
these toy post-moderns don't notice that they are infantilizing muslims with all their bullshit. you are 100% correct: being marginalized is no excuse to become a monster.
How many citizens show we permit to be slaughtered in the name of unwavering tolerance?
EDIT: There is preventing integration as a host nation's people, and refusing to integrate as an immigrant. One can only do so much to make a person feel welcome in a country as their new home. You may bring your beliefs, but you'll follow the laws and human rights expectations of your host country. Otherwise, stay at home, war torn or not.
Disclaimer: American who is unwilling to watch first world country progress move backwards due to political correctness.
"ISIS’s Gruesome Muslim Death Toll:
The group’s killing of Westerners gets attention. But ISIS has killed far more Muslims, and publicizing that fact would harm it more."
"Well, if spilling Muslim blood is the deciding factor for us Muslims to decide who we should take vengeance against, then al-Ansi and others in al Qaeda should immediately go into hiding. Simply put, al Qaeda has been slaughtering Muslims for years. Islamic clerics, doctors, nurses, women, children, etc. -- you name any type of Muslim, and al Qaeda has butchered them.
In fact, a report released in 2009 by the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point documented the people killed by al Qaeda between 2004 and 2008. It found that only 12% of the victims of al Qaeda were Westerners. That suggests that al Qaeda has killed seven times as many Muslims as non-Muslims. And these attacks were just the ones for which al Qaeda had publicly claimed responsibility."
> In fact, a report released in 2009 by the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point documented the people killed by al Qaeda between 2004 and 2008. It found that only 12% of the victims of al Qaeda were Westerners. That suggests that al Qaeda has killed seven times as many Muslims as non-Muslims.
Well, if you assume that all Westerners are non-Muslims and all non-Westerners are Muslims, it suggests that.
Millions have died throughout the Middle East, millions have become refugees, millions have sufferred from the economic consequences all of which is the directly because of Americans needed to avenge the death of 3000 new yorkers.
The Western world lost all moral superiority when they decided torture and genocide were acceptable acta to commit.
Millions have died throughout the Middle East, millions have become refugees, millions have sufferred from the economic consequences all of which is the directly because of Americans needed to avenge the death of 3000 new yorkers.
The Western world lost all moral superiority when they decided torture and genocide were acceptable acta to commit.
It's not whether Al-Qaeda or ISIS kill more Muslims or non-Muslims. Is how many Muslims or Arabs are dead as an effect, direct or indirect, of the Western interventions in the area.
US-backed Iraq against Iran war: some 1/2 million - 1 million deaths.
Desert Storm: 20-30 thousand
Operation Desert Fox (1998): 600 (in 4 days)
Iraq War: 30-40 thousand
Sanctions against Iraq: somewhere between 150 and 500 thousand deaths.
And this is Iraq (and Iran) alone.
Then there are: the war in Libya and its ongoing civil war, the civil war in Iraq, in Syria, the bombs on Gaza, Afghanistan... all the direct work or at least helped or backed by the Western countries.
I don't doubt that. But that still does not mean that being a Muslim has anything to do with it. In fact, even if it turns out that all of the attackers were Muslims then that still holds true. How that works I'll leave as an exercise for you to work out but let's just say that the basis of a solution to this whole problem is somewhere in there and that I strongly believe that it starts with a complete lack of generalizations and a focus on people as individuals rather than as groups with shared traits. As long as that step isn't taken we will - very unfortunately - probably see more of this.
I don't feel sorry for individuals that take up arms against me. Every individual is responsible for his or her actions.
This goes far beyond "shared traits". They organize against us with a dogmatic reverence for violence known as radical Islam, and your dogmatic tolerance for it allows it to metastasize.
I see your point. Not that long ago a white supremacist shot up a black church in the name of America and Christianity but we aren't condemning everyone in those groups. However it would be fair to condemn the small society (ghetto if you will) that allowed this to happen. In the same way I can blame the anti-integration Muslims without blaming Islam itself.
"Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."
At the expense of millions of what he should have considered his own people. I'm stretching the analogy a little here, but I'm sure you can think of another Allied leader that did the same.
And the other allied leader has (deservedly) an awful reputation. Definitely a reputation which is worse than Churchill's.
Uh huh. Must be why America is constantly terrorized by mass killings committed by Hispanic immigrants or poverty stricken blacks.
I'm sorry but you can't just say "this is the inevitable outcome of marginalization". There are plenty of marginalized groups that choose not to commit mass murder in the name of justice.
Those groups do not have well funded organizations attempting to recruit their easily influenced youths into their ranks to do deeds against their fellow men.
There is an overwhelming likelihood that this is an attack by radical Islamists. From a purely rational probabilistic perspective, it's not ridiculous at all.
Like you need 10% of the population to be marginalized to carry out a couple of gun attacks. Smugling a dozen people and then arming them isn't exactly rocket science. Any exotic terror group could have done this even if 99% of the French were full-on patriotic right-wingers.
When you say "here come the..," which posts are you talking about?
It seems like your point is that the French are to blame because they didn't properly integrate Muslim immigrants?
This is shockingly bad taste. People are still dying, as we speak, and you decide to rail against a strawman and blame the victims because you are nervous about your political opponents making hay?
You can say the same about every new immigration group that arrived to the usa. Usually they are treated lot like crap at the beggining. As they integrate that marginalization disappears. I don't remember them becoming terrorist.
So no, I don't buy it you blaming the host country, in this case France.
The problem is integration, sure, but it's also a mountain of bad foreign policy choices that enable radicalisations.
"We" (US, UK, France, Italy, Germany etc etc) have completely destabilised an entire subcontinent in the last 25 years. "We" keep pretending that these places are far away, far removed from our shining civilisations, but they are not -- they are on our doorstep, they have been our neighbours for millennia. Rome was fighting wars in that region when ships were still powered by human rowers. Until "we" think that a few drones is all we need to solve what is now a humongous clusterfuck (mostly of our own making), "we" will suffer wave after wave of lunatics with a death wish. Unfortunately, none of the current crop of European and American leaders has the faintest clue about what to do about it, except applying short-term measures that look good on tabloids.
I've got no idea who you are but you're more than welcome, email in my sig if you want to contact me outside of HN. I'm off to bed now, it's been a very long night and not a good one. Sleep well, in spite of everything try to get some rest. j.
Disappointed to see the comments downplaying the situation because as many people get killed in car accidents every week or whatever. Terrorist acts damage the social fabric far beyond the death toll. That's the whole point of terrorism.
yes. the damage goes way beyond the death toll. it will be interesting to see how (if) this impacts current policies towards the middle east/syria/isis, personal freedoms/surveillance laws etc.
maybe it will also have a side-effect of uniting people and countries against a common threat to all humanity.
That is the million dollar question. And it's a hard one. I believe that yes, we can do something but I don't believe there is a magical incantation or a simple and short thing that we can do. It will take many years (decades) to slowly un-wind this mess and in the meantime it could get a lot worse and that lone might be enough to lose the plot on any plan that isn't perceived as a silver bullet but that actually has a chance of working.
>That is the million dollar question. And it's a hard one. I believe that yes, we can do something but I don't believe there is a magical incantation or a simple and short thing that we can do. It will take many years (decades) to slowly un-wind this mess and in the meantime it could get a lot worse and that lone might be enough to lose the plot on any plan that isn't perceived as a silver bullet but that actually has a chance of working
I admire your patience for sure. The hope that we have decades to unwind this mess.
I fear, though, militant religious sects may not have the same self control.
I fear that the inability or lack of willingness to meet violence with violence may be the downfall of rationality. We rightfully shun violence in place of discussion, but as is evident (again), we are not dealing with rational actors.
We have in a way changed the paradigm already. A bad actor brandishing a box cutter on a plane is to be sure to be met with resistance that wouldn't have been seen pre 9/11.
> I fear, though, militant religious sects may not have the same self control.
But that could actually be an advantage. The more people see them for the nutcases they are the shorter the path to a possible solution.
> I fear that the inability or lack of willingness to meet violence with violence may be the downfall of rationality. We rightfully shun violence in place of discussion, but as is evident (again), we are not dealing with rational actors.
The danger in dealing with non-rational actors is that rational people will either do one of two things: they will join the non-rational actors and will respond non-rationally themselves, or they will persist in setting up a rational frame of reference for dialogue with the non-rational actors, which clearly will not work.
So the solution is to treat non-rational actors as exactly what they are: crazy, and deal with them accordingly.
>But that could actually be an advantage. The more people see them for the nutcases they are the shorter the path to a possible solution.
Sorry for not being clear. I'm not speaking about others perception; we can easily discern they are out of shape. They, though, don't care what the rest of us rational people think.
>So the solution is to treat non-rational actors as exactly what they are: crazy, and deal with them accordingly.
Agreed. What I'm arguing is that that may involve reciprocating violence -- which we (rightfully) inherently tend to avoid. You can't rationalize with irrational people.
In that situation, we need multiple people to be willing to sacrifice themselves to save others. In today's world, the modus operandi is to cower and hope things pass over or to sympathize with the attackers views. This will not work going forward as the attackers could give a fuck what you think or how you feel so long as your death plays into their idea of making the world right.
While this is a horrible attack, they are completely right. Terrorism is not something that is happening everywhere and when we let our selves succumb to fear we risk over-reacting. The reason so many terrorists exist is in large part due to Western intervention.
I think a lot of people are afraid that these incidents will lead to more wars in the Middle East, create more terrorists, and cause more attacks. This will further erode our fourth amendment freedoms and probably the second too, which is exactly what the terrorists want.
Only because people like you seem to think it's such a big deal. If people were to look at it as it is and comprehend the scope of the matter, it wouldn't damage the social fabric.
I don't agree. There's a stark difference between a car accident and a fellow human being pumping rounds into people in your local restaurant. The other driver is not trying to kill you typically.
So if I intend to kill you horribly, but instead serve you a nice cup of chamomile tea and a comfy pair of slippers, is intention still all that matters?
I'm not trying to be flip. I'm saying that by any viable moral theory, you are catastrophically wrong.
London. Paris. Madrid. New York. Why are these the cities terrorists have targeted? Perhaps because, say, a Londoner who dies in a graphic way will cause more notoriety-- i.e. stir more terror-- than a Bangladeshi. It maximizes their bang for... uhh... their bang. Given the size of the world's suicide problem, starvation problem, poverty problem, rape problem, etcetera etcetera, of course terrorism actually isn't of much relative consequence. It intends to make people like you freak out, viscerally (just as CNN et al does when they cover these so much).
I'm not changing a damn thing in how I live my life, and not even out of courage (i.e. the "we can't let the terrorists win" bromide that took over in America in late 2001). It just shouldn't matter that much to you, and it only prevails insomuch as you let these irrational fears get to you.
This statement is so naive that it blows me away. As toomuchtodo said, there's a huge difference between n car accidents per year, and the equivalent damage done by a terrorist attack, and the answer isn't just "stop making such a big deal about it". When I get into a car, I'm putting myself in a situation that could be dangerous, and am accepting those risks for the reward of not having to walk to work. When these people sat down to have a drink, watch a soccer game, or enjoy a concert, they were doing so with the implicit safety that those venues and events provide. It's the difference between "expected" and "unexpected", and your answer can't just be "stop making such a big deal", because if we didn't make a big deal, the attacks would get bigger, broader, and more damaging until they got the reaction that they wanted. It's a complex problem with a lot of moving pieces, and this answer just takes away from that and presumes that there's a simple answer to a very hard problem.
> It's the difference between "expected" and "unexpected"
No it's not - people die from unexpected accidents completely unaware of the risks all the time - intuitive risk perception doesn't work really well - caveman instincts and all that - risk perception is not the problem - if this was indeed an isolated incident that would not repeat it would be sad but not very relevant - an example of this is Breivik murders.
But obviously this is not comparable - people behind this will try to repeat it if not dealt with - this is why it's a big deal.
"This statement is so naive that it blows me away. As toomuchtodo said, there's a huge difference between n car accidents per year, and the equivalent damage done by a terrorist attack,"
Unfortunatley from a mathematical standpoint you are incorrect, from an irrational human standpoint you have a point however.
The human mind is much worse at reasoning and reality than anticipated, how you and others perceive the world is not as real as you'd like to think, thats the whole point of math and science:
When I (did) read "a scene from Brazil" I thought the video would be some sort of commom crime we have here, which in certain cases are very similar to terrorism. And people has been always adapting to it, so it's just shit almost nobody cares anymore. And it's growing year after year.
Well, just to say my misunderstanding of to which Brazil it was referred.
You make it sound quite easy. I am personally not able to ignore something like this even though I understand a robotic reaction would help the situation. The problem is a lasting overreaction, not having feelings of sympathy.
So, when I first heard the news, my though was that when in France 40 people get gunned down it is a national emergency, whereas in Mexico (where I am from) it is an statistically peaceful day. That's what no reaction or military-first reaction gets you (well, combined with a lot more issues, but having this be "normal" is part of the problem back there).
I do think you want to treat it as "murder is a serious crime and needs to be prosecuted and punished" rather than "this is an act of Islamic terrorism and we need to declare War on Terror!". But, universally ignored is hardly how you want to react. You want to close borders and you want to declare emergency and you want to, ideally, apprehend these people using conventional police. You do not want to live in a permanent state of panic or build a police state after the fact, and you definitely don't want to take out your anger on a whole population of people over the actions of a small radical group. But you do want a, rational but concerned, reaction.
Right now, you want to get people to safety, help the survivors and catch those responsible, in that order.
Certainly, I wouldn't want it ignored by law enforcement and first responders. Beyond that though, the public's reaction is the objective of the terrorists. Reacting to these events is literally "letting the terrorists win."
I guess I just wish there was a possibility for a better reaction than what we will probably see (this has already been called "an act of war" by Hollande...). I am not a fan of treating terrorism in a "don't feed the troll" sort of way. I do wish our collective reaction were more reasonable, more measured and more humanitarian, though, despite the natural sentiments this sort of thing produces and seeks to produce.
I don't think ignoring the problem is the only way to not let the terrorists win. But I do agree responding militarily or by widespread panic is what they most likely want.
I have no idea what your point is. If I lost a loved one to a vending machine accident, I might develop a really irrational fear of vending machines. It doesn't mean vending machines are a threat to our society.
I know someone who is deadly afraid of putting shoes on tables. Because her friend did that before dying in a traffic accident.
Although there was a war going on the NLF did a great job of terrorizing the local population and installing their own shadow government. The terror attacks fractured the populations allegiance to the South Vietnamese gov't (what good is a gov't that can't protect you?).
Terrorism can be an effective tool in guerrilla warfare.
Just look at the statistics. The total number of people killed by terrorists is negligible. And 0 terrorist groups have ever won and achieved their stated goals.
I remember the Boston bombing. That same week, there was another explosion at a chemical plant that killed many more people, and blew up a nursing home. Guess which event got more press, by a large amount? Which event are people more likely to remember? Can you even name what city the chemical plant exploded in or remember any details about it?
Why is this? It's because people react to violence much differently than they react to accidents. Because thousands of years ago, violence was the one cause of death you could do something about. If you got an infection, or if a natural disaster struck, or a famine broke out, etc, those are all out of your control. But if someone was a threat to your family or tribe, you could fight them, or flee from them.
We have many emotions and social instincts whose entire purpose is to deal with other humans that threaten us. Like paranoia, anger, and hate. No one hates the chemical plant, and wants to go kill it. People hate the Tsarnaev brothers.
I think that you have all the answers to the questions you posted here on why people in general have disproportionate reactions to death caused by violence and death caused by accidents.
It's all about human agency and intentions. Terrorist attacks are carried out by HUMANS with the clear INTENTION of inflicting harm on the populace. Accidents on the other hand lack these essential factors. When I walk by a chemical plant, it never crosses my mind that the plant would attack me or be capable of doing such a thing and therefore I am not worried to be around but on the other hand if I happen to be walking in a bad neighborhood late at night, I would be very wary of people around me because I know very well that some of them might inflict harm on me for any reason.
So, I think that the comparison you drew between these two categories is not that solid and that people have every right to be "terrified" of terrorism and take all the precautionary measures to stop/prevent it.
The point is that the effect that attack has had on the US for the past 14 years has been massive. Probably thousands of new security protocols are in place, that arguably wouldn't have stopped an attack like that had they been in place previously.
Every time they strike they put us on edge, and we make new laws and protocols to protect ourselves, giving up freedom in the name of security.
I even think that if you had a loved one in the towers on 9/11 you could feel inclined to go to a third unrelated country, like... lets say Irak, and start to killing thousands of innocent civilians, also loved by somebody. This would be a bad idea of course.
Flashing the towers card here sounds a little embarrassing in retrospective. Sadly, the I.Snake is also the bastard son of Bush great plans for Irak and the Guantanamo shame.
I think you underestimate the impact this type of terrorism has. The real massive danger is constantly trying to downplay it. The simple fact is, when facing an irrational enemy the last thing you can do is try to shift the blame to those who react.
Well it's true that France doesn't need to pass their own patriot act tomorrow and start restricting freedoms, under reacting is also possible. The fact is they were attacked and a response is necessary. It doesn't need to be reactionary, it can be thoughtful and measured, but something needs to be done.
I don't think anyone is saying that there should be no response, people just think we shouldn't over react. Closing off the borders and refusing to take more Middle Eastern refugees is a sane response, starting more wars is an insane response.
And compared to the average for that block it's even worse.
The point being of the people murdered in France this year less than 1/5th of them where killed by terrorists. Yet, the other 4/5th don't make international news.
Yes, this is a tragedy, so are all those other deaths.
PS: Even at over twice the normal rate, the average US city is far worse every year.
There are around 700 people murdered in France each year. But in most cases it's someone from your family killing you, or someone that hates you for some reason, or you're involved in criminal activities.
Maybe there are 100 people killed in France in a typical year by complete strangers. And we're talking about 180 people (maybe more) killed in 2015 by complete strangers and in the name of Allah. I don't think that can be easily ignored.
Wait till you live in Iraq or Afghanistan where these incidents occur on a daily basis and see if you will still stand by your statement or revisit it very soon.
It's practically impossible to underreact to terrorism, since its goal is to incense you and provoke a reaction. Mourn the loss, and take reasonable steps to prevent it, but dont put deaths to terrorist attacks on a pedastal as more tragic than other losses or make the perpetrators into some sort of demonic antiheroes.
Try convincing fear is not rational to the people close to the attacks today. I understand what your point is, but the fact is that fear is exactly what people will feel.
The point of terrorism is to provoke a reaction. To quote the German RAF terrorist Ulrike Meinhof on the subject: "A war 6 against 60 million can not be won. All we [the terrorist] can do, is to tear down the mask of democracy and expose the fascist face of the state." So what is damaging is not the terror itself, what damages the social fabric is the overreaction. Terrorists should just be tried like other criminals, not given the reaction they want.
Yup - when I expressed similar sentiments about the killing of Jihadi John, somebody sarcastically said I was trying to bring about world peace (I wouldn't mind).
We have to fight for enlightenment values, and need to lead by example - we can't make martyrs out of people.
I live in greece, but france is my country and I haven't heard back from my sister who lives around there. I know the odds are she's fine, but there's still the doubt in my mind.
It certainly feels different when you feel affected. You want to be reactionary. You want to have a knee-jerk reaction. Maybe I now understand why people are so quick to try to blame the issue on a certain cause.
But inside me I've spent my time fighting against this. I know that those attacks are not done "just for fun", they are driven by what makes them so effective: The fear they instill. The panic. The people who want to start putting the blame on a marginalized group that is prone to violence by their own situation.
Part of me wants to elaborate, but another part of me feels too sick to actually write more about this. I just want to go to bed, forget it happened.
I would like to ask the HN community to please not be reactionary about it. Please don't be xenophobic. Please don't marginalize groups.
And I have actually only seen one comment talking about car accidents, in a very different light than what you imply... so add to that, please don't make shit up.
> Terrorist acts damage the social fabric far beyond the death toll. That's the whole point of terrorism.
And that's why we very much should not react by further damaging the social fabric ourselves, but that is extremely hard, especially when everybody will be clamoring for some kind of reaction.
Disappointed to see the comments downplaying the situation because as many people get killed in car accidents every week or whatever. Terrorist acts damage the social fabric far beyond the death toll. That's the whole point of terrorism.
Gee, I wonder when they will finally tell us that the ones responsible are in fact, islamic terrorists. Mark my words HN, this is just the beginning. I wonder when things like this will happen in other European countries. Germany is a likely candidate, as we are currently mass-importing the potential terrorist candidates.
And now, I'll just wait for the downvotes I guess.
Which is impossible. Look at the situation in refugee camps in Germany. Massive violence because a non-muslim refugee insulted the islam (happened quite a few times now). Christian refugees fleeing from the camps and seeking shelter in churches. Refugees constructing mafia-like structures. All these things happen, and that's just what the mass media reports. Police forces around the country have already been ordered to report less on crimes and violence of refugees so the much feared "right" wont use it as a tool.
To call families fleeing war "potential terrorist candidates"...
Can you see how this is an extremely broad, lazy generalization? What really supports this comparison, other than their religion and colour of their skin?
If course it is, it was meant to be. While my comment represented my thoughts about the whole situation, I also wanted to provoke a little bit.
And yes, "families fleeing war" are potential terrorist candidates. There is quite a possibility of future generations to radicalize. This happens (Europe exports quite some fighters for ISIL) and it will happen in the future, because the foundations are present. The refugees coming here will be mosty the future bottom of the lower class. And being poor, having no perspective and being insecure about ones identity aren't really things thatr you want to experience combined into a single adolescent boy.
And "families fleeing war" are not the only ones coming as refugees. It is also the fleeing fighters of ISIL.
To the parent's point, support for this generalization comes from the very odd fact that fully 75% of the composition of the refugee families are men, with women and children comprising 12% and 13%, respectively.
I personally don't like this argument. It is not surprising that young men will go first and let their families come safely after. Not all of Syria is a war zone after all.
People who utilize a structured society, not a roving band of city-dwelling mercenaries? There are many, many examples of bands of 'citizens' subverting the legal system by taking justice into their own hands. Often, they ended with lynchings. We have police and a government because the protection of the people is the job of professionals who (usually) respect the rule of law, not random able-bodied men hunting down (possibly innocent) people through city streets.
>>every able bodied man in Paris would be taking up whatever arms or improvised arms they have and hunting down these murderers to defend their city
And accomplishing what? Increasing the death toll? There are professionals who have many hours of training to prepare for this. They know how best to handle this situation.
It's called a state. It has a monopoly on violence. It doesn't take kindly to competition.
(Stupid question warrants a stupid answer. Other than the fact that you're relying on a fallacy of evoking a nostalgic period that probably never was, there's the whole matter of the French government ordering a curfew on its citizens for them to stay inside. As such, your scenario of French men taking up arms is explicitly forbidden by the government, and will likely get you killed if you attempted it.)
> and will likely get you killed if you attempted it.
And not just because it's forbidden by the government. It also makes it much more likely that you get confused with the people the government is trying to stop. (In your own thinking, you may be trying to stop them, too, but the government doesn't know that.)
Hunting down who? Do you know who is responsible? Do you know where they are? Do you think the police are incapable of fighting them? How would an angry mob help anyone at all?
I am French and have friends and family in Paris, fortunately they are all safe. I am however in shock and can't really process much except for shedding tears.
I feel the strong need to point out that in these difficult times in Europe and the world, we CANNOT allow right-wing political extremism to use them to gather power. THIS IS NOT ABOUT MUSLIMS, IMMIGRANTS OR WHATNOT. THIS IS ABOUT CRAZY PEOPLE.
Yes, but crazy people exist in all walks of life. Fortunately most of those walks of life do not co-incide with organizations trying to point those crazy people against their fellow men. It's unfortunate that in some circles this does happen and clearly there is a problem but - and for a die hard atheist this is a tough one - the Muslim religion per-se is not the problem here, if it were you'd know about it because there are a billion+ of them. Every religion and every fringe has extremists, whether they are animal rights activists, anti-abortion groups or religious groups is hardly relevant in the end they are crazy people first and criminals second. How they got to be that way is yet another problem and bears close study because that is where the real problem lies.
I have no problem with muslims (or not more than with christians for instance). I'm just pointing that these terrorists are not simply crazy people. They are muslim extremists. They kill for a reason, they've been brainwashed by guys that have a very specific agenda.
Thank you for keeping your head on straight in times like these, an upvote alone is too little to express my genuine admiration, you're in the middle and you still manage to see sharp.
While I wish this were true, do you not think the primary impetus is (likely) religious? I would wager these people are not crazy in any clinical sense; they have been deluded by a religious upbringing and culturally supported religious fervor. It is disingenuous to say that religion is not a contributing factor, if not the primary factor.
It is like Steven Weinberg summarized: With or without [religion] you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Recognizing this is important for assessing the situation and how to counter the problem – this is not a circumstance where more mental health services will make the tiniest difference. It requires intelligent debate about education, philosophy (including religion), and how to convey to people that any religious beliefs that cause the deaths of others are simply wrong.
Religion is not per se horrible – obviously the super-majority of religious people are fully functional contributing members of society and should be protected just like everyone else - but it has been used throughout history to conduct a huge number of atrocities.
If you go down that route you'll have a hard time explaining 'Jihad John' and the many western youths (including some that are extremely pale skinned) and that suddenly feel the need to join IS or do something else that is profoundly stupid and against their self-interests in every way.
Everyone has an existential crisis in their life, and desires to become a part of something greater than themselves.
The traditional institutions in Western society that promoted this sense of belonging have been eroded in the recent decade, which could explain the trend toward joining organizations like ISIS and their ilk.
That is much closer to the root cause than most analysis I read in the media. But it's a much harder problem to tackle and does not make for infotainment and so will get a lot less airtime.
Jihad John gets an excuse to rape random women and kill people. It gets him outside the social structures that would not condone these sorts of aggressive activities. I don't think it's against self-interests for messed up people.
> While I wish this were true, do you not think the primary impetus is (likely) religious?
Not really; religious identity politics are often used by leaders (whose motivation seems to be more power-seeking than genuinely religious) to connect with foot-soldiers (whose real impetus seems often to be desperation to improve conditions for their family, or themselves, or to redress wrongs they feel have been done to their family or themselves, or to feel connected to a group and gain meaning.)
And you see the same thing done in other places with racial identity politics, economic class identity politics, national identity politics, etc. (And, in many cases, many of these are at play in the same movement.)
I probably ascribe to much influence to religion alone on its adherents, especially in the middle-east. That said, it seems the sheer number of crazy wars people have fought in the name of religion - the 30 Years' War, The Crusades, the Sudanese War, etc... - would indicate that at least some number of the participants are involved purely because they think Heaven/Jannah/something else awaits and a god is being pleased.
Desperation, poverty, redress of (centuries long) wrongs, and seeing no other option than to join the movement do make sense as motives though.
Religion is simply a very powerful button to press, especially when pressed by someone the person under discussion sees as a person of authority or power figure. Aiming to please is very strongly embedded in human nature, combined with religion it can be powerful enough to make people do the most horrific and stupid things.
> the 30 Years' War, The Crusades, the Sudanese War, etc... - would indicate that at least some number of the participants are involved purely because they think Heaven/Jannah/something else awaits and a god is being pleased.
I haven't studied all of those wars, but my understanding has been that behind every religious explanation for war is a political power struggle.
Religion is used to get ordinary people to go to war, certainly. If it wasn't religion, it would be something else that speaks to people's emotions and desire to belong to a group. (Patriotism, 'Duty', 'Honor', etc.)
For two of your examples:
The crusades cemented the power of the Papacy and Holy Roman Empire in Europe, partly by sending a lot of armed powerful people to fight elsewhere. It also was an attempt to reunite Catholicism under the Roman Pope (i.e. it was a massive land/tax/power grab by the Pope at the time). Fighting other faiths occurred, and was certainly used as a reason for people to leave their homes and travel hundreds of miles to fight foreigners. (I'm pretty convinced very few people do that willingly.)
The whole Protestant reformation taking off at all (Luther was not the first person to rail against the perceived hypocrisies of the Catholic church) and subsequent 30 years war was generally driven by a desire of the various princes and kings involved to remove themselves from Catholicism. The 30 years war also quickly devolved past Protestants vs. Catholics and largely into various factions jostling for power.
Furthermore, the terrorists want to create division between Muslim and non-Muslim / west and middle east. They know what our knee-jerk reactions will be and are hoping we will follow through on them.
French too living in France, but sorry I am fed up of hearing that. Don't you think there's something wrong with Islam and its worshippers in the current days ? Not a single week without hearing about an attack made by islam integrists: Beiruth yesterday, Ankara few weeks ago. It is global, not a few crazy people, tens of thousands of them.
Muslims in France have had hard time condeming the Charlie hebdo's attacks and many approved them. There's a strong tendency in the muslim communities these days to reject any Western values. If Islam was once peaceful it is not anymore.
I disagree, strongly. I disagree because specifically this is the reaction that these attacks are supposed to provoke leading to a further split of society and if possible an even more fertile ground for further radicalization. Essentially that's the other stroke of the piston. If you really want the engine to stop then please do not react in the way these assholes want you to.
Islam has nothing to do with this whatsoever, no more than say a Christian shooter in some cinema in has anything to do with Christianity. Islam as a religion has a ton of issues that make this particular kind of thing very hard to get rid of and it is a sad coincidence that many youths that are easily misled are receptive to all sorts of bs but to generalize across a billion or so people because of what a few assholes did is simply wrong.
The correlation is simple: A bunch of fanatics has managed to hi-jack a substantial portion of their youths who are vulnerable because of their age and outlook on life nominally sharing the same faith with their handlers who they look up to, and doing their deeds for them (because they're too old, too cynical or too cowardly to do such deeds themselves).
So the correlation is strong but a lack of tolerance will fuel the generation of more of these, not less.
If we accept all that people claim to be true, Kissinger, Bush and Blair et. al. cannot be any exception.
Then what suggestions one gets from the correlation between "upholding democracy and human rights" and the butchery in brutally murdering tens of millions in the last several decades (from Algeria to Cambodia to the genocides in Iraq through sanctions and slaughtering)?
You can simultaneously fight against right-wing politicians who would capitalize on terrorism and also acknowledge that these aren't "crazy people who happen to be Muslims," these are committed killers who are murdering in the name of a particular strain of revolutionary, extreme Islam. If a well-organized and philosophically consistent group of Christians were organizing mass shootings with motives gleaned from radical Christian theology, you would be completely justified in pointing to a problem within radical Christianity. For example: I'm a moderate Catholic myself. I condemn the Westboro Baptist Church and their strain of apocalyptic nonsense. If you want to criticize fundamental Christianity on the basis that it spawned those maniacs, go ahead. Just the same, please don't pretend that somehow these acts are completely divorced of Islam. We're not stupid, we can distinguish between moderates and terrorists. It's intellectually vapid to say over and over that somehow an ideology firmly based in one religion cannot be criticized on the basis of their professed beliefs and motivations.
Disenfranchised youths and teenagers in general are very impressionable. This makes them highly sought after as 'marks' for radicalization. Whether they are already believers or whether they re-discover their religion is besides the point, the whole thing has about as much to do with religion as the war on drugs has to do with curing addiction. It's just a means to an end, a handle to get a grip on these people so they will do what they're told to do. The fact that religion pre-selects for people who have a very hard time separating fact from fiction most likely also has nothing to do with it because even atheists commit terrorist acts.
The puppeteers are the ones that matter, the 'terrorists' are for the most part tools in the hands of masters at playing them believing they are making the world a better place (and how wrong they are).
I make no distinction between idiots of any plumage, be they muslim, Christians, atheists or something else, organized or acting alone. They're a plague on society and should be dealt with, preferably long before they can become a problem in such a way that becoming a problem never even enters their minds because they're too busy living and appreciating life.
This is a naive viewpoint masquerading as cynicism. There exist sane true-believers. The puppet-masters are true-believers, as well. It might be more uncomfortable to accept this fact -- but it is a fundamental truth that people out there hold competing values, and they're willing to kill and die for them. The "opiate of the masses" explanation is an old idea and fails at explaining revolutionary jihadism (as Marx failed to explain the world in general).
I don't doubt it but those don't typically go around committing mass murder.
As far as the 'people are willing to kill and die for them' bit goes, that's a pretty good definition of insanity to me. After all if an idea was placed in your head and you then go out and use that idea as justification for murdering innocents that you have no personal grievance against (the one universal that most people seem to agree on is a bad thing) then there is something not entirely right in your head.
It's a fair bet that quite a few or even all of the attackers (but let's stick with probably some) share the Islamic religion. But that does not mean that Islam per se has anything to do with it, what it points to is that religion is a tool that can be used to subvert people into committing acts that they would otherwise likely not engage in, especially when they're young, impressionable, stupid or all of the above.
So even if Islam is nominally involved and even if the fact that religious people have a fringe element (like all people!) that does not mean Islam is the cause of this. Just like Catholicism is not a religion centered around pederasty and just like atheists don't generally go around shooting people.
I guess it's the style of attack that makes you think Islam. On the other hand if 150 innocents get killed by drones you think USA and by tanks and artillery you might guess Russia or Israel. I'm not a fan of any of the above.
I recognize your username and I know you are highly intelligent, but how can you ignore all the daily evidence, crime statistics, the shows of intolerance + hatred + violence that Muslims put out towards the natives, all the logic and reason, and all the correlations about the Muslim population in Europe?
Because 'Muslims' are many, and terrorists are few.
The Muslims that I know are very much upset about all this and fear for their future, if anybody is upset at the acts of terrorism by their nominal brethren it is them because they are confronted on a daily basis with the fall-out from all this. The scary bit is that the backlash against them drives them to become defensive and that's the one thing that should not happen.
> Because 'Muslims' are many, and terrorists are few.
There is much more to the story than fitting Muslims into the categories of: "non-terrorist" and "active-terrorist".
The fact still remains that Muslim [and other immigrating] populations in Europe negatively impact every single metric of social-ills (rapes, murders, acid-burning attacks, honor-killings / enormous housing and welfare costs / emergence of no-go zones / overall intolerance towards you / and so on and on).
This is the further split of society that you are talking about. It happens when you bring in incompatible groups into your home, and groups that do not reciprocate your good will, tolerance, and open mindedness.
It makes no difference that terrorists are few when double-digits (20%-90%) of Muslims (depending on region and % of population they make up) think that death should be the penalty for apostasy, that suicide bombings are justified, and so on.
So, let's first establish that these are individuals and that while for some of the individuals targeted your claims hold true there are many others that did successfully integrate. For the rest I'll ignore those but they exist and their numbers are vast, much larger than the numbers of those that failed to integrate but since they're not 'part of the problem' I'll pretend we're not talking about them (though they should be talked about because they apparently hold the key to at least a part of the solution).
You're forgetting a few not-so-juicy details. Most of these people that failed to integrate carry local passports and to the law they are just as French (or Dutch, or German or whatever) as the rest of the people living there.
As a rule all these countries practice freedom of religion so whatever the effect the immigrating (grand)parents had on the statistics of decades past the problem is the effects today. And you can't attack anybody on grounds of religion without opening up the traditional make-up of the country as well so that's right out because it would make a great many people in various power structures extremely nervous.
The failure then is to fail to fully integrate these people, part of the failure is theirs, part of the failure is ours.
The fact that the younger generation (and definitely not all of them!) are unable to get work, unable to find meaning in life and unable to get ahead no matter how hard they try creates a level of frustration that I can only imagine, but which broke through partially in the riots in France a couple of years ago.
As far as the 'double digits' are concerned, right now an ultra-rightwing party holds > 25% of the vote in NL, that doesn't make all the Dutch racists any more than 30% of the Muslims agreeing with some or all of the terrorist activities makes all of the Muslims supporters of terrorism.
It's each and every person as an individual that matters.
And if a person specifically supports these acts then you can go after them with whatever tools are available but until then there is no reason to act in a generalizing manner. That only makes the problem (potentially much) worse.
> It's each and every person as an individual that matters.
The human race has been based on groups/collectives since its inception. Even before we were Homo-sapiens, we were forming natural groups that defined us - with each group producing, collecting, and evolving individuals of similar attributes and behaviors.
Once you mismatch a group into another, some type of violence always arises.
In addition to the above, the recent floods of immigration into Europe is also not working because the groups that are coming in are largely doing so for the immediate benefits (ex: mindset that thinks welfare is "salary") and not because they recognize and respect European values.
The further this goes on, the worse it gets, and its becoming a disaster.
Let's say your singling out of Muslims as somehow worse than the rest of humanity has any basis in fact or reason: what's the conclusion? close the borders; kick out the muslims; round up those who won't leave; make the rest sign a loyalty oath?
Muslims are in the West, much to your horror, and the reasons they are here just might have something to do with France's imperial past and present. But they're here: so what's your solution fella?
> Because 'Muslims' are many, and terrorists are few.
The same holds for fascists. Fascists terrorists are driven by their ideology, which in itself can be evil and wrong. That many adherents to an ideology are not violent is in itself not an indication of lack of evil. Even if there were billions of fascists, this wouldn't prove lack of evil of fascism.
The reason that people out of principle will not condemn Islam in western society is that is seen as 'another culture' and a 'minority' in the West. Both aspects are seen as a source for racism, which is bad. But therefore it seems hard to truly look at Islam as a possible source of evil. And I think it is.
Your reaction is emotional, Islam has nothing to do with this whatsoever is not valid for the hundred victims and the hundreds of people who loved those victims.
And I think that Wahhabism/Salafism is responsible for this and an unknown amount of atrocities against in the first place other Muslims.
Islam may not have anything to do with this. But certainly Muhammad does have something to do with this. If you read his biography, it's full of active violence. Muhammad is totally different from Jesus or Siddhartha Gautama.
> we CANNOT allow right-wing political extremism to use them to gather power. THIS IS NOT ABOUT MUSLIMS, IMMIGRANTS OR WHATNOT. THIS IS ABOUT CRAZY PEOPLE.
People who oppose rampant immigration, incompatible cultures, and hostile groups, are "extremists"?
You are living in a climate where Muslims flood out into the streets and chant death threats (and then kill people) because someone made a joke about Muhammad.
Bending over to these people and blaming yourself is not the way forwards - unless you want more of this chaos.
France has one of the largest Muslim populations in Europe, and 20% of this group are brazen enough to sympathize and justify with terrorism when polled. There is a correlation here.
Crazy people that identify as muslims, emotions are running high but lets not pause our common sense in fear of "offending" someone somewhere. Leaning to left-wing extremism, going to a public gathering tomorrow and posting an inspiring slogan on Facebook doesn't do any justice for the dozens killed either.
Back in January, when a guy took hostages in a grocery store in Paris, it was proven that he was watching real-time news channel "BFM-TV", and got information about the positions of the police forces.
I can understand why the police units dealing with this situation do not want to let that kind of thing happen again.
496 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 329 ms ] threadEDIT: If you're anywhere near these events in Paris, please get to safety now!
Either way, it's an absolutely awful turn of events, and the kind of horrible thing that I thought would never happen again after the attacks in the early 00s.
But your right, recognizing it's a feedback loop is the first step.
Keep trusting, keep being fair to everyone.
That means not allowing people to break the rules of society due to their personal beliefs but enforcing laws above board. No "shadowbanning" (unlawful arrests) or unlawful surveillance.
www.spiegel.de/international/the-future-of-terrorism-what-al-qaida-really-wants-a-369448.html
Do any of the refugees blame Europe for their [Europe's] involvement? Probably some do, yes.
The latter has nothing essential to do with the NM/TX border, there are border patrol checkpoints (including mobile ones) in a pretty wide swath "near" the Mexican border. They don't exist to enforce any kind of control on state borders.
Too bad it smells like a conspiracy theory.
Edit for source: http://www.dw.com/en/france-arrests-islamic-state-supporter-...
There isn't any time that would be less effective for your goals than right now.
Also, it's like 'teen abstinence' sex ed - you can tell people to refrain all you want, but they're still going to do it. People want to talk about this thing as it's happening; they will find a place to do it regardless.
But we need to do so with sensitivity, too, now.
Edit: I'll go with jacquem's reply to NewNole2001: It can wait a day or two. It can't wait weeks, though. (The Patriot Act was passed less than 7 weeks after 9/11.)
It is our duty to keep our heads cool and minds clear. When the smoke has cleared - then we will grief.
Governments kill way more people than terrorists ever will, but fear those the government tells you to fear...
In fact, French and Russian security services are known for their heavy touch. Fat lot of good it's doing for them.
Apparently this method is not working at all.
An attack of this size and coordination was without a doubt electronically communicated. We can't possibly infiltrate every group of radicals with informants. And they are not going to stop.
I believe it was LA that had a plane fly above the city and record 24/7. It was just enough resolution to make out cars and people, but not identify anyone. Less invasive than security cameras in that sense. And I don't think it was live. It was just something the police could go back to and look at after a crime as committed, and see where the criminals went or came from.
Given some conditions, like the recordings be deleted after a few days, and that it requires a warrant to look at, I think that would be ok.
Obviously don't know yet who is responsible, but I don't understand why France is being targeted in this way. They are hardly terrorist enemy number one.
Certainly they're closer and easier to get to from the Middle East than other parts of the world and contain a larger Arab population making it easier to hide within and recruit from.
But I would imagine French intelligence is deep within that same population and I remember members of the military on patrol in the streets of Paris.
I'd hesitate to assume that French intelligence operatives have thoroughly penetrated terrorist groups and their sympathizers. My experience suggests that French authorities have for years underestimated the threat posed by such groups and are also significantly underfunded/under resourced.
The military patrol is primarily a form of security theatre, though that does depend upon the location. Some areas truly do need greater protection, such as repeatedly targeted venues, and those populations do need reassurance that they are not completely vulnerable. I also want to make clear that those forces can actually intervene in the unlikely situation that the protected venue is attacked, but it's also likely that their presence displaces the attacks to alternative sites.
Anyway, France has a significant population that is sympathetic to jihadi terrorism's goals and practices, and my understanding is that counterterrorism and terrorism response operations in France - both strategically and tactically - leave much to be desired. France/Paris is not like Munich circa 1972 (shit-show level of unpreparedness), but there's significant room for improvement.
I agree with your point of fuck them, but still.
We consistently rank with top-notch nations, thank you very much.
Maybe because they let into their borders too many losers whose worldview renders them incapable of finding their way around the western the world? Maybe no more reasons are needed? No politics, no aims, nothing to gain, just a bunch of frustrated losers?
That's not separation of church and state, that's suppression of unpopular religion by the secular state, which is no different than suppression of unpopular religion in favor of a popular religion by the state. (And its not just in schools, though that was one of the focal points in the debates, the ban applies in all public spaces in France.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_c...
The French do have a fairly rigorous approach to separation of church and state. Where do they cross the line into something blatantly discriminatory?
On the face of it, sure; OTOH, the specific targeting of traditional attire of certain Muslims was overt among the promoters of both the ban you link to and the broader ban on face covering in public spaces.
is that even really about separation of church and state? Somehow I doubt it.
Also the US takes the, IMO, "better" position of saying that individuals practicing private religion doesn't break separation of church and state. Organized religion does.
Of course the US also effectively forces their children to recite a pledge (which includes "under god"), which I find rather distateful.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34372892
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-09/french-def...
You might think that only because it doesn't resonate in the English-speaking press, but that's far from true. In reality, France is historically involved in any goings-on in Northern Africa, and is a fundamental partner to US and UK in Middle East policies. They were the main proponents for "blowing up" Lybia, while UK and Italy had built bridges with the regime and were preparing for an eventual transition. They started military operations in Syria only a few months ago, but mostly because they have troops continuously engaged in various African countries and have to keep an eye on their limited resources.
Across radicalised groups all over Africa, ME and Asia, France is still seen as an old-school, violent colonial power with an anti-muslim bent. You could be surprised if Spain or (to a lesser degree) Italy were targeted, but France easily makes the "Top 5 Targets List" of most violent nutjobs in that part of the world.
1. Enter house claiming to need to go somewhere. 2. Kill everybody. 3. Move to next willing house and repeat.
What do you mean by this? It sounds a bit ominous, if you'll pardon me.
The us and them mentality being used to "combat" terrorism is so harmful because it puts people in a position where they have nothing to lose - they're already being discrimminated against etc.
I agree that a few assholes can ruin things for everyone but the reason they can is because they can ruin the trust people have in each other thereby leading to a situation like I described above. The solution is therefore counterintuitive (since they exploit intuition).
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4256591
I was wondering though if there are some creative ways to improve this initiative and make it more secure. Anyone has anything better than filtering eventual candidates to give shelter to according to rough "trustworthiness" of their Twitter account?
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Reddit discussions become overrun with useless comments. Stupid memes, puns, and just other irrelevant drivel.
Many of the mainstream news outlets have lagging facts, horrible commenting (if any) and biased/washed/slanted reporting.
HN thoroughly discourages both worthless commenting and links to worthless news sources.
For me personally, I much prefer following stories like this on HN vs anywhere else.
1. Updated chronology of news with source links
2. Practically important publicization of #porteouverte effort
3. Updated chronology of news as experienced by Parisian local
4. First-person account of person who was present at theatre shooting
5. ... content-light junk starts. More than halfway down the page.
There's interesting commentary in this HN thread that I'm not seeing upvoted to visibility on Reddit, so it is valuable. But there is a ton of uniquely valuable stuff on the Reddit thread, and that is consistently the case in these live serious news situations.
----
And 10 minutes after I posted this, the top comment on this very HN thread and all its replies are all empty sentiment. "vive la france", "hearts go out", "be safe", etc.
As a story like this ages, my personal experience has been that the quality of comments on HN go UP while the quality of comments on Reddit go DOWN.
In regards to the parent post of this thread, I think that HN provides a valuable outlet for posting stories like this, and I personally feel it is within the overall HN "charter" for stories. It could turn out that this specific case balances out differently, but my personal opinion is that overall HN discussions for a given HN-worthy topic are more valuable than the comparative Reddit thread.
These people aren't victims. They made a choice.
Treating symptoms is never as useful as treating the underlying cause.
Like others have said the damage this is causing is mostly mental. The number of random (I mean that as in could happen to anyone not downplaying the significance of human life) deaths caused by terrorism is not so large.
However this does not mean we should tolerate people who refuse to play by the rules of society because of their personal beliefs (whatever they may be). Any countermeasures must be above board and transparently fair.
(There's also a whole suite of technology problems here solved via JDAMs and Hellfires, which seem to be actively being pursued.)
Simply discounting the power of technology is short-sighted.
An ex-recruiter who spent years in an Egyptian prison became disillusioned with the ideology.
Reminds me of this thing they have in Amsterdam: http://www.iamexpat.nl/read-and-discuss/expat-page/news/neth...
Obviously ISIS is past the point of laissez-faire tolerance but that isn't the point, ideological censorship should always be a last resort.
I am so saddened by this situation with a powerful IS which wants to remove our freedom and change the world into an extreme muslim one.
We must remember not to spread hate towards all the peaceful muslims.
One thing is for sure, marginalizing and discriminating even more is not a solution.
Source: http://live.reuters.com/Event/Paris_attacks_2?utm_source=twi...
Like, how do they shut this down?
https://www.google.com/maps/place/France/@49.5467828,5.43629...
It's a lot easier to re-establish something that was there before than it is to do it from scratch and this is more of a logistical problem (and a personel one) than one of technicalities about whether or not such a thing can be done. It's not like France didn't have a functioning border patrol a couple of years ago.
They will likely be similar military/Customs presence at checkin for any international train or flight.
> Where there is a serious threat to public policy or internal security, these countries may exceptionally reintroduce border controls at its internal borders for a period of no more than 30 days (possible to prolong under conditions established by the code) or for the foreseeable duration of the serious threat. This action should be seen as a last resort.
source: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:l...
France was actually going to reinstate some border checks from November 13 to December 13 for the COP21.
How do you close that down, especially in the middle of the night? The US can't even do it in places with a wall.
In 2015, it's probably more linked with the foreign affairs and military operations.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Wars_of_Religion
To whom - you? Based on what? Logic? You've made no argument. Based on an untested model of psychology bouncing around in your head?
The terrorists themselves claim a religious muslim tradition. The best you have is that they're brainwashed victims, because, well, there's lots of other muslims who don't become terrorists?
You have no basic reasoning capabilities yourself. At least the poster you were responding to had a correlation. You have nothing.
And other terrorists claim other traditions. We could look at all those traditions as unrelated, unconnected causes of terrorism because, hey, that's what each of the terrorists said was important to them -- or we could look for common features that link them to try to understand why people become terrorists.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorisme_en_France (link to the French one, the English version is shorter)
Only looking at post-WWII, you have far-right groups, far-left groups, Corsican regionalists, Basque regionalists, various independentists (Breton, New Caledony, Caribbean, etc.), extension of the Algerian civil war of the 90s, etc. Those account for hundreds of attacks, with a various amount of deads. Only recently have Islamist attacks begun. The most lethal single attack until today in France was in fact from a far-right group in the 60s.
Religion - any particular one, or at all - is neither necessary nor sufficient for brutal violence or its prevention.
We've banned this account for violating the HN guidelines after many requests to stop.
Maybe if you stumble onto some of these terrorists in Paris now, you can inform them that their cause is just oh-so démodé? You can let us know how that works out.
Usually, I'd argue your point but.. today, I don't want to, my country was attacked and I feel horrible already. This is neither the time nor the place. It doesn't matter where they're from, I hope each and every one of those fuckers get caught, and I truly hope this is the last comment like this I'll see today. Unfortunately I know it won't be.
Keep this xenophobia to yourself.
Crystallizing on the fact that every terrorists are muslims is like saying that most serial killers are on average 1m75 and each pedophile have one left foot and one right foot.
I think I'll go watch my copy of "The Battle of Algiers".
Beyond reporting emergency contact info they serve no purpose other than encouraging the next attack.
If you marginalize people, mistrust them, do not make an effort to integrate them, and make them feel like the only place where they are welcome is segregated communities, don't be surprised when they radicalize. This has happened all throughout history, and will continue without changes.
Conservatives scream that Liberals are too soft on immigration, and are too focused on "political correctness". They want them to wake up and recognize that scary "others" are around every corner and can't wait to harm us. Well, the irony is that it is those social policies and that ostracization that creates the conditions in which resentment grows.
And here we are. Screaming more about "those muslims". Which only pushes moderate muslims further to feel like there is no tolerance for nuiance in the West.
This will do gangbusters for ISIS recruitment.
edit: Just so people understand, I'm not victim blaming anyone. I am traumatized as one of my favourite cities and areas that I've been to only weeks ago are in the grips of panic and terror at the hands of horrific monsters.
I'm not saying "Well yeah, of course, that's what's going to happen. France had it coming". I'm responding to the people who are saying "Well, yeah, of course, that's what's going to happen. When you allow so many immigrants and muslims have free reign". I'm looking ahead at the next few weeks as people take this opportunity to just blame everything on Islam. And make the situation worse longer term.
I know this is not the best place to nitpick, but I believe you should capitalize the "m" in "Muslim" when used as a noun.
@deanCommie
Please, stop with the excuses , nobody marginalized anybody. The terrorists are not victims , the islamists are not victims. so don't give them excuses. The wide majority of muslims in France are integrated, they are bakers, plumbers , computer scientists , my baker is a muslim , so stop with that bull. There is no excuse none.
10% of the french people are muslims, that's a fact, out of that fact it increases the chances of people chosing an extreme vision of islam. There was attacks in Spain , UK and obviously USA, is it because muslims were marginalized ? so stop please, you are ignorant trying to apply your post modernist canvas on things when some people are still taken hostage as we speak, you should be ashamed of yourself.
FYI : I'm black and come from a muslim family though i'm not muslim, those who fail are those who don't try hard enough, nobody said it will be easy. Everything is "free" in France, education , college, healthcare , you feel "marginalized" , well there is Europe and you can basically pick and choose the country you want to live in today. So no excuses, enough.
Sooooo many studies have been done where the same resume gets shown to recruiters, except one has a French name and the other has an Arabic name. The results were an overwhelming amount of french resumes were chosen over the Arabic one. Not to mention constant issues like police harassment
The issue of integration of purely the fault of a country that pretends that race doesn't matter while simultaneously punishing minorities every step of the way
Sure, but it doesn't make my point false. Is there some discrimination going on ? absolutely we need to fight it. Is it widespread absolutely not, I've been victim of racism in France because of the color of my skin , and you know what ? we have a lot of charities , organizations , and anti discrimination laws to fight against it. So what does it have to do with people killing 50+ innocents ? nothing.
And the racism I endured didn't make me want to join ISIS or some bullshit Islamist movement, because I knew that for every racist ahole there are 10 000 people that are not and don't care about the color of my skin.
But people like the OP and their "oppressor/oppressed" mindset are just giving excuses to the crazies , but there is no excuse , there is no explanation other than the terrorists a f.ed up and part of a death cult.
Just like there will be people blaming 'all of Islam' for this atrocity there will be people on the other side that blame 'all of the West' either for their own inability and failure or as as a reaction to the inequalities in the society they are a part of an which they will find it hard to overcome. It is these people that are at risk of being radicalized, the smart ones (like yourself) never were at risk in the first place, have found their niche and simply want to live their lives as good as they can, like everybody else.
It's a pity because these few would be harmless fools if they weren't given the tools and instructions with which they then proceed their crimes, and probably they relish at the thought of the headlines they will be making.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of people that would very much like to blame their own personal failure on others or that would exact blind revenge on innocents for perceived or real sleights instead of seeking redress in a less violent manner.
I'm not defending the terrorists. I'm defending people like your family who will be lumped in with them in the next couple of weeks as people blame all of this on immigration and islam, like they do every time.
The fact is, we are living in an age of muslim extremism and sympathies are at an all time high. We could look at it at that fact and blame 1.57 billion people for all sharing this radical ideology, or we could look at what other forces are nudging a small section of those people to radicalize. And avoid denial.
You're not trying to keep people in check, you are as ignorant as the people saying racist comments with your stupid pomo explanations.
> I'm not defending the terrorists. I'm defending people like your family who will be lumped in with them in the next couple of weeks as people blame all of this on immigration and islam, like they do every time.
I won't be lumped in with anybody because most of the french can tell the difference and I don't need anyone defending me, thank you, i'm capable of defending myself. You're talking about a problem you know nothing about, with a specific school of thinking that is stupid at first place. You want to talk about a population that is really marginalized in France? talk about the Roma, I didn't see anyone of them killing 50+ people because of it. and they have it much , much worse than any arab or black in France.
France is not an apartheid where blacks, arabs and white people are separated and often ,those who claim being victim of society are the one with an intolerant and bigoted mindset. People like you give the crazies ammo to fuel their hatred toward a country that feed them , treat them , give them an education for free and a whole lot of percs. And again ,don't like it ? move , Europe is huge and go see if the grass is greener elsewhere.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10563123
EDIT: There is preventing integration as a host nation's people, and refusing to integrate as an immigrant. One can only do so much to make a person feel welcome in a country as their new home. You may bring your beliefs, but you'll follow the laws and human rights expectations of your host country. Otherwise, stay at home, war torn or not.
Disclaimer: American who is unwilling to watch first world country progress move backwards due to political correctness.
"Al-Qaida Kills Eight Times More Muslims Than Non-Muslims"
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/surprising-study-o...
"ISIS’s Gruesome Muslim Death Toll: The group’s killing of Westerners gets attention. But ISIS has killed far more Muslims, and publicizing that fact would harm it more."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/07/isis-s-grue...
"Well, if spilling Muslim blood is the deciding factor for us Muslims to decide who we should take vengeance against, then al-Ansi and others in al Qaeda should immediately go into hiding. Simply put, al Qaeda has been slaughtering Muslims for years. Islamic clerics, doctors, nurses, women, children, etc. -- you name any type of Muslim, and al Qaeda has butchered them.
In fact, a report released in 2009 by the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point documented the people killed by al Qaeda between 2004 and 2008. It found that only 12% of the victims of al Qaeda were Westerners. That suggests that al Qaeda has killed seven times as many Muslims as non-Muslims. And these attacks were just the ones for which al Qaeda had publicly claimed responsibility."
http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/15/opinion/obeidallah-al-qaeda-hy...
Well, if you assume that all Westerners are non-Muslims and all non-Westerners are Muslims, it suggests that.
The Western world lost all moral superiority when they decided torture and genocide were acceptable acta to commit.
The Western world lost all moral superiority when they decided torture and genocide were acceptable acta to commit.
US-backed Iraq against Iran war: some 1/2 million - 1 million deaths.
Desert Storm: 20-30 thousand
Operation Desert Fox (1998): 600 (in 4 days)
Iraq War: 30-40 thousand
Sanctions against Iraq: somewhere between 150 and 500 thousand deaths.
And this is Iraq (and Iran) alone.
Then there are: the war in Libya and its ongoing civil war, the civil war in Iraq, in Syria, the bombs on Gaza, Afghanistan... all the direct work or at least helped or backed by the Western countries.
This goes far beyond "shared traits". They organize against us with a dogmatic reverence for violence known as radical Islam, and your dogmatic tolerance for it allows it to metastasize.
"Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."
-Winston Churchill, from "The River War"
source : http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/churchillislam.asp
"starvation of anyhow underfed Bengalis is less serious than that of sturdy Greeks"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#Suppli...
And definitely not a benchmark for the 21st century.
And the other allied leader has (deservedly) an awful reputation. Definitely a reputation which is worse than Churchill's.
I'm sorry but you can't just say "this is the inevitable outcome of marginalization". There are plenty of marginalized groups that choose not to commit mass murder in the name of justice.
It seems like your point is that the French are to blame because they didn't properly integrate Muslim immigrants?
This is shockingly bad taste. People are still dying, as we speak, and you decide to rail against a strawman and blame the victims because you are nervous about your political opponents making hay?
So no, I don't buy it you blaming the host country, in this case France.
"We" (US, UK, France, Italy, Germany etc etc) have completely destabilised an entire subcontinent in the last 25 years. "We" keep pretending that these places are far away, far removed from our shining civilisations, but they are not -- they are on our doorstep, they have been our neighbours for millennia. Rome was fighting wars in that region when ships were still powered by human rowers. Until "we" think that a few drones is all we need to solve what is now a humongous clusterfuck (mostly of our own making), "we" will suffer wave after wave of lunatics with a death wish. Unfortunately, none of the current crop of European and American leaders has the faintest clue about what to do about it, except applying short-term measures that look good on tabloids.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10562735
Don't know what to say , just that I hope everybody and their families are safe.
This is hard, a very hard hit on my country. Vive la France.
Stay safe.
maybe it will also have a side-effect of uniting people and countries against a common threat to all humanity.
I don't think that will happen. Remember "Je suis Charlie"? How long did that sentiment last?
It's a matter of time before people will be writing 'Je suis Francais', and then promptly forget it a few days or weeks later.
Even worse is that I agree.
Can we do anything to change it?
I admire your patience for sure. The hope that we have decades to unwind this mess.
I fear, though, militant religious sects may not have the same self control.
I fear that the inability or lack of willingness to meet violence with violence may be the downfall of rationality. We rightfully shun violence in place of discussion, but as is evident (again), we are not dealing with rational actors.
I think a discussion about how we can realistically meet this violence with violence is warranted. Sam Harris made a good argument for this in this podcast: http://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun-...
We have in a way changed the paradigm already. A bad actor brandishing a box cutter on a plane is to be sure to be met with resistance that wouldn't have been seen pre 9/11.
But that could actually be an advantage. The more people see them for the nutcases they are the shorter the path to a possible solution.
> I fear that the inability or lack of willingness to meet violence with violence may be the downfall of rationality. We rightfully shun violence in place of discussion, but as is evident (again), we are not dealing with rational actors.
The danger in dealing with non-rational actors is that rational people will either do one of two things: they will join the non-rational actors and will respond non-rationally themselves, or they will persist in setting up a rational frame of reference for dialogue with the non-rational actors, which clearly will not work.
So the solution is to treat non-rational actors as exactly what they are: crazy, and deal with them accordingly.
Sorry for not being clear. I'm not speaking about others perception; we can easily discern they are out of shape. They, though, don't care what the rest of us rational people think.
>So the solution is to treat non-rational actors as exactly what they are: crazy, and deal with them accordingly.
Agreed. What I'm arguing is that that may involve reciprocating violence -- which we (rightfully) inherently tend to avoid. You can't rationalize with irrational people.
In that situation, we need multiple people to be willing to sacrifice themselves to save others. In today's world, the modus operandi is to cower and hope things pass over or to sympathize with the attackers views. This will not work going forward as the attackers could give a fuck what you think or how you feel so long as your death plays into their idea of making the world right.
I think a lot of people are afraid that these incidents will lead to more wars in the Middle East, create more terrorists, and cause more attacks. This will further erode our fourth amendment freedoms and probably the second too, which is exactly what the terrorists want.
Intention is all that matters, and why its attempting to damage social fabric.
I'm not trying to be flip. I'm saying that by any viable moral theory, you are catastrophically wrong.
I'm not changing a damn thing in how I live my life, and not even out of courage (i.e. the "we can't let the terrorists win" bromide that took over in America in late 2001). It just shouldn't matter that much to you, and it only prevails insomuch as you let these irrational fears get to you.
No it's not - people die from unexpected accidents completely unaware of the risks all the time - intuitive risk perception doesn't work really well - caveman instincts and all that - risk perception is not the problem - if this was indeed an isolated incident that would not repeat it would be sad but not very relevant - an example of this is Breivik murders.
But obviously this is not comparable - people behind this will try to repeat it if not dealt with - this is why it's a big deal.
Unfortunatley from a mathematical standpoint you are incorrect, from an irrational human standpoint you have a point however.
The human mind is much worse at reasoning and reality than anticipated, how you and others perceive the world is not as real as you'd like to think, thats the whole point of math and science:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ
A scene from Brazil that explores this idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4KFNhxibec
Well, just to say my misunderstanding of to which Brazil it was referred.
I do think you want to treat it as "murder is a serious crime and needs to be prosecuted and punished" rather than "this is an act of Islamic terrorism and we need to declare War on Terror!". But, universally ignored is hardly how you want to react. You want to close borders and you want to declare emergency and you want to, ideally, apprehend these people using conventional police. You do not want to live in a permanent state of panic or build a police state after the fact, and you definitely don't want to take out your anger on a whole population of people over the actions of a small radical group. But you do want a, rational but concerned, reaction.
Right now, you want to get people to safety, help the survivors and catch those responsible, in that order.
I don't think ignoring the problem is the only way to not let the terrorists win. But I do agree responding militarily or by widespread panic is what they most likely want.
I know someone who is deadly afraid of putting shoes on tables. Because her friend did that before dying in a traffic accident.
Blow up enough people often enough and fear and panic will become pervasive. People stop opening their shops, investments stop coming.
Terror is a pretty effective way to overthrow a gov't.
Another is South Vietnam.
Although there was a war going on the NLF did a great job of terrorizing the local population and installing their own shadow government. The terror attacks fractured the populations allegiance to the South Vietnamese gov't (what good is a gov't that can't protect you?).
Terrorism can be an effective tool in guerrilla warfare.
Terrorism is not Effective: http://www.gwern.net/Terrorism%20is%20not%20Effective
Terrorism is not About Terror: http://www.gwern.net/Terrorism%20is%20not%20about%20Terror
Just look at the statistics. The total number of people killed by terrorists is negligible. And 0 terrorist groups have ever won and achieved their stated goals.
I remember the Boston bombing. That same week, there was another explosion at a chemical plant that killed many more people, and blew up a nursing home. Guess which event got more press, by a large amount? Which event are people more likely to remember? Can you even name what city the chemical plant exploded in or remember any details about it?
Why is this? It's because people react to violence much differently than they react to accidents. Because thousands of years ago, violence was the one cause of death you could do something about. If you got an infection, or if a natural disaster struck, or a famine broke out, etc, those are all out of your control. But if someone was a threat to your family or tribe, you could fight them, or flee from them.
We have many emotions and social instincts whose entire purpose is to deal with other humans that threaten us. Like paranoia, anger, and hate. No one hates the chemical plant, and wants to go kill it. People hate the Tsarnaev brothers.
Don't speak too soon. We have several political movements dedicated to this.
Hmm. Wasn't it Bin Laden's goal to restore the Islamic Caliphate?
It's all about human agency and intentions. Terrorist attacks are carried out by HUMANS with the clear INTENTION of inflicting harm on the populace. Accidents on the other hand lack these essential factors. When I walk by a chemical plant, it never crosses my mind that the plant would attack me or be capable of doing such a thing and therefore I am not worried to be around but on the other hand if I happen to be walking in a bad neighborhood late at night, I would be very wary of people around me because I know very well that some of them might inflict harm on me for any reason.
So, I think that the comparison you drew between these two categories is not that solid and that people have every right to be "terrified" of terrorism and take all the precautionary measures to stop/prevent it.
Every time they strike they put us on edge, and we make new laws and protocols to protect ourselves, giving up freedom in the name of security.
Flashing the towers card here sounds a little embarrassing in retrospective. Sadly, the I.Snake is also the bastard son of Bush great plans for Irak and the Guantanamo shame.
No, it's not. The danger is over reacting, as history has proven time and time again. Fear is not the answer.
The only impact is people's reaction to it. Blame should be shifted to those who react. It absolutely should be downplayed.
[1] http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2015/05/05/01016-201...
The point being of the people murdered in France this year less than 1/5th of them where killed by terrorists. Yet, the other 4/5th don't make international news.
Yes, this is a tragedy, so are all those other deaths.
PS: Even at over twice the normal rate, the average US city is far worse every year.
Maybe there are 100 people killed in France in a typical year by complete strangers. And we're talking about 180 people (maybe more) killed in 2015 by complete strangers and in the name of Allah. I don't think that can be easily ignored.
What's hard, is accepting that things like this happen, but there not reason to alter policy in any meaningful way.
Wait till you live in Iraq or Afghanistan where these incidents occur on a daily basis and see if you will still stand by your statement or revisit it very soon.
The pack leaders are the rational ones. The ones that stand to gain the most from organizing these horrors.
Exactly, and very important, not given the platform they want, the media are very much a part of this as well.
We have to fight for enlightenment values, and need to lead by example - we can't make martyrs out of people.
It certainly feels different when you feel affected. You want to be reactionary. You want to have a knee-jerk reaction. Maybe I now understand why people are so quick to try to blame the issue on a certain cause.
But inside me I've spent my time fighting against this. I know that those attacks are not done "just for fun", they are driven by what makes them so effective: The fear they instill. The panic. The people who want to start putting the blame on a marginalized group that is prone to violence by their own situation.
Part of me wants to elaborate, but another part of me feels too sick to actually write more about this. I just want to go to bed, forget it happened.
I would like to ask the HN community to please not be reactionary about it. Please don't be xenophobic. Please don't marginalize groups.
And I have actually only seen one comment talking about car accidents, in a very different light than what you imply... so add to that, please don't make shit up.
scrollaway, you and many others on this site make me sick.
And that's why we very much should not react by further damaging the social fabric ourselves, but that is extremely hard, especially when everybody will be clamoring for some kind of reaction.
And now, I'll just wait for the downvotes I guess.
We'll be in some deep shit in the coming years.
Yup, as we always have been since we were humans. Sad.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings
Can you see how this is an extremely broad, lazy generalization? What really supports this comparison, other than their religion and colour of their skin?
And yes, "families fleeing war" are potential terrorist candidates. There is quite a possibility of future generations to radicalize. This happens (Europe exports quite some fighters for ISIL) and it will happen in the future, because the foundations are present. The refugees coming here will be mosty the future bottom of the lower class. And being poor, having no perspective and being insecure about ones identity aren't really things thatr you want to experience combined into a single adolescent boy.
And "families fleeing war" are not the only ones coming as refugees. It is also the fleeing fighters of ISIL.
And accomplishing what? Increasing the death toll? There are professionals who have many hours of training to prepare for this. They know how best to handle this situation.
(Stupid question warrants a stupid answer. Other than the fact that you're relying on a fallacy of evoking a nostalgic period that probably never was, there's the whole matter of the French government ordering a curfew on its citizens for them to stay inside. As such, your scenario of French men taking up arms is explicitly forbidden by the government, and will likely get you killed if you attempted it.)
And not just because it's forbidden by the government. It also makes it much more likely that you get confused with the people the government is trying to stop. (In your own thinking, you may be trying to stop them, too, but the government doesn't know that.)
I feel the strong need to point out that in these difficult times in Europe and the world, we CANNOT allow right-wing political extremism to use them to gather power. THIS IS NOT ABOUT MUSLIMS, IMMIGRANTS OR WHATNOT. THIS IS ABOUT CRAZY PEOPLE.
It is like Steven Weinberg summarized: With or without [religion] you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Recognizing this is important for assessing the situation and how to counter the problem – this is not a circumstance where more mental health services will make the tiniest difference. It requires intelligent debate about education, philosophy (including religion), and how to convey to people that any religious beliefs that cause the deaths of others are simply wrong.
Religion is not per se horrible – obviously the super-majority of religious people are fully functional contributing members of society and should be protected just like everyone else - but it has been used throughout history to conduct a huge number of atrocities.
Everyone has an existential crisis in their life, and desires to become a part of something greater than themselves.
The traditional institutions in Western society that promoted this sense of belonging have been eroded in the recent decade, which could explain the trend toward joining organizations like ISIS and their ilk.
At the larger scale, religious justifications are no more relevant than socialism's role in turning some rural Cambodians into ruthless killers (as opposed to the state-terrorism): http://johnpilger.com/articles/from-pol-pot-to-isis-anything...
Not really; religious identity politics are often used by leaders (whose motivation seems to be more power-seeking than genuinely religious) to connect with foot-soldiers (whose real impetus seems often to be desperation to improve conditions for their family, or themselves, or to redress wrongs they feel have been done to their family or themselves, or to feel connected to a group and gain meaning.)
And you see the same thing done in other places with racial identity politics, economic class identity politics, national identity politics, etc. (And, in many cases, many of these are at play in the same movement.)
Desperation, poverty, redress of (centuries long) wrongs, and seeing no other option than to join the movement do make sense as motives though.
I haven't studied all of those wars, but my understanding has been that behind every religious explanation for war is a political power struggle.
Religion is used to get ordinary people to go to war, certainly. If it wasn't religion, it would be something else that speaks to people's emotions and desire to belong to a group. (Patriotism, 'Duty', 'Honor', etc.)
For two of your examples:
The crusades cemented the power of the Papacy and Holy Roman Empire in Europe, partly by sending a lot of armed powerful people to fight elsewhere. It also was an attempt to reunite Catholicism under the Roman Pope (i.e. it was a massive land/tax/power grab by the Pope at the time). Fighting other faiths occurred, and was certainly used as a reason for people to leave their homes and travel hundreds of miles to fight foreigners. (I'm pretty convinced very few people do that willingly.)
The whole Protestant reformation taking off at all (Luther was not the first person to rail against the perceived hypocrisies of the Catholic church) and subsequent 30 years war was generally driven by a desire of the various princes and kings involved to remove themselves from Catholicism. The 30 years war also quickly devolved past Protestants vs. Catholics and largely into various factions jostling for power.
Islam has nothing to do with this whatsoever, no more than say a Christian shooter in some cinema in has anything to do with Christianity. Islam as a religion has a ton of issues that make this particular kind of thing very hard to get rid of and it is a sad coincidence that many youths that are easily misled are receptive to all sorts of bs but to generalize across a billion or so people because of what a few assholes did is simply wrong.
So the correlation is strong but a lack of tolerance will fuel the generation of more of these, not less.
The puppeteers are the ones that matter, the 'terrorists' are for the most part tools in the hands of masters at playing them believing they are making the world a better place (and how wrong they are).
I make no distinction between idiots of any plumage, be they muslim, Christians, atheists or something else, organized or acting alone. They're a plague on society and should be dealt with, preferably long before they can become a problem in such a way that becoming a problem never even enters their minds because they're too busy living and appreciating life.
I don't doubt it but those don't typically go around committing mass murder.
As far as the 'people are willing to kill and die for them' bit goes, that's a pretty good definition of insanity to me. After all if an idea was placed in your head and you then go out and use that idea as justification for murdering innocents that you have no personal grievance against (the one universal that most people seem to agree on is a bad thing) then there is something not entirely right in your head.
There seems a bit of wishful thinking there. We don't know the details but it seems quite likely Islam does have something to do with this.
So even if Islam is nominally involved and even if the fact that religious people have a fringe element (like all people!) that does not mean Islam is the cause of this. Just like Catholicism is not a religion centered around pederasty and just like atheists don't generally go around shooting people.
I recognize your username and I know you are highly intelligent, but how can you ignore all the daily evidence, crime statistics, the shows of intolerance + hatred + violence that Muslims put out towards the natives, all the logic and reason, and all the correlations about the Muslim population in Europe?
The Muslims that I know are very much upset about all this and fear for their future, if anybody is upset at the acts of terrorism by their nominal brethren it is them because they are confronted on a daily basis with the fall-out from all this. The scary bit is that the backlash against them drives them to become defensive and that's the one thing that should not happen.
There is much more to the story than fitting Muslims into the categories of: "non-terrorist" and "active-terrorist".
The fact still remains that Muslim [and other immigrating] populations in Europe negatively impact every single metric of social-ills (rapes, murders, acid-burning attacks, honor-killings / enormous housing and welfare costs / emergence of no-go zones / overall intolerance towards you / and so on and on).
This is the further split of society that you are talking about. It happens when you bring in incompatible groups into your home, and groups that do not reciprocate your good will, tolerance, and open mindedness.
It makes no difference that terrorists are few when double-digits (20%-90%) of Muslims (depending on region and % of population they make up) think that death should be the penalty for apostasy, that suicide bombings are justified, and so on.
You're forgetting a few not-so-juicy details. Most of these people that failed to integrate carry local passports and to the law they are just as French (or Dutch, or German or whatever) as the rest of the people living there.
As a rule all these countries practice freedom of religion so whatever the effect the immigrating (grand)parents had on the statistics of decades past the problem is the effects today. And you can't attack anybody on grounds of religion without opening up the traditional make-up of the country as well so that's right out because it would make a great many people in various power structures extremely nervous.
The failure then is to fail to fully integrate these people, part of the failure is theirs, part of the failure is ours.
The fact that the younger generation (and definitely not all of them!) are unable to get work, unable to find meaning in life and unable to get ahead no matter how hard they try creates a level of frustration that I can only imagine, but which broke through partially in the riots in France a couple of years ago.
As far as the 'double digits' are concerned, right now an ultra-rightwing party holds > 25% of the vote in NL, that doesn't make all the Dutch racists any more than 30% of the Muslims agreeing with some or all of the terrorist activities makes all of the Muslims supporters of terrorism.
It's each and every person as an individual that matters.
And if a person specifically supports these acts then you can go after them with whatever tools are available but until then there is no reason to act in a generalizing manner. That only makes the problem (potentially much) worse.
The human race has been based on groups/collectives since its inception. Even before we were Homo-sapiens, we were forming natural groups that defined us - with each group producing, collecting, and evolving individuals of similar attributes and behaviors.
Once you mismatch a group into another, some type of violence always arises.
And we are mismatching on a lot here -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0sRmpvdIIk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2nlIfn8tNA
In addition to the above, the recent floods of immigration into Europe is also not working because the groups that are coming in are largely doing so for the immediate benefits (ex: mindset that thinks welfare is "salary") and not because they recognize and respect European values.
The further this goes on, the worse it gets, and its becoming a disaster.
Muslims are in the West, much to your horror, and the reasons they are here just might have something to do with France's imperial past and present. But they're here: so what's your solution fella?
The same holds for fascists. Fascists terrorists are driven by their ideology, which in itself can be evil and wrong. That many adherents to an ideology are not violent is in itself not an indication of lack of evil. Even if there were billions of fascists, this wouldn't prove lack of evil of fascism.
The reason that people out of principle will not condemn Islam in western society is that is seen as 'another culture' and a 'minority' in the West. Both aspects are seen as a source for racism, which is bad. But therefore it seems hard to truly look at Islam as a possible source of evil. And I think it is.
People who oppose rampant immigration, incompatible cultures, and hostile groups, are "extremists"?
You are living in a climate where Muslims flood out into the streets and chant death threats (and then kill people) because someone made a joke about Muhammad.
Bending over to these people and blaming yourself is not the way forwards - unless you want more of this chaos.
France has one of the largest Muslim populations in Europe, and 20% of this group are brazen enough to sympathize and justify with terrorism when polled. There is a correlation here.
Source: https://www.reddit.com/live/vwwnkuplwr9y
I can understand why the police units dealing with this situation do not want to let that kind of thing happen again.