"Stop disenfranchising the Muslims who live with us."
or they will kill us? While a big believer in developing infrastructure, education, etc. I think we also have to address the zealots in every "disenfranchised" group that might start killing us. Not sure how to do that.
Or you will need to expect repercussions that come from disenfranchising groups of people, and yes, that can include that group taking up arms against you.
A group of people that are being marginalized over and over will produce very angry people. This is the fertile ground that zealotry needs to grow.
(I don't think you mean it this way, but I'm going to appropriate your comment to make a point:)
They? Us? Who is "us"? Hacker News readers? Americans? Do any believe in Islam?
The foundation of hatred is the concepts 'they' and 'us'. Once the discussion is framed that way, the haters are empowered. That's how ISIS' worldview. Let's remember that 'us' is the vast majority who want peace, freedom, and justice, of every religion. 'They' are the perpetrators of hate and violence, everywhere. A fundemental tactic of hate groups like ISIS is to drive a wedge in our group, to alienate our Muslim brothers and sisters.
You are correct, what I meant was "people." Or they will kill people. My point is that there are a lot of disenfranchised groups currently. Heck even I, a white male in the U.S, is disenfranchised in that the vast majority of my tax money (which I am happy to pay) goes to war and old people (http://whatwepayfor.com/). I don't support war in any way so I am disenfranchised.
Not all disenfranchised groups are killing people. Perhaps we should look at why certain ones do.
I do not want to read another article by someone who thinks the Iraq war was about terrorism, and who seems to have potato levels of knowledge about international politics.
> and now in Syria, before in Libya, and only created more failed states and ungoverned spaces that provide havens for terrorists and spilled terror like dropped paint across borders.
Yeah, no, that isn't at all what happened. The US didn't create Syria or Libya. They're both civil wars that started organically (see "Arab Spring"); the US (and UK, et al) tried to fund certain factions after the conflicts kicked off, but they didn't initiate it.
While I agree with the overall thrust that we shouldn't sacrifice freedom for security, this whole article reads like a YouTube comment (meaning: uninformed, of low quality, making emotional but vapid arguments).
> Whack-a-mole is a game, not a plan. Leave the Middle East alone. Stop creating more failed states.
For some reason, I have difficulty thinking that just "leaving the Middle East alone" will somehow lead ISIS to disappear on its own and the Syrian government/Syrian rebels/Kurds/various fundamentalist islamist groups to magically arrive to some peaceful balance. Especially with ISIS having the stated goal of world domination (yeah, just leaving alone those who want to dominate the world rarely works, we tried that for a while before 1939).
The truth is, human society and civilization isn't a fundamentally stable system that's being thrown off by US or European interventions. Intervention is sometimes useful, sometimes bad, and it seems difficult for everyone to estimate whether interventions will be good or not.
The natural progression for 'lawless' areas is for stronger country's to attack and take land. They don't necessarily take over the whole country just the valuable pieces. Then repeat after that has been assimilated.
Western intervention has stalled this process by imposing arbitrary borders on huge landmasses. ISIS only works because larger state actors have been held in check. But, a true hands off policy would likely lead to some regional wars which would quickly crush ISIS or see it evolve into a more traditional nation state.
PS: Of course the other way this breaks down is when a large and mostly stable nation contains lawless regions. But, that does not really describe the region involved.
> "leaving the Middle East alone" will somehow lead ISIS to disappear on
This is a strawman attack. The author never stated that ISIS or terrorists will disappear or that a non-interventionist position by the west is a solution to a century of middle eastern conflicts.
The article is about reevaluating failed strategies and exploring other strategies which might help minimize the negative externalities of the middle easts constant turmoil. Not fanning the flames is a very valid position to take in this context.
Well there's egypt. They went their own road didn't they? With "democratic unelections" and all that. I lost count of the coup there, but seems more stable now, even if less free.
The US propped up the Mubarak regime for decades. That was instrumental in creating the conditions for their revolution. The US only stopped its intervention when supporting Mubarak was obviously not viable anymore. Sadly it seems like they're back to a somewhat "stable" authoritarianism in spite of it all. In tech parlance, revolutions are hard.
I'd just like to point out that the civil wars in both Syria and Libya were far from 100% organic.
The U.S. Was pushing to fuck around with Syria and were embarrassed by Russia about two years ago, just prior to that we were funding and supplying rebels, who we now call terrorists.
The U.S. Is very very good about fomenting "organic civil wars" among many other things...
Syria is the new hotness in proxy war.
And one of the things that sucks is that now the Paris issue tied with fake Syrian refugees is resulting in all sorts of craziness all over the world, including U.S. States' governments refusing any "refugees"
My pessimistic side feels that some portion of the governments of the world are looking for the next arch duke Ferdinand to whack as a tinderbox.
The Syrian civil war might still have happened if the US hadn't already destabilized Iraq. But Iraq directly led to ISIS, which is partly composed of Iraqi ex-Baathists and holds a large amount of ground in Iraq along traditional Sunni divisions; arguably ISIS would not be the organization it is today if its scope had been geographically and politically limited to Syria.
Well I'm watching MSNBC right now and pretty much every commentator is talking about how the terrorists were communicating using encryption and suggesting the fact that criminals have the ability to communicate secretly is something new that needs to be curtailed. Haven't seen anyone suggest we should read everyones mail yet (maybe they do this in France?). It's pretty crazy the way the media is acting. Am I to really believe they're this dumb and that they're not trying to push an agenda?
From what my French friends have told me, the public attitude there does take for granted that Government will know everything about you. They see the US debate over Internet privacy as silly (never had enjoyed those liberties themselves during the land-line phone era).
I have never been in France myself, so take this comment with a grain of salt.
I noticed the same thing on the CNN feed they run in the lobby at work. All sorts of talk about encryption being the reason that massive international intelligence apparatus was unable to prevent or predict the recent attacks in Paris.
I'm not sure how much is talking points or how much is just commercial news media looking for an angle they can pitch as new insight. Either way, it was really weird to run across. There are so many factors at work here and so many conflicting motivations and policies and bits of info...yet the top story is about how long-existing, commonly available methods may have been used to thwart the combined intelligence agencies of the western world.
Last spring, France passed a quite intrusive bill that pretty much legalized mass-interception of communications. The general public didn't really care much.
i don't think the US had any country destabilisation action occuring while 9/11 took place. french hadn't bomb anyone while the 1995's st michel subway station took place, etc etc.
i have a test for evaluating those kind of speeches : would it have been a good speech to give in france or england in the year 1938.
A little coincidental but not completely off-topic...I just read this March 2015 piece from The Atlantic that's been passed around as the article about ISIS and its motives:
It's a great, lengthy read...it's been posted a few times on HN but without much discussion. But relevant to the OP's opinion: the Atlantic writer asserts that the success of ISIS is heavily contingent on it having material victories, including territorial conquests:
> One way to un-cast the Islamic State’s spell over its adherents would be to overpower it militarily and occupy the parts of Syria and Iraq now under caliphate rule. Al‑Qaeda is ineradicable because it can survive, cockroach-like, by going underground. The Islamic State cannot. If it loses its grip on its territory in Syria and Iraq, it will cease to be a caliphate. Caliphates cannot exist as underground movements, because territorial authority is a requirement: take away its command of territory, and all those oaths of allegiance are no longer binding.
This could be an argument for or against intervention...for intervention, because U.S.-powered intervention would likely overwhelm the ISIS forces and take back territory. But OTOH, the writer asserts that besides unforeseen problems of U.S. intervention (as seen in Iraq and Afghanistan)...ISIS wants America to invade for prophetic reasons.
The Atlantic writer asserts:
> Given everything we know about the Islamic State, continuing to slowly bleed it, through air strikes and proxy warfare, appears the best of bad military options. Neither the Kurds nor the Shia will ever subdue and control the whole Sunni heartland of Syria and Iraq—they are hated there, and have no appetite for such an adventure anyway. But they can keep the Islamic State from fulfilling its duty to expand. And with every month that it fails to expand, it resembles less the conquering state of the Prophet Muhammad than yet another Middle Eastern government failing to bring prosperity to its people.
Came here to recommend this article as well. It's by far the most informative piece I've ever read on ISIS. This should be required reading for every policymaker and military strategist.
Not sure if the many 'normal' people who live there would agree. In the end they have to endure their, in most cases, bad governments.
I bet the Saudia Arabian blogger who got punished so cruelly with stoneage methods and/or the women who are not even allowed to drive a car, don't want to be left alone.
The world has become smaller and maybe it is time to enforce 'universal minimal ethics'. Instead that millions of Syrian people flee their home one maybe should (but how?) rebuild by force a capable democratic government there. Administrated by the UN for 10 years if their own people are incapable to compromise.
I do not understand how someone can write such nonsense.
Are you familiar with a country called Iraq? It is nearby to Syria, and was often in the news not too long ago, surely you must of heard of this place?
You want the UN to administer ethics, the organization that thinks Saudi Arabia should be in charge of human rights?[0]
But perphaps that's just the normal in an age when some western commenter still believes the developed world has any roll in lecturing others on ethics, should these lectures occur during or after the class on how to torture, or perhaps after the panel discussion of why Cuba is an excellent place to lock up foreigners indefinitely, foreigners we even admit aren't guilty of any crimes.
The extreme myopia on display in this thread is plenty of reason for why violence begets violence, its sad and laughable that commenters believes the western world played no role in the millions of deaths and refugees that have come about since 9-11.
What most commentators have wrong is that the violence in France wasn't an act of terrorism, but just another battle in the decade plus war that's been mostly happening in the Middle East, only this time the battle occurred on the streets of Paris instead of outside Kabul, or in Mosul, or in the outskirts of Damascus. Westerners seen to have forgotten that their politicians have been waging a war for them, and now their politicians want to engage in even more of the same. insanity.
Sad imho is that most of 'the middle east' since decades didn't succeed to solve their issues, a.o. become modern states. Always blame others. And you seem to do this also.
Yes I think 'the west' has many good things which could serve as a blueprint for most middle east countries: division of power, respect minorities, confine the influence of the religion(s).
Of course 'the west' is not perfect, far from it. (But your examples don't help in the grand scheme, this is known and won't help the Middle East to get capable governments who care for their citizens).
What happened in Paris (and in Beirut, Bagdad...) is murder. Weak persons who, lamentably - failed for a totalitarian sect. We must make sure that 'problematic things' get focused. It is also for the benefit of the normal people in the Middle East. Or don't you agree?
Yeah like it's a great idea to "leave alone" a culture that is so expansive, so evil at its root, calling each and every one of its member to go and kill for their god, prophet, twisted idea of a perfect world. Yeah, that's a terrific idea to leave them alone, yes.
What other response than "we will find them and kill them one by one" can be given by democracies? Democracies cannot back down because of terrorists. I honestly think that, by design, terrorism cannot win against western democracies.
I wonder if terrorists understand that. People will be afraid, people may be scared, but at the end, governments will not yield. And to be clear, I'm not saying politicians are brave or whatever, it's just because of how democracies work.
This ignores the fact that whack-a-mole has almost certainly indeed thwarted other attacks that would have otherwise sailed through. The problem is complex, no doubt, but I think for a civilized society pursuing this individually is almost the only option.
Another point the author seems to miss is that we have NO idea what evil has been thwarted by all of the resources the US has spent on fighting terrorism. ...How many 911s have there been on US soil?
I think it's obvious that our strategies haven't been working. It's also obvious that no amount of pointing this out is going to change anything. Attacks will continue. Liberties will continue disappearing. And countries that aspire to imperialism like France and the UK will continue to follow the US into un-winnable war after un-winnable war destabilizing whatever country the "enemy" of the week lives in.
Of course France will not learn from history just as the US hasn't learned. It's pretty obvious what comes next. And all at our citizens' expense, not anyone else's. I'd say the terrorists have not only achieved their goals, they have surpassed even their wildest imaginations. And for that, they had to do absolutely nothing because the biggest terrorists are the ones passing things like the Patriot and Freedom acts, the ones who send others to die for their own cowardice. The biggest terrorists are indeed amongst us, but they're not Muslim, and you can watch them on CSPAN.
Regarding Iraq (since it comes up in some other comments) one could (I am playing devil's advocate here) make the argument that the Iraq war was a just war on false assumptions. What reasons do you need to remove a dictator?
0) He does not respect territorial integrity of neighbour states
1) He houses international wanted terrorists, makes it possible for them to hide
2) He commits crimes against humanity (unjust prison and death sentences, violent crimes against political opponents)
3) He is ignoring UN Resolutions
Saddam Hussein was guilty of all of the above, that said:
0) There was no direct connection between Hussein and 9/11
1) There were no WMDs found
Three questions:
Should the United States (and the other opposing parties in the Gulf War) have left him in power or removed him then? Maybe they should have removed him then
Was the Iraq war based on false information, false reasoning and some deception? I would say yes it was
Was it still "just" to remove Hussein? That's the 1 million dollar question, and I am not 100% certain how I should answer...
[And to clarify: I am no fan of George W. Bush, indeed no fan of the Bush family, I do think the Iraq war was wrong, but I am always open to other arguments. Christopher Hitchens made an interesting pro-Iraq war case, you should look some of his articles from that time up]
A fair question, but who are we to answer it? Isn't it up to the people of Iraq to decide? Would you want them deciding for your country that invasion, war, and mass death and destruction are worthwhile?
I understand that most Iraqis couldn't express themselves politically under Hussein, but we have no business making this evaluation for them now.
Most importantly, as many do, the question omits what is by far the most important factor, the costs to the people living in Iraqi. Think about it: How many Iraqis died? Were injured? Lost their homes, livelihoods, and dreams? [1] Do you know? I doubt even 1% of people in the invading countries can answer the question, and (IIRC) the U.S. military didn't keep track. Think about that: We invaded their country, cause mass death, and nobody gives a shit about dead Iraqis. When discussing the Iraq War, when is the last time you heard someone even bring it up?
Let's also remember the other costs: Their nation, its economy and its institutions are in ruins for a generation at least. Their own government doesn't even control large parts of the country, other foriegn powers such as Iran and U.S. decide much of what happens in your own country, many Iraqis now live under ISIL's brutal oppression, and you can't even field an effective military. If you were and 18 year old Iraqi in 2003 and planned to go to college, maybe to become a developer or doctor, where are your dreams now? If you survived, maybe you are now a 30 year old former militia member with a high school education, without skills or prospects in a sea of economic and political desolation. [2]
-------------
[1] Over 100,000 died, by the most conservative but serious estimates I've seen. I recently saw a politically conservative publication say it was 150,000.
[2] I don't know enough about Iraq to know what a typical life story would look like, and probably few went to college before the war. But whatever their dreams and plans, they certainly weren't this.
Saddam was a terrible dictator, but what the US created was much, much worse.
We can learn something from Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. Toppling a dictator doesn't automatically create a new, civilized society. Even promising uprisings like the Libyan uprising of 2011 don't guarantee a good outcome.
In Iraq, the US created a huge power vacuum by decapitating the state — removing not just Saddam, but the entire civil and military leadership, through Paul Bremer's completely misguided process of "de-Baathification". There was no power structure left to ensure the continuity of Iraqi society. Even clerk-level Baathists were dismissed, people in charged of everything from health care to utilities. It's like nobody on the US side had studied any history whatsoever.
> It's like nobody on the US side had studied any history whatsoever.
It certainly seemed like that, though its more likely the actual problem was that the people at the highest levels of authority on the US side consistently ignored and overrode the people that had studied history and learned from it, listening instead to the people that had not, because the latter were saying more pleasing to the decision-makers ideological preconceptions.
Its not like the uniformed military leadership of the time somehow, in a historical aberration, managed to include only people who were completely ignorant of every past experience of occupation of formerly-hostile territory everywhere, including the occupations of Japan and Germany after WWII.
Related to this discussion. For those interested, here is a report by NIA (Anti terrorism federal agency in India) about recruitment of a 22 year old by ISIS (It is redacted but kinda readable):
People often forget this, but 1000 years ago Islamic armies were in Spain, Italy, and had conquered 'Roman' lands. 500 years ago they attacked Russia, the Balkans, and central Europe.
While the actions of the west may have inflamed things more recently, they were attacking us long before western 'colonialism'.
What were those expansionary battles? Hellenistic terrorism?
Saying Islamic imperialism in the 1000's was terrorism (like they were the only ones doing it!) is like Richard Dawkins levels of tone deaf racist hyperbole. Do you want to be like Richard Dawkins?
What we call terrorism today is merely the way warfare is conducted when the belligerent party is seriously outgunned, or lacks a 'proper' army. In 1944 you could have called French resistance fighters 'terrorists'. You certainly could attribute the title to the Vikings or Huns, or countless other groups of raiders throughout the millennia.
The point that Islamic imperialism in the 1000's and terrorism are linked. The only thing that's changed is the method of warfare... Why do you think Russia and Serbia are so bitter about Kosovo?
I agree with you that a lot of the warfare over the years was actually "terrorism" in today's lingo.
> Islamic imperialism in the 1000's and terrorism are linked
How do you think they are linked? I know ISIS rhetoric talks about re-establishing a caliphate, world domination etc, but do you think there is any material connection? To me it sounds about as unconvincing as when sanctimonious leftists say stuff like the Iraq war is a continuation of the crusades.
> How do you think they are linked? I know ISIS rhetoric talks about re-establishing a caliphate, world domination etc, but do you think there is any material connection?
Pretty much this. ISIS' world-view is that Muslims (by "Muslim" I mean Wahhabi/fundamentalist Sunni, not those dirty Shias/Alawites/Kurds/etc...) should conquer the world, much as Mohammed did (or at least his corner of the world), and the Rashidun caliphate. I wouldn't say there's so much a material connection, however there's certainly a very direct philosophical connection.
Anyhow, ISIS is a symptom, the culprit is Wahhabism. Those who blame the west for the rise of ISIS and Al Qaeda are correct, partially, in that the west destroyed Arab nationalism and Baathism, which was the competing ideology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism
The house of Saud first expanded when they allied themselves with the founder of Wahhabism. That's when they expanded into the Saudi state. Wahhabism itself seeks to be a restoration of Islam, free from idolatry and whatever they deem to be non-Islamic influences (the Saudis even went so far as to destroy Mohammed's grave/shrine). And of course the Saudis export this with oil money. You can see Saudi and Gulf sponsored madrassas all over the 3rd world, there's one in my wife's tiny community in a tiny 3rd world country (I've got some stories from there!). The Wahhabi (jihadist) world-view is what the Saudis export. The one thing Sunni terrorist groups have in common is that they've all grown out of Wahhabi ideology.
The connection to Islamic imperialism is partly historic, partly demographic. Historic in the sense that they want to recreate the 'real' caliphate. Demographic in the sense that, where there was Muslim conquest, there are Muslims today, and they have been courted by Wahhabi ideology. This is why IS terrorists come from diverse places, but all belong to one ideology. You won't find Shias or Alawites supporting IS.
Also, I never really addressed the initial post, but leaving the middle east alone won't work. Wahhabism as an ideology needs to be destroyed. It can come from within (I would say an Islamic 'enlightenment', although that came and went), or it can come from outside (military action against IS and eventual action against the Saudis would convince people that Wahhabism is simply a path to destruction). But pretending if we 'leave it alone' it'll go away is silly, because the ideology itself is pervasive, cultural in some places, and conquest is integral to the ideology. The actual solution - there needs to be another Arab nationalist/secular movement. Much like the 'west' became the 'west' after the enlightenment, and especially after the French revolution (the ideas of Liberté, égalité, fraternité and the French philosophers of that era could be considered the backbone of modern secular western culture).
Finally, I thought about it, could have probably made a more insightful first post, but the point stands. Islamic terror is about expansion and ideology, not disenfranchisement, even if the latter indirectly led to an acceptance of the former.
Western involvement in the middle east is an imperialist, colonialist action, at the behest of oil companies, military contractors and Zionists. The French have been bombing the Syrians for over a month - where were the mawkish "We are all Syrians" corporate media campaigns at that time? The French bombed the Syrians, so now the Syrians have bombed the French, the French got what was coming to them.
When France was trying to reimpose colonialism on Syria in 1945, Syrians marched through the streets for independence. The French army shot the marchers down in the street. For the past month, French bombs have been attacking Syria and the French attitude toward the Syrians haven't changed a whit.
The corporate news was telling me the secular Assad was a monster who gassed his own people in the past years, and the US began arming opposition groups, including Islamic fundamentalists. Now I'm being told ISIS are monsters and such. And at the same time I'm being told that the Russians are bad because they are helping Assad fight ISIS. It's risible.
Fox News says the same thing about blacks in the US. Like Oscar Grant, Trayvon Martin, Eric Garner, Michael Brown. That they're animals and savages that have to be put down by police. It looks like all the same thing to me.
This old imperialist stories get... old. I'd say the Syrians bombed the Syrians. And the situation is complicated and nobody knows how to help and/or what to do.
You're comparision between bombing terrorists in Syria and murdering civilists in French is.. <not ideal> (leaving out words what I really think)
Where people are not economically well off, these will happen, people are terrorists for a reason and it wasn't because their life was great.
We left Iraq susceptible without a Marshall Plan like economic effort after the military effort like we did in Japan and Europe after WWII. We downgraded the quality of life and that is not the direction things need to go for peace. The downgrade in quality of life fueled extremism even more.
A peaceful place is a comfortable place and usually the cornerstone of that is an economy where everyone can participate and succeed, the government is secular, and bombs aren't being dropped where you live.
There is nothing you can do to combat terrorism other than make a better life for the people susceptible to it and maybe they will decide it is not worth it. When people are comfortable they are calm. Bombs create more terrorism and gang like tribal attacks on both sides.
Our strategy in Iran (and Cuba) is actually the best one we have going. Allowing people to live and let live and prosper as long as there is a mutual agreement not to attack. This worked in Japan, Germany and other places that also had idealogical control that was overly strong.
We'll need a smarter economic plan for places we deal with. China is an emerging world power and their trade routes and economic benefits they bring will win out if we don't get back to building up after tearing down.
It looks like this idea is out there in some circles [1]
On the contrary, surprisingly enough, it does not seem to be the case that poverty causes terrorism--either within a country (poorer people aren't more likely to become terrorists) or between countries (people from poorer countries aren't more likely to become terrorists).
Thanks for the links, I found the OP's message just insulting to the poor people. Those who pull the strings of terrorism are well usually off and with a political agenda that couldn't care less about poverty.
> Where people are not economically well off, these will happen, people are terrorists for a reason and it wasn't because their life was great.
That's false, there is absolutely no correlation between being poor and wanting to slaughter thousands of innocents. One simple example : Bin Laden who comes from a filthy rich background. He never lacked on something in his life , his family was ultra rich, yet he created and financed a terrorist organization.
There is however an absolute causation between giving loads of money to folks in KSA who spread an hateful ideology like Wahhabism and terrorism.
I'm absolutely sick about this b-llsh-t explanation that just paint the poor as potential terrorists just because they are poor. No. No.
> Our strategy in Iran (and Cuba) is actually the best one we have going.
It's funny you talk about Cuba because , it contradicts what you just said. There should have been cubans terrorists blowing themselves up in the streets of USA because of they've been forced into poverty thanks to US blockade for 60 years. In 60 years it never happened. And the reason why is that they don't subscribe to a specific ideology and culture.
Possibly, but Bin Laden wasn't the one with the bomb strapped on. He was more akin to a king sending peasants to die.
It is a fact though that lower economical areas have more crime and less opportunity. It would be harder to recruit the foot soldiers. It will always be the plebs that have the power to continue or end it, and one way they might choose to end it is because they have a comfortable life.
Look at Brazil, the inequality there, on the lower end human life means nothing. In conditions like that crime, terror, desperation will make people do anything to survive.
While I agree this ideology is different, most strong ideologies arise out of a lack of economic options.
If suddenly your house got bombed, members of your family died, and you lost the ability to survive economically, you'd probably survive however you can even if that means blowing something up for money for your family. People aren't born suicide bombers or terrorists, the environment around them forms that.
I am simply saying one known way to win hearts and minds is to help economically and give options to people susceptible to it. I am not saying poor people are terrorists, I am saying terrorism (or at least desperation crime) can grow in lower economical areas for recruiting more easily, and the only way to combat that is with better economics and opportunity. The same happens in inner cities with gangs, high unemployment etc. [1][2]
Equally decisive in determining crime rates are the more invisible barriers to crime set up by social norms and social cohesion. Indeed, one of the most robust statistical patterns known is that crime rates tend to go up with rising economic inequality, which itself tends to go along with erosion of social trust.
> Look at Brazil, the inequality there, on the lower end human life means nothing. In conditions like that crime, terror, desperation will make people do anything to survive.
For god's sake France is not Brazil ! In France one earns more money doing nothing living on welfare than the minimum wage in Portugal, and the cost of living is not that higher, so no, please stop.
> Possibly, but Bin Laden wasn't the one with the bomb strapped on.
Exactly, and the poor folk in middle wasn't the one blowing himself up in that theater. Someone who has never experienced true poverty did kill 100+ people. Someone born in France who got free healthcare, free college, and a ton of welfare paid by hardworking people blew himself up. So the poverty argument is B-LLSH-T .
Also, poverty is not the only explanation in Brazil. Many middle class young adults become criminals, and many of the poor ones that do too end up expending on drugs, cars, etc.
Edit: thought i do think poverty does help greatly on taking destructive life choices.
There are lots of ISIL foot soldiers that are/were pretty well off, for instance Jihadi John and Omar Hussein. Poverty can't be the only explanation here.
> Equally decisive in determining crime rates are the more invisible barriers to crime set up by social norms and social cohesion. Indeed, one of the most robust statistical patterns known is that crime rates tend to go up with rising economic inequality, which itself tends to go along with erosion of social trust.
Well it doesn't explain terrorism at all and that's was the point your were trying to make. I'll tell you what explains terrorism.
It's growing in environment like some suburbs in France where you hear, from kindergarten to high-school , that "white french are bad, white french girls are wh-res, and it's fair game to kill non muslims" , that's the explanation as to why these people did what they did on friday. There is absolutely no other explanation. How do I know that? because I grew up in this kind of place.
You take the Roma, the Roma in France have it much much worse than any arab or black person ,victim a wide spread racism, living in slums where there is no electricity , no healthy water , among trash. Well now, give me an example of Roma terrorism in France.
> Where people are not economically well off, these will happen, people are terrorists for a reason and it wasn't because their life was great.
I agree that social and economic context is relevant, but its very not a simple "when people are not economically well off, these will happen"; not only are many terrorists well off (both in local and global terms), lots of regions which are poor aren't breeding grounds for terrorism, either of the local or international varieties.
While I think its quite likely that desperation frequently plays a role in people deciding to become terrorist foot soldiers (the kind of people who become leaders without first being foot soldiers are probably driven by different forces), I don't think mere poverty is enough (poverty may in some cases be a component, though.)
The very idea that any foreigner living thousands miles away could better understand and solve complex problem local people struggling for decades(even centuries) makes me sick. So does the idea that any rational organisation would commit to decades long nation-building projects.
No matter how wealthy the rest of the world combined, we just don't have enough resource (including political capital to support long term commitment) to solve the mid-east problem, let alone various calculations every participating countries might entertains.
I think that the article is correct. Look at our (USA) history of over reacting to terrorism (which is what the terrorists want!) and the horrible end effects of dozens of 'regime changes' (often by using radical groups who are our 'moderates'). Also useful, from last April on the same web site: http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2...
68 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 125 ms ] threador they will kill us? While a big believer in developing infrastructure, education, etc. I think we also have to address the zealots in every "disenfranchised" group that might start killing us. Not sure how to do that.
Or you will need to expect repercussions that come from disenfranchising groups of people, and yes, that can include that group taking up arms against you.
A group of people that are being marginalized over and over will produce very angry people. This is the fertile ground that zealotry needs to grow.
(I don't think you mean it this way, but I'm going to appropriate your comment to make a point:)
They? Us? Who is "us"? Hacker News readers? Americans? Do any believe in Islam?
The foundation of hatred is the concepts 'they' and 'us'. Once the discussion is framed that way, the haters are empowered. That's how ISIS' worldview. Let's remember that 'us' is the vast majority who want peace, freedom, and justice, of every religion. 'They' are the perpetrators of hate and violence, everywhere. A fundemental tactic of hate groups like ISIS is to drive a wedge in our group, to alienate our Muslim brothers and sisters.
Not all disenfranchised groups are killing people. Perhaps we should look at why certain ones do.
Stop disenfranchising groups?
I do not want to read another article by someone who thinks the Iraq war was about terrorism, and who seems to have potato levels of knowledge about international politics.
> and now in Syria, before in Libya, and only created more failed states and ungoverned spaces that provide havens for terrorists and spilled terror like dropped paint across borders.
Yeah, no, that isn't at all what happened. The US didn't create Syria or Libya. They're both civil wars that started organically (see "Arab Spring"); the US (and UK, et al) tried to fund certain factions after the conflicts kicked off, but they didn't initiate it.
While I agree with the overall thrust that we shouldn't sacrifice freedom for security, this whole article reads like a YouTube comment (meaning: uninformed, of low quality, making emotional but vapid arguments).
> Whack-a-mole is a game, not a plan. Leave the Middle East alone. Stop creating more failed states.
For some reason, I have difficulty thinking that just "leaving the Middle East alone" will somehow lead ISIS to disappear on its own and the Syrian government/Syrian rebels/Kurds/various fundamentalist islamist groups to magically arrive to some peaceful balance. Especially with ISIS having the stated goal of world domination (yeah, just leaving alone those who want to dominate the world rarely works, we tried that for a while before 1939).
The truth is, human society and civilization isn't a fundamentally stable system that's being thrown off by US or European interventions. Intervention is sometimes useful, sometimes bad, and it seems difficult for everyone to estimate whether interventions will be good or not.
Western intervention has stalled this process by imposing arbitrary borders on huge landmasses. ISIS only works because larger state actors have been held in check. But, a true hands off policy would likely lead to some regional wars which would quickly crush ISIS or see it evolve into a more traditional nation state.
PS: Of course the other way this breaks down is when a large and mostly stable nation contains lawless regions. But, that does not really describe the region involved.
This is a strawman attack. The author never stated that ISIS or terrorists will disappear or that a non-interventionist position by the west is a solution to a century of middle eastern conflicts.
The article is about reevaluating failed strategies and exploring other strategies which might help minimize the negative externalities of the middle easts constant turmoil. Not fanning the flames is a very valid position to take in this context.
Human civilization may not be a naturally "stable system" but Western intervention in the Mideast or anywhere has an extremely poor track record.
The U.S. Was pushing to fuck around with Syria and were embarrassed by Russia about two years ago, just prior to that we were funding and supplying rebels, who we now call terrorists.
The U.S. Is very very good about fomenting "organic civil wars" among many other things...
Syria is the new hotness in proxy war.
And one of the things that sucks is that now the Paris issue tied with fake Syrian refugees is resulting in all sorts of craziness all over the world, including U.S. States' governments refusing any "refugees"
My pessimistic side feels that some portion of the governments of the world are looking for the next arch duke Ferdinand to whack as a tinderbox.
Crazy times we're living in.
I have never been in France myself, so take this comment with a grain of salt.
I'm not sure how much is talking points or how much is just commercial news media looking for an angle they can pitch as new insight. Either way, it was really weird to run across. There are so many factors at work here and so many conflicting motivations and policies and bits of info...yet the top story is about how long-existing, commonly available methods may have been used to thwart the combined intelligence agencies of the western world.
i have a test for evaluating those kind of speeches : would it have been a good speech to give in france or england in the year 1938.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isi...
It's a great, lengthy read...it's been posted a few times on HN but without much discussion. But relevant to the OP's opinion: the Atlantic writer asserts that the success of ISIS is heavily contingent on it having material victories, including territorial conquests:
> One way to un-cast the Islamic State’s spell over its adherents would be to overpower it militarily and occupy the parts of Syria and Iraq now under caliphate rule. Al‑Qaeda is ineradicable because it can survive, cockroach-like, by going underground. The Islamic State cannot. If it loses its grip on its territory in Syria and Iraq, it will cease to be a caliphate. Caliphates cannot exist as underground movements, because territorial authority is a requirement: take away its command of territory, and all those oaths of allegiance are no longer binding.
This could be an argument for or against intervention...for intervention, because U.S.-powered intervention would likely overwhelm the ISIS forces and take back territory. But OTOH, the writer asserts that besides unforeseen problems of U.S. intervention (as seen in Iraq and Afghanistan)...ISIS wants America to invade for prophetic reasons.
The Atlantic writer asserts:
> Given everything we know about the Islamic State, continuing to slowly bleed it, through air strikes and proxy warfare, appears the best of bad military options. Neither the Kurds nor the Shia will ever subdue and control the whole Sunni heartland of Syria and Iraq—they are hated there, and have no appetite for such an adventure anyway. But they can keep the Islamic State from fulfilling its duty to expand. And with every month that it fails to expand, it resembles less the conquering state of the Prophet Muhammad than yet another Middle Eastern government failing to bring prosperity to its people.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2015/aug/13/mystery...
Not sure if the many 'normal' people who live there would agree. In the end they have to endure their, in most cases, bad governments.
I bet the Saudia Arabian blogger who got punished so cruelly with stoneage methods and/or the women who are not even allowed to drive a car, don't want to be left alone.
The world has become smaller and maybe it is time to enforce 'universal minimal ethics'. Instead that millions of Syrian people flee their home one maybe should (but how?) rebuild by force a capable democratic government there. Administrated by the UN for 10 years if their own people are incapable to compromise.
(A bit naive, I know...)
Are you familiar with a country called Iraq? It is nearby to Syria, and was often in the news not too long ago, surely you must of heard of this place?
You want the UN to administer ethics, the organization that thinks Saudi Arabia should be in charge of human rights?[0]
But perphaps that's just the normal in an age when some western commenter still believes the developed world has any roll in lecturing others on ethics, should these lectures occur during or after the class on how to torture, or perhaps after the panel discussion of why Cuba is an excellent place to lock up foreigners indefinitely, foreigners we even admit aren't guilty of any crimes.
The extreme myopia on display in this thread is plenty of reason for why violence begets violence, its sad and laughable that commenters believes the western world played no role in the millions of deaths and refugees that have come about since 9-11.
What most commentators have wrong is that the violence in France wasn't an act of terrorism, but just another battle in the decade plus war that's been mostly happening in the Middle East, only this time the battle occurred on the streets of Paris instead of outside Kabul, or in Mosul, or in the outskirts of Damascus. Westerners seen to have forgotten that their politicians have been waging a war for them, and now their politicians want to engage in even more of the same. insanity.
[0]http://blog.unwatch.org/index.php/2015/09/20/saudi-arabia-wi...
Sad imho is that most of 'the middle east' since decades didn't succeed to solve their issues, a.o. become modern states. Always blame others. And you seem to do this also.
Yes I think 'the west' has many good things which could serve as a blueprint for most middle east countries: division of power, respect minorities, confine the influence of the religion(s).
Of course 'the west' is not perfect, far from it. (But your examples don't help in the grand scheme, this is known and won't help the Middle East to get capable governments who care for their citizens).
What happened in Paris (and in Beirut, Bagdad...) is murder. Weak persons who, lamentably - failed for a totalitarian sect. We must make sure that 'problematic things' get focused. It is also for the benefit of the normal people in the Middle East. Or don't you agree?
I wonder if terrorists understand that. People will be afraid, people may be scared, but at the end, governments will not yield. And to be clear, I'm not saying politicians are brave or whatever, it's just because of how democracies work.
Of course France will not learn from history just as the US hasn't learned. It's pretty obvious what comes next. And all at our citizens' expense, not anyone else's. I'd say the terrorists have not only achieved their goals, they have surpassed even their wildest imaginations. And for that, they had to do absolutely nothing because the biggest terrorists are the ones passing things like the Patriot and Freedom acts, the ones who send others to die for their own cowardice. The biggest terrorists are indeed amongst us, but they're not Muslim, and you can watch them on CSPAN.
0) He does not respect territorial integrity of neighbour states
1) He houses international wanted terrorists, makes it possible for them to hide
2) He commits crimes against humanity (unjust prison and death sentences, violent crimes against political opponents)
3) He is ignoring UN Resolutions
Saddam Hussein was guilty of all of the above, that said:
0) There was no direct connection between Hussein and 9/11
1) There were no WMDs found
Three questions:
Should the United States (and the other opposing parties in the Gulf War) have left him in power or removed him then? Maybe they should have removed him then
Was the Iraq war based on false information, false reasoning and some deception? I would say yes it was
Was it still "just" to remove Hussein? That's the 1 million dollar question, and I am not 100% certain how I should answer...
[And to clarify: I am no fan of George W. Bush, indeed no fan of the Bush family, I do think the Iraq war was wrong, but I am always open to other arguments. Christopher Hitchens made an interesting pro-Iraq war case, you should look some of his articles from that time up]
I understand that most Iraqis couldn't express themselves politically under Hussein, but we have no business making this evaluation for them now.
Most importantly, as many do, the question omits what is by far the most important factor, the costs to the people living in Iraqi. Think about it: How many Iraqis died? Were injured? Lost their homes, livelihoods, and dreams? [1] Do you know? I doubt even 1% of people in the invading countries can answer the question, and (IIRC) the U.S. military didn't keep track. Think about that: We invaded their country, cause mass death, and nobody gives a shit about dead Iraqis. When discussing the Iraq War, when is the last time you heard someone even bring it up?
Let's also remember the other costs: Their nation, its economy and its institutions are in ruins for a generation at least. Their own government doesn't even control large parts of the country, other foriegn powers such as Iran and U.S. decide much of what happens in your own country, many Iraqis now live under ISIL's brutal oppression, and you can't even field an effective military. If you were and 18 year old Iraqi in 2003 and planned to go to college, maybe to become a developer or doctor, where are your dreams now? If you survived, maybe you are now a 30 year old former militia member with a high school education, without skills or prospects in a sea of economic and political desolation. [2]
-------------
[1] Over 100,000 died, by the most conservative but serious estimates I've seen. I recently saw a politically conservative publication say it was 150,000.
[2] I don't know enough about Iraq to know what a typical life story would look like, and probably few went to college before the war. But whatever their dreams and plans, they certainly weren't this.
We can learn something from Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. Toppling a dictator doesn't automatically create a new, civilized society. Even promising uprisings like the Libyan uprising of 2011 don't guarantee a good outcome.
In Iraq, the US created a huge power vacuum by decapitating the state — removing not just Saddam, but the entire civil and military leadership, through Paul Bremer's completely misguided process of "de-Baathification". There was no power structure left to ensure the continuity of Iraqi society. Even clerk-level Baathists were dismissed, people in charged of everything from health care to utilities. It's like nobody on the US side had studied any history whatsoever.
It certainly seemed like that, though its more likely the actual problem was that the people at the highest levels of authority on the US side consistently ignored and overrode the people that had studied history and learned from it, listening instead to the people that had not, because the latter were saying more pleasing to the decision-makers ideological preconceptions.
Its not like the uniformed military leadership of the time somehow, in a historical aberration, managed to include only people who were completely ignorant of every past experience of occupation of formerly-hostile territory everywhere, including the occupations of Japan and Germany after WWII.
http://www.nia.gov.in/NIA-Cases/Mumbai/01-2014-NIA-Mum(CH).p...
People often forget this, but 1000 years ago Islamic armies were in Spain, Italy, and had conquered 'Roman' lands. 500 years ago they attacked Russia, the Balkans, and central Europe.
While the actions of the west may have inflamed things more recently, they were attacking us long before western 'colonialism'.
What were those expansionary battles? Hellenistic terrorism?
Saying Islamic imperialism in the 1000's was terrorism (like they were the only ones doing it!) is like Richard Dawkins levels of tone deaf racist hyperbole. Do you want to be like Richard Dawkins?
The point that Islamic imperialism in the 1000's and terrorism are linked. The only thing that's changed is the method of warfare... Why do you think Russia and Serbia are so bitter about Kosovo?
> Islamic imperialism in the 1000's and terrorism are linked
How do you think they are linked? I know ISIS rhetoric talks about re-establishing a caliphate, world domination etc, but do you think there is any material connection? To me it sounds about as unconvincing as when sanctimonious leftists say stuff like the Iraq war is a continuation of the crusades.
Pretty much this. ISIS' world-view is that Muslims (by "Muslim" I mean Wahhabi/fundamentalist Sunni, not those dirty Shias/Alawites/Kurds/etc...) should conquer the world, much as Mohammed did (or at least his corner of the world), and the Rashidun caliphate. I wouldn't say there's so much a material connection, however there's certainly a very direct philosophical connection.
Anyhow, ISIS is a symptom, the culprit is Wahhabism. Those who blame the west for the rise of ISIS and Al Qaeda are correct, partially, in that the west destroyed Arab nationalism and Baathism, which was the competing ideology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism The house of Saud first expanded when they allied themselves with the founder of Wahhabism. That's when they expanded into the Saudi state. Wahhabism itself seeks to be a restoration of Islam, free from idolatry and whatever they deem to be non-Islamic influences (the Saudis even went so far as to destroy Mohammed's grave/shrine). And of course the Saudis export this with oil money. You can see Saudi and Gulf sponsored madrassas all over the 3rd world, there's one in my wife's tiny community in a tiny 3rd world country (I've got some stories from there!). The Wahhabi (jihadist) world-view is what the Saudis export. The one thing Sunni terrorist groups have in common is that they've all grown out of Wahhabi ideology.
The connection to Islamic imperialism is partly historic, partly demographic. Historic in the sense that they want to recreate the 'real' caliphate. Demographic in the sense that, where there was Muslim conquest, there are Muslims today, and they have been courted by Wahhabi ideology. This is why IS terrorists come from diverse places, but all belong to one ideology. You won't find Shias or Alawites supporting IS.
Also, I never really addressed the initial post, but leaving the middle east alone won't work. Wahhabism as an ideology needs to be destroyed. It can come from within (I would say an Islamic 'enlightenment', although that came and went), or it can come from outside (military action against IS and eventual action against the Saudis would convince people that Wahhabism is simply a path to destruction). But pretending if we 'leave it alone' it'll go away is silly, because the ideology itself is pervasive, cultural in some places, and conquest is integral to the ideology. The actual solution - there needs to be another Arab nationalist/secular movement. Much like the 'west' became the 'west' after the enlightenment, and especially after the French revolution (the ideas of Liberté, égalité, fraternité and the French philosophers of that era could be considered the backbone of modern secular western culture).
Finally, I thought about it, could have probably made a more insightful first post, but the point stands. Islamic terror is about expansion and ideology, not disenfranchisement, even if the latter indirectly led to an acceptance of the former.
When France was trying to reimpose colonialism on Syria in 1945, Syrians marched through the streets for independence. The French army shot the marchers down in the street. For the past month, French bombs have been attacking Syria and the French attitude toward the Syrians haven't changed a whit.
The corporate news was telling me the secular Assad was a monster who gassed his own people in the past years, and the US began arming opposition groups, including Islamic fundamentalists. Now I'm being told ISIS are monsters and such. And at the same time I'm being told that the Russians are bad because they are helping Assad fight ISIS. It's risible.
Fox News says the same thing about blacks in the US. Like Oscar Grant, Trayvon Martin, Eric Garner, Michael Brown. That they're animals and savages that have to be put down by police. It looks like all the same thing to me.
You're comparision between bombing terrorists in Syria and murdering civilists in French is.. <not ideal> (leaving out words what I really think)
Where people are not economically well off, these will happen, people are terrorists for a reason and it wasn't because their life was great.
We left Iraq susceptible without a Marshall Plan like economic effort after the military effort like we did in Japan and Europe after WWII. We downgraded the quality of life and that is not the direction things need to go for peace. The downgrade in quality of life fueled extremism even more.
A peaceful place is a comfortable place and usually the cornerstone of that is an economy where everyone can participate and succeed, the government is secular, and bombs aren't being dropped where you live.
There is nothing you can do to combat terrorism other than make a better life for the people susceptible to it and maybe they will decide it is not worth it. When people are comfortable they are calm. Bombs create more terrorism and gang like tribal attacks on both sides.
Our strategy in Iran (and Cuba) is actually the best one we have going. Allowing people to live and let live and prosper as long as there is a mutual agreement not to attack. This worked in Japan, Germany and other places that also had idealogical control that was overly strong.
We'll need a smarter economic plan for places we deal with. China is an emerging world power and their trade routes and economic benefits they bring will win out if we don't get back to building up after tearing down.
It looks like this idea is out there in some circles [1]
[1] http://www.ibtimes.com/mideast-marshall-plan-syrian-refugee-...
https://www.nber.org/digest/sep02/w9074.html
http://www.economist.com/node/17730424
That's false, there is absolutely no correlation between being poor and wanting to slaughter thousands of innocents. One simple example : Bin Laden who comes from a filthy rich background. He never lacked on something in his life , his family was ultra rich, yet he created and financed a terrorist organization.
There is however an absolute causation between giving loads of money to folks in KSA who spread an hateful ideology like Wahhabism and terrorism.
I'm absolutely sick about this b-llsh-t explanation that just paint the poor as potential terrorists just because they are poor. No. No.
> Our strategy in Iran (and Cuba) is actually the best one we have going.
It's funny you talk about Cuba because , it contradicts what you just said. There should have been cubans terrorists blowing themselves up in the streets of USA because of they've been forced into poverty thanks to US blockade for 60 years. In 60 years it never happened. And the reason why is that they don't subscribe to a specific ideology and culture.
It is a fact though that lower economical areas have more crime and less opportunity. It would be harder to recruit the foot soldiers. It will always be the plebs that have the power to continue or end it, and one way they might choose to end it is because they have a comfortable life.
Look at Brazil, the inequality there, on the lower end human life means nothing. In conditions like that crime, terror, desperation will make people do anything to survive.
While I agree this ideology is different, most strong ideologies arise out of a lack of economic options.
If suddenly your house got bombed, members of your family died, and you lost the ability to survive economically, you'd probably survive however you can even if that means blowing something up for money for your family. People aren't born suicide bombers or terrorists, the environment around them forms that.
I am simply saying one known way to win hearts and minds is to help economically and give options to people susceptible to it. I am not saying poor people are terrorists, I am saying terrorism (or at least desperation crime) can grow in lower economical areas for recruiting more easily, and the only way to combat that is with better economics and opportunity. The same happens in inner cities with gangs, high unemployment etc. [1][2]
Equally decisive in determining crime rates are the more invisible barriers to crime set up by social norms and social cohesion. Indeed, one of the most robust statistical patterns known is that crime rates tend to go up with rising economic inequality, which itself tends to go along with erosion of social trust.
[1] http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-01-06/want-to-fig...
[2] http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/crimwage.htm
For god's sake France is not Brazil ! In France one earns more money doing nothing living on welfare than the minimum wage in Portugal, and the cost of living is not that higher, so no, please stop.
> Possibly, but Bin Laden wasn't the one with the bomb strapped on.
Exactly, and the poor folk in middle wasn't the one blowing himself up in that theater. Someone who has never experienced true poverty did kill 100+ people. Someone born in France who got free healthcare, free college, and a ton of welfare paid by hardworking people blew himself up. So the poverty argument is B-LLSH-T .
Edit: thought i do think poverty does help greatly on taking destructive life choices.
> Equally decisive in determining crime rates are the more invisible barriers to crime set up by social norms and social cohesion. Indeed, one of the most robust statistical patterns known is that crime rates tend to go up with rising economic inequality, which itself tends to go along with erosion of social trust.
Well it doesn't explain terrorism at all and that's was the point your were trying to make. I'll tell you what explains terrorism.
It's growing in environment like some suburbs in France where you hear, from kindergarten to high-school , that "white french are bad, white french girls are wh-res, and it's fair game to kill non muslims" , that's the explanation as to why these people did what they did on friday. There is absolutely no other explanation. How do I know that? because I grew up in this kind of place.
You take the Roma, the Roma in France have it much much worse than any arab or black person ,victim a wide spread racism, living in slums where there is no electricity , no healthy water , among trash. Well now, give me an example of Roma terrorism in France.
I agree that social and economic context is relevant, but its very not a simple "when people are not economically well off, these will happen"; not only are many terrorists well off (both in local and global terms), lots of regions which are poor aren't breeding grounds for terrorism, either of the local or international varieties.
While I think its quite likely that desperation frequently plays a role in people deciding to become terrorist foot soldiers (the kind of people who become leaders without first being foot soldiers are probably driven by different forces), I don't think mere poverty is enough (poverty may in some cases be a component, though.)
http://wemeantwell.com/blog/2015/11/14/paris-you-dont-want-t...
No matter how wealthy the rest of the world combined, we just don't have enough resource (including political capital to support long term commitment) to solve the mid-east problem, let alone various calculations every participating countries might entertains.
That's what the US did by withdrawing army from Iraq. And it doesn't work either.