9 ms·

I would be interested to see what you would think of this, your statement, if you were holding the dismembered body of your father, mother, sib,ing or loved one

I would be interested to see what you would think of this, your statement, if you were holding the dismembered body of your father, mother, sib,ing or loved one in your arms. Dead. Our free societies do not no Eed to change. Theirs do. And the solution is very simple. The problem is nobody has the balls and determination to do it. There's a fundamental incompatibiliti between ideologies and behavior. Being poor, uneducated and without a job isn't a driver. Poor, uneducated and unemployed people in the wort ghetto's in western countries haven't historically translated their circumstances into "let's use automatic weapons to organize a multi-headed attack, kill ourselves and a bunch of people". No, there's only one ideology on the planet with a radicalized extreme minority that supports and promotes this kind of behavior. To use the priot poster's analogy, let's stop blaming the cancer on the patient. We are not the problem. They are. And those who support them. We sit idly while watching whole societies who behave like animals. Women in muslim countries walk around u der tents and are stoned to death. People are beheaded. Brutality and cave-men behaviour abounds. And we are supposed to respect it because it is religion? As a scientist this whole concept is revolting. Religion, a collective stone age dellusion that infects the minds of billions of people. It deserves no respect whatsoever. None. In that sense we are at fault. We don't have to change. The delusional stone age brutal inhuman apes pushing around nonsense have to. The world needs to unite against them, not respect their bullshit religion and ideology.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
> I would be interested to see what you would think of this, your statement, if you were holding the dismembered body of your father, mother, sib,ing or loved one in your arms. Dead. I pray that I would have enough presence of mind to not be overcome by grief and be able to utter the same statement as I did now. People who are now holding their dead are a fraction of a fraction of percent in Europe. I feel for them, we all do, and personally I think I'd let them react in any way they want. But the rest of us were not affected directly. We have a responsibility to stay focused and stay sane if we want to get through it with a society that is worth preserving. Or with a society at all. No amount of pain dealt by attackers justifies retaliating against innocent people who had absolutely nothing to do with it. And yes, I understand the clash of cultures narrative. I worry about it too. But even if the terror attacks were directly related to immigration, which I'm betting they are not, turning aggressive because of it would still be one of the worst possible things to do. > The delusional stone age brutal inhuman apes pushing around nonsense have to. The world needs to unite against them, not respect their bullshit religion and ideology. Their ideology may have problems, but that was totally, 100% uncalled for. It's below standard of dignity I'd expect from a civilized human being. And please don't blame individuals for what is a systemic problem.
- rebootthesystem 11y ago
  > People who are now holding their dead are a fraction of a fraction of percent in Europe See, that, right there, is the problem. As well as the obvious way in which other commenters seem to have interpreted my post through their obviously distorted lens. On the first point, these people are not numbers. They are human beings. They are someone's father, mother, child or sibling. That's where cold statistics fail us. Nobody should tolerate the idea of people being killed by the hundreds every so often in a theater or futbol field and argue that they are "a fraction of a fraction of percent". Sorry, that's just sick. On the other point. It's interesting that I did not say "let's kill them all". All I said was "The world needs to unite against them, not respect their bullshit religion and ideology." and that was obviously taken by many to mean "let's kill them all". And that is NOT what I said or even implied. The world truly needs to unite against "them". And "them" means the "crazy as fuck radicalized segment of the Muslim religion". It does NOT mean all Muslim's, the vast majority of whom are normal folks who just want to live a good life and would not hurt anyone any more than the average Christian, Jew or whatever. Some posters went as far as to ask why I want revenge (with the implication being killing them). This interpretation of my comment reveals the poster's world view more than anything else. I did not propose revenge or killing? THEY are seeing this. Not I. I did not say any such thing. I happen to think the world needs to unite against them (the radical crazies) and segregate them. Give them a chunk of space --a country-- where they can be as fucking crazy as they want. Let them be and maybe we talk to them again in 200 years. During that time they don't get to benefit from anything the rest of the world has to offer. They get to exist within their own sick rules and enjoy anything they can create. They think women ought not be educated? Fine. They don't get to buy iPhones and computers and cars. Why? Because they are also designed and built by highly educated and capable women and if their ideology looks at them almost as animals then they should not benefit from anything women create anywhere in the world. In other words, let them live any way they want and under whatever sick rules they want to live under IN THEIR OWN LAND. And, yes, they don't get to move into any Western country without first proving, way beyond any doubt, they can live by our rules and our social conventions. And, no, we --meaning nobody-- buys their oil. They can choke on it. It's really interesting to read a comment where the justification, to paraphrase, is something akin to "the dead are a small percentage of the population". This terrorism problem is much larger than that. And it is the START of a MUCH, MUCH bigger thing. My heritage is one that saw multiple millions of people murdered in a genocide. Genocides don't start with a memo distributed to millions saying "OK, let's do it today". No, crazy sick crap like that starts slowly and grows to a boil, expands and gets out of control. Some people, like me, today and for a few years are screaming "we have to deal with this now". Others are making ignorant comparisons with the rate of automobile accidents, etc. The problem with this logic is that automobile accidents are a matter of statistics and probability. There is no intent behind it. Terrorism has actually changed our world and terrorists would detonate a nuclear bomb in a large city if they ever get their hands of one. The probability of car accidents in Europe or the US killing six million people in one event or even in one year is exactly zero. The probability of a terrorist group killing millions somewhere is a number greater than zero. That is a huge difference and anyone who does not understand this and insists on comparing to statistics on death by smoking, driving, police shootings or falling off ladders really needs to slow down and think hard about this. Some of us are looking at this with a degree of desperation because we see what could and is likely to happen if the West does not react with determination. Calling someone's father, mother sibling an insignificant percentage of the population as a justification for not acting to stop this as soon as humanly possible is to, effectively, say it is OK to one day wake up to news on CNN that a nuclear bomb was detonated somewhere in Europe and millions of lives were lost. Will that convince you? Is that what it will take for you to fully grok what's been going on and where we are headed? That would be sad. Anyhow, let's not argue. We are not the problem.
DanBC 11y ago
> No, there's only one ideology on the planet with a radicalized extreme minority that supports and promotes this kind of behavior. The Buddhists? They have at least one army and two terrorist groups. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/969_Movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/969_Movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Karen_Buddhist_Army http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Karen_Buddhist_Army http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodu_Bala_Sena http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodu_Bala_Sena Or perhaps the Sikhs? There are still some active Sikh terrorist groups. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalistan_movement#Abatement_of_extremism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalistan_movement#Abatement_o... And before you say that those groups don't affect America: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/nevada-man-charged-aiding-sikh-terrorist-groups-india-f2D11772711 http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/nevada-man-charged-aiding-... Perhaps you mean Christians? There are a bunch, such as the Lord's Resistance Army (now operating in Sudan) as well as a bunch who have carried out actions in mainland US. In the US the main threat is from either Christian or right wing extremist groups.
- api 11y ago
  Any belief system theistic or not can become fanatical and violent as soon as it's followers become obsessed and decide that the end justifies the means. The 20th century saw quite a few atheistic or at least non religious political ideologies behaving no better than this. Radical Islam today seems to be doing all the same things that radical fascists and Marxists did in the 20th century.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    > Radical Islam But there are plenty of other radical groups. Today the right wing extremists are a greater threat to Americans than Muslims are.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      And radical drivers are a greater threat to Europeans than Muslims are, since they do "become obsessed" (with the right to drive like they like regardless what the law says) and "decide that the end" (getting to the red light 2 seconds faster) "justifies the means" (speeding), killing a lot more of people in the process than terror attacks ever did. The point is, there are many other groups we could focus on and be much more productive with it. Hell, "radical Islam" probaly has the feature that if we elected to ignore it instead of messing with it abroad and radicalizing people even further, it'd probably eventually go away. But either way, it's a job for the police to deal with, and it does not call for the general population to start retaliating on innocent people who sorta, kinda look a little similar to the radical branch of a radical branch of a foreign religion.
gnaritas 11y ago
> We don't have to change. The delusional stone age brutal inhuman apes pushing around nonsense have to. The world needs to unite against them, not respect their bullshit religion and ideology. That it is itself a brutal stone age tribal point of view, you have become what you claim to despise.
- rebootthesystem 11y ago
  That is too funny for laughs in the context of this tragedy. You are actually defending a group of people who would be happy to detonate a nuclear weapon in your city if they could, today.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    'gnaritas not defending them but points out that the way you expressed your opinion suggests you have the same hatred in you that makes terrorist radicals a problem. If we accept this attitude, it'll mean that we have already destroyed ourselves and terrorists have won.
    - rebootthesystem 11y ago
      > the way you expressed your opinion suggests you have the same hatred in you Can you please give me an example? Hatred? I think some of you are reading whatever it is you want to read into a comment rather than what is being said. I never said I want to kill them. Anywhere. I actually want to leave them alone, literally. I fail to see any hatred in that at all. I think you guys have completely distorted what I've written and replaced it with a twisted interpretation. Please read it again. And this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10568450 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10568450 These ideologies don't belong in the western world. They hate us. So give them exactly what they want: Let them live by their rules within their own kingdom and without any western contact or influence. What this means is: No planes, trains or automobiles from the west. No medicine from the west. No iphones or computers from the west. They think women should not be educated, so they don't get to benefit from anything from the west where women with even a high school education might have been involved in any capacity. And we don't buy anything from them, including oil. They get their own chunk of land with a beautiful wall around it (let's get Trump on that) and we sever all contact and trade with them for 200 years. They can have a fucking riot of a time with their crazy ideology and they cease to be a part of the western world. It will be like we don't exists to them and they don't exist to us. I don't want to kill them. I want to give them total freedom to live as they wish to live and have them enjoy total isolation from the cultures they so highly despise. What is your solution?
elipsey 11y ago
>> I would be interested to see what you would think of this, your statement, if you were holding the dismembered body of your father, mother, sib,ing or loved one in your arms. Dead. If that person died in some other unlikely way, I could use the same statement to argue that my grief entitles me to a state sponsored solution that should not be evaluated strategically, or on the basis of actual utility. Do you want an optimal outcome for everyone, or just revenge at any price?
toyg 11y ago
> The delusional stone age brutal inhuman apes pushing around nonsense have to. "They're stone-age apes, so LET'S BEHAVE EXACTLY LIKE THEM, ganging up and kicking the crap out of them with the biggest club we can find." What a superior, enlightened approach! We shall begin preparations henceforth. Oh wait, we're already bombing "them" back into the Stone Age...
- rebootthesystem 11y ago
  > LET'S BEHAVE EXACTLY LIKE THEM > bombing "them" back into the Stone Age This is YOUR view and lens, not mine. Where did I say that? Please quote. 'Cause I did not. Read my other long comment on what I think should happen. In a nutshell, I think we need to leave them alone. Give them a chunk of land big enough for them to have a great time under their own rules and let them be for 200 years. But they do NOT get to enjoy anything from the Western world or travel/move/interact with us. If we are shit, well, then, they get to live within their own little fantasy all they want and leave us the fuck alone.

TeMPOraL 11y ago

> I would be interested to see what you would think of this, your statement, if you were holding the dismembered body of your father, mother, sib,ing or loved one in your arms. Dead. I pray that I would have enough presence of mind to not be overcome by grief and be able to utter the same statement as I did now. People who are now holding their dead are a fraction of a fraction of percent in Europe. I feel for them, we all do, and personally I think I'd let them react in any way they want. But the rest of us were not affected directly. We have a responsibility to stay focused and stay sane if we want to get through it with a society that is worth preserving. Or with a society at all. No amount of pain dealt by attackers justifies retaliating against innocent people who had absolutely nothing to do with it. And yes, I understand the clash of cultures narrative. I worry about it too. But even if the terror attacks were directly related to immigration, which I'm betting they are not, turning aggressive because of it would still be one of the worst possible things to do. > The delusional stone age brutal inhuman apes pushing around nonsense have to. The world needs to unite against them, not respect their bullshit religion and ideology. Their ideology may have problems, but that was totally, 100% uncalled for. It's below standard of dignity I'd expect from a civilized human being. And please don't blame individuals for what is a systemic problem.

rebootthesystem 11y ago
> People who are now holding their dead are a fraction of a fraction of percent in Europe See, that, right there, is the problem. As well as the obvious way in which other commenters seem to have interpreted my post through their obviously distorted lens. On the first point, these people are not numbers. They are human beings. They are someone's father, mother, child or sibling. That's where cold statistics fail us. Nobody should tolerate the idea of people being killed by the hundreds every so often in a theater or futbol field and argue that they are "a fraction of a fraction of percent". Sorry, that's just sick. On the other point. It's interesting that I did not say "let's kill them all". All I said was "The world needs to unite against them, not respect their bullshit religion and ideology." and that was obviously taken by many to mean "let's kill them all". And that is NOT what I said or even implied. The world truly needs to unite against "them". And "them" means the "crazy as fuck radicalized segment of the Muslim religion". It does NOT mean all Muslim's, the vast majority of whom are normal folks who just want to live a good life and would not hurt anyone any more than the average Christian, Jew or whatever. Some posters went as far as to ask why I want revenge (with the implication being killing them). This interpretation of my comment reveals the poster's world view more than anything else. I did not propose revenge or killing? THEY are seeing this. Not I. I did not say any such thing. I happen to think the world needs to unite against them (the radical crazies) and segregate them. Give them a chunk of space --a country-- where they can be as fucking crazy as they want. Let them be and maybe we talk to them again in 200 years. During that time they don't get to benefit from anything the rest of the world has to offer. They get to exist within their own sick rules and enjoy anything they can create. They think women ought not be educated? Fine. They don't get to buy iPhones and computers and cars. Why? Because they are also designed and built by highly educated and capable women and if their ideology looks at them almost as animals then they should not benefit from anything women create anywhere in the world. In other words, let them live any way they want and under whatever sick rules they want to live under IN THEIR OWN LAND. And, yes, they don't get to move into any Western country without first proving, way beyond any doubt, they can live by our rules and our social conventions. And, no, we --meaning nobody-- buys their oil. They can choke on it. It's really interesting to read a comment where the justification, to paraphrase, is something akin to "the dead are a small percentage of the population". This terrorism problem is much larger than that. And it is the START of a MUCH, MUCH bigger thing. My heritage is one that saw multiple millions of people murdered in a genocide. Genocides don't start with a memo distributed to millions saying "OK, let's do it today". No, crazy sick crap like that starts slowly and grows to a boil, expands and gets out of control. Some people, like me, today and for a few years are screaming "we have to deal with this now". Others are making ignorant comparisons with the rate of automobile accidents, etc. The problem with this logic is that automobile accidents are a matter of statistics and probability. There is no intent behind it. Terrorism has actually changed our world and terrorists would detonate a nuclear bomb in a large city if they ever get their hands of one. The probability of car accidents in Europe or the US killing six million people in one event or even in one year is exactly zero. The probability of a terrorist group killing millions somewhere is a number greater than zero. That is a huge difference and anyone who does not understand this and insists on comparing to statistics on death by smoking, driving, police shootings or falling off ladders really needs to slow down and think hard about this. Some of us are looking at this with a degree of desperation because we see what could and is likely to happen if the West does not react with determination. Calling someone's father, mother sibling an insignificant percentage of the population as a justification for not acting to stop this as soon as humanly possible is to, effectively, say it is OK to one day wake up to news on CNN that a nuclear bomb was detonated somewhere in Europe and millions of lives were lost. Will that convince you? Is that what it will take for you to fully grok what's been going on and where we are headed? That would be sad. Anyhow, let's not argue. We are not the problem.

DanBC 11y ago

> No, there's only one ideology on the planet with a radicalized extreme minority that supports and promotes this kind of behavior. The Buddhists? They have at least one army and two terrorist groups. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/969_Movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/969_Movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Karen_Buddhist_Army http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Karen_Buddhist_Army http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodu_Bala_Sena http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodu_Bala_Sena Or perhaps the Sikhs? There are still some active Sikh terrorist groups. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalistan_movement#Abatement_of_extremism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalistan_movement#Abatement_o... And before you say that those groups don't affect America: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/nevada-man-charged-aiding-sikh-terrorist-groups-india-f2D11772711 http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/nevada-man-charged-aiding-... Perhaps you mean Christians? There are a bunch, such as the Lord's Resistance Army (now operating in Sudan) as well as a bunch who have carried out actions in mainland US. In the US the main threat is from either Christian or right wing extremist groups.

api 11y ago
Any belief system theistic or not can become fanatical and violent as soon as it's followers become obsessed and decide that the end justifies the means. The 20th century saw quite a few atheistic or at least non religious political ideologies behaving no better than this. Radical Islam today seems to be doing all the same things that radical fascists and Marxists did in the 20th century.
- DanBC 11y ago
  > Radical Islam But there are plenty of other radical groups. Today the right wing extremists are a greater threat to Americans than Muslims are.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    And radical drivers are a greater threat to Europeans than Muslims are, since they do "become obsessed" (with the right to drive like they like regardless what the law says) and "decide that the end" (getting to the red light 2 seconds faster) "justifies the means" (speeding), killing a lot more of people in the process than terror attacks ever did. The point is, there are many other groups we could focus on and be much more productive with it. Hell, "radical Islam" probaly has the feature that if we elected to ignore it instead of messing with it abroad and radicalizing people even further, it'd probably eventually go away. But either way, it's a job for the police to deal with, and it does not call for the general population to start retaliating on innocent people who sorta, kinda look a little similar to the radical branch of a radical branch of a foreign religion.

gnaritas 11y ago

> We don't have to change. The delusional stone age brutal inhuman apes pushing around nonsense have to. The world needs to unite against them, not respect their bullshit religion and ideology. That it is itself a brutal stone age tribal point of view, you have become what you claim to despise.

rebootthesystem 11y ago
That is too funny for laughs in the context of this tragedy. You are actually defending a group of people who would be happy to detonate a nuclear weapon in your city if they could, today.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  'gnaritas not defending them but points out that the way you expressed your opinion suggests you have the same hatred in you that makes terrorist radicals a problem. If we accept this attitude, it'll mean that we have already destroyed ourselves and terrorists have won.
  - rebootthesystem 11y ago
    > the way you expressed your opinion suggests you have the same hatred in you Can you please give me an example? Hatred? I think some of you are reading whatever it is you want to read into a comment rather than what is being said. I never said I want to kill them. Anywhere. I actually want to leave them alone, literally. I fail to see any hatred in that at all. I think you guys have completely distorted what I've written and replaced it with a twisted interpretation. Please read it again. And this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10568450 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10568450 These ideologies don't belong in the western world. They hate us. So give them exactly what they want: Let them live by their rules within their own kingdom and without any western contact or influence. What this means is: No planes, trains or automobiles from the west. No medicine from the west. No iphones or computers from the west. They think women should not be educated, so they don't get to benefit from anything from the west where women with even a high school education might have been involved in any capacity. And we don't buy anything from them, including oil. They get their own chunk of land with a beautiful wall around it (let's get Trump on that) and we sever all contact and trade with them for 200 years. They can have a fucking riot of a time with their crazy ideology and they cease to be a part of the western world. It will be like we don't exists to them and they don't exist to us. I don't want to kill them. I want to give them total freedom to live as they wish to live and have them enjoy total isolation from the cultures they so highly despise. What is your solution?

elipsey 11y ago

>> I would be interested to see what you would think of this, your statement, if you were holding the dismembered body of your father, mother, sib,ing or loved one in your arms. Dead. If that person died in some other unlikely way, I could use the same statement to argue that my grief entitles me to a state sponsored solution that should not be evaluated strategically, or on the basis of actual utility. Do you want an optimal outcome for everyone, or just revenge at any price?

toyg 11y ago

> The delusional stone age brutal inhuman apes pushing around nonsense have to. "They're stone-age apes, so LET'S BEHAVE EXACTLY LIKE THEM, ganging up and kicking the crap out of them with the biggest club we can find." What a superior, enlightened approach! We shall begin preparations henceforth. Oh wait, we're already bombing "them" back into the Stone Age...

rebootthesystem 11y ago
> LET'S BEHAVE EXACTLY LIKE THEM > bombing "them" back into the Stone Age This is YOUR view and lens, not mine. Where did I say that? Please quote. 'Cause I did not. Read my other long comment on what I think should happen. In a nutshell, I think we need to leave them alone. Give them a chunk of land big enough for them to have a great time under their own rules and let them be for 200 years. But they do NOT get to enjoy anything from the Western world or travel/move/interact with us. If we are shit, well, then, they get to live within their own little fantasy all they want and leave us the fuck alone.