7 ms·

On one hand, it's unquestionable that radical Islam is an aggressor that is funding and directing terror attacks. On the other hand, Muslims are people too, an

On one hand, it's unquestionable that radical Islam is an aggressor that is funding and directing terror attacks. On the other hand, Muslims are people too, and it is extremely unjust to punish all Muslims for the actions of a radical sect. I think that Europe is in danger of lurching rightward and tempting the return of ethno-religious cleansing. Fascism is not pretty, and the danger for Europeans is real.

Mikeb85 11y ago
Unfortunately, the ugly truth is that communal punishment is the only form of punishment that truly works. Right now, Muslims won't turn in their neighbors and children to the authorities if they're radicalized. It's only when they're more afraid of the consequences of not turning them in that extremism will finally begin to be purged from their communities. As long as Muslims say "they're not REAL Muslims" and absolve themselves of what their neighbors and family members are doing, radicalism will never be eliminated. Since extremist sects recruit from within moderate sects, the moderates need to be more diligent in truly eliminating the extremist element. That means more consequences to the community. Which is unfair, but it's either that or the rise of the 'Sixth Reich' in a generation because right now, we're just kicking the can down the road. Disclaimer - this of course doesn't touch on the root causes of extremism, namely the Saudi state and its support of Wahhabism, as well as the overthrowing of several moderate states in the Middle East during the 20th century, as well as the demise of Arab Nationalism (and secularism) and rampant inequality and poverty in many Arab and Muslim countries. Unfortunately the proverbial Genie is out of the bottle...
- Kristine1975 11y ago
  >Which is unfair, but it's either that or the rise of the 'Sixth Reich' in a generation That sounds a bit like Sam Harris advocating for genocide in his book End of Faith: Sure it would be a crime, but otherwise millions would die.
  - Mikeb85 11y ago
    Except I'm not advocating genocide. Just pointing out that, if more tolerable solutions don't work, and it does become a perceived choice of 'us' vs 'them', people will choose themselves 10/10 times.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    Murdering millions because millions might die? Forgive me if I can't follow you.
  - methodover 11y ago
    What the hell are you talking about? Harris doesn't advocate for genocide in End of Faith. That's insane.
    - Kristine1975 11y ago
      I'm talking about his "if Islamists acquired nuclear weapons, a nuclear first strike against Middle East countries would be the only way to protect the Western Way Of Life."
      - yesbabyyes 11y ago
        Interesting. That's strikingly similar to the idea, held by many in the US, that the new nuclear weapons should be utilized against Soviet ASAP, before they had the chance to build their own. Even Bertrand Russell advocated for this. That someone I hold as a model in so much could display such levels of collective madness is one of those things I use to remind myself, of how fickle we are.
- JacobiX 11y ago
  Not only the Muslims are targeted, if you are an Atheist Arab and it happens that you have an Arabic name you will receive the same treatment.
  - Mikeb85 11y ago
    Which is why many of my wife's family have changed their names, and given their children non-Muslim names. On the flip side, my wife has also had other Muslims judge her for being too secular... BTW, Arab-Christians are a thing, they're not named Mohammed, Ali or Abu Bakr... 'Muslim' names are distinct from 'Arab' names (ie. Are names of Islamic saints).
    - gotchange 11y ago
      Do you really think that the bigots, angry mob or lowlifes would be capable of telling a secular Arabic name from an Islamic or Christian one? Good luck with that! Try convince them first that "Syed" the first name of the Muslim terrorist who carried out the San Bernandino attack is a secular name and not Islamic one then we can talk about your "Final Solution" for the Muslims.
      - Mikeb85 11y ago
        Well Saeed (or Said, Syed, etc...) WAS one of Mohamed's companions... And I'm well aware of the bigots, who attack Sikhs for what Muslims do, and attack Jews because, well, Jews... I don't know if you follow politics, but the far right is rising in Europe. Those bigots and idiots are raising their voice. Every time there's an attack by Muslims, those idiots gain more votes... A decade ago the FN was a joke. Today there's a real chance the next French President comes from the FN.
        gotchange 11y ago
        سيد or سعيد are not religious names. The former means "Lord" or "Master" and the latter means "Happy" or "Gay". They're perfectly secular names. The religious names are Mohammad's aliases plus the Big Four figures in Sunni Islam and the other big figures in Shiite Islam. Other than these, the rest are non Islamic names. If some low level Mohammad's companion was called سعيد, this doesn't change the fact that it's a secular name. To be honest with you, the whole thing looks so ridiculous because ( عمر Omar, فاطمة Fatima ) are considered religious but some Latinos are called Omar or Fatima. Maybe we should drop the whole thing. > Today there's a real chance the next French President comes from the FN. Let them have this experiment. If they're so bigoted and extreme to their own detriment, I wouldn't stop them. Let them learn by experience not to be guided by fear or populist demagoguery.
- IkmoIkmo 11y ago
  Eh, could you hold that thought for a moment? We're busy with our collective punishment programme of Christians, they should've stopped Breivik because hey, all Christians exchange terrorist plans and knew it was coming but they didn't warn the police! The only way we can convince them to warn the police next time is to punish them collectively this time, these Christians just don't care otherwise... Can you see how silly your reasoning is or do you want more jokes? Collective punishment is a stupid, barbaric, medieval idea we've fortunately gotten rid of. You're suggesting guilt by association, it's on the level of ridiculous ideas you'd expect from groups like IS.
  - Mikeb85 11y ago
    First of all, Breivik himself stated he's not a Christian, claiming allegiance to Odin. Second, if someone knew of his plans and didn't turn him in, they're guilty of complicity under current laws in most western countries. Third, far-right groups are regularly 'punished' (ie. Prosecuted under various laws) for the actions of their members, even if it doesn't comprise all their members. As are gang members, etc... Harboring, aiding and abetting criminals is punished in our society as a crime. Why not aiding and abetting extremism?
    - celticninja 11y ago
      Laws exist to prosecute those that help support, aide and abet terrorists and they are frequently used against people in the aftermath of an attack. You seem to either think that all Muslims are guilty of aiding and abetting so should all be prosecuted or that these laws are not being used against Muslims who had prior knowledge of these attacks.
    - IkmoIkmo 11y ago
      > First of all, Breivik himself stated he's not a Christian, claiming allegiance to Odin. I was mostly using Breivik as a joke, I don't care for his beliefs as they have no root in reality. But for the record, Breivik has said a lot of things, indeed that he was not a religious man, indeed allegiance to Odin, but also statements like 'I consider myself to be 100 percent Christian.' He contradicted himself on many different occasions, but it'd be myopic to say he has never identified himself as a Christian. Again though, I don't care and certainly don't see him as a Christian terrorist, I was just using it for material for my joke to show how silly your reasoning is. Anyway, on to more important things. You bring up aiding and abetting multiple times and then end your post. I don't see your point. Well I do but it's so wrong that I'm left wondering if you were trying to make another point. The point you're making is 'sometimes people who indirectly are responsible for a crime, get convinced'. And that's true, and that's good. If you drive a getaway car for a bank robber or murderer, you're responsible. Now, how that in any way reflects on the responsibility of say my father, who stays awake at night because he can't sleep, saddened about the loss of innocent life due to the recent terrorist attacks (I'm not making up a sob story here, take it how you want it), a man who happens to be a muslim, is beyond me. He has zero connection with these attacks, never condoned it, never supported it, never saw any indication it happened. He's simply a decent muslim, in no way different from any other, who let his own son grow up an atheist without ever making a fuss. Your idea to punish him by mere association on the basis of his religious beliefs, is again, something you'd expect from the terrorists you're so against. Further, it strengthens the very strategy that IS has, which is to recruit a billion muslims by scaring the world into resorting to medieval instruments like collective punishment of muslims you suggest, creating systems of apartheid based on religious beliefs, and pitting people like my dad against people like myself. Collective punishment is a very distinct idea. It's not punishing the crime of aiding and abetting which is a normal and useful part of virtually every justice system on earth. Collective punishment is specifically punishing those with innocent associations. How you can not see the difference is beyond me. Next when a man does something, all men must be punished. When a black person does something, all blacks must be punished. When a computer engineer does something, all engineers must be punished. It's like I'm talking to a child with all due respect, defending collective punishment is an idea silly beyond reason. Some of the worst atrocities have happened under the guise of collective punishment and the world has created laws against it for this very reason. Lastly I'll finish with this, and I hope you'll be convinced then. Because you must see the irony... to punish innocent people, merely because they're associated under an umbrella (a very wide umbrella, amongst which one may find many differences) of islamic faith, is to do exactly what some terrorists have done in the past... Terrorists have attacked and punished innocent people in the west, merely for their association with the west, whose governments have been responsible for various atrocities in the world. They have collectively punished and murdered innocent people on the basis of this association, including ordinary folks who resisted these atrocities, voted and marched against them, as well as punished kids who had no say in the matter. That's collective punishment, it's insane, it's immoral, and you're a supporter. I hate to throw a terrorist-supporter card on the table, but you're asking for one.
- r00fus 11y ago
  On the gripping hand... what if ISIS is completely a western-security-state construction (yes, warning: CT ahead)? The authorities control all the discussion, they sift through (or plant) the evidence, and it's possible that the ISIS was indirectly funded directly from large western governments. ISIS is the perfect Emmanuel Goldstein.
- gkya 11y ago
  > Right now, Muslims won't turn in their neighbors and children to the authorities if they're radicalized. In Turkey, we've seen on TV or heard of many families turning in their children many many times. In fact, the suicide-bomber-brothers who killed upwards of a hundred victims in Ankara were reported to be islamic state militants multiple times by their parents. They've reported them many times to different authorities. Death of a hundred people may be alien to French, but it is not alien to us. It's middle east, both killers and the victims are often muslims. And muslims themselves are the ones that suffer the most from this radicalism. > Since extremist sects recruit from within moderate sects, the moderates need to be more diligent in truly eliminating the extremist element. That means more consequences to the community. Which is unfair, but it's either that or the rise of the 'Sixth Reich' in a generation because right now, we're just kicking the can down the road. It's not easy for the moderate muslim to avoid extremism. And I speak as an irreligious agnostic. Fact is that if they are not in Turkey, they are either in direct contact with war, or a subject of a kingdom. And then there's Iran. And Turkey is not the most serene place either. Here, the west is to blame. They drew these borders in the middle east after WWI, they spoiled them in the 20th century. Now if this "Sixth Reich", if I understand you correctly, is a threaten of genocide, I will not be shocked. That is the best possible fruit of the western canon, which is built on the extermination of the other and national pride, with the motto "it's not sin if we do it". A hundred people died in Paris, and all EU now wants to taste muslim blood. That's mundane here in middle east. The most serene of the countries has at least two wars at the border. Isis bombs mosques, kills people for being of a different sect of islam; and it rapes children, enslaves women, steals immigrants' goods here, in the middle east. Before it was Saddam, etc. But the fact is that since WWI there has been a power that killed innocent people here. Neither France nor any other europeans are in real danger. All that happened was a side effect of what they did, how they messed up the life here, always for imperial affairs. I may go on, but I'll finish here. You're not the europe that built the Roman Empires, you're the europe that made them suffer and die. You're no more good than islamist terrorists. The world is a bad place because of your empire building games.
  - ethbro 11y ago
    Let's not forget that the Roman Empire was not without its atrocities in the name of the Greater Good. Bad often has to be done so that More Bad for More People won't happen. And before we catigate Europe, let's not forget that there are a substantial number of sectarian and ethnic minority/majority tensions even inside of the Muslim governed world. No one is without blood on their hands.
- dang 11y ago
  > the ugly truth is that communal punishment is the only form of punishment that truly works I appreciate from your other comments that your views are nuanced, but posting something this glib about something this horrific crosses the line here.
  - Mikeb85 11y ago
    > I appreciate from your other comments that your views are nuanced, but posting something this glib about something this horrific crosses the line here. Here's the thing. Eventually, Islamic extremism WILL disappear. Today, tomorrow, or in 100 years. The only question is how that happens. My wife is Muslim (and dark-skinned). I married her in an Islamic ceremony (meaning I became Muslim, at least in the eyes of some Islamic authority). Her family all have Muslim names. Our children will be visibly non-white. We're also secular, and like to do secular things. I'd love to go to Europe with her, we both have family there, and I'd love for the world to be a place where she isn't discriminated against (and she HAS experienced racism here, in Canada), either by the state, by ignorant red-necks, or by other Muslims. The fact is, every time terrorist attacks happen, she feels it. The looks at work, the comments on Facebook. I don't remember people talking about 'deporting all the Muslims' in Canada until very recently. We (as in myself, my wife and family) have a stake in this. She didn't choose to be Muslim, but she does suffer consequences today. And she knows it can get worse. Some of her family have converted to another religion and changed their names - she's considered it as well. It would be nice if abandoning your birth identity wasn't something you even had to consider. Anyhow, either extremism is rooted out now, or it'll be rooted out later. It'll likely be more painful later...
    - dang 11y ago
      I appreciate all of that, but calling for communal punishment with a bogus claim that it's the only thing that will work (something you can't possibly know) still crosses the line here. It shouldn't be hard to see why. Imagine reading HN and hearing your fellow users call for you to be punished for crimes you are at least as aghast at, and personally more likely to suffer from, than the rest of the HN population is.
alexqgb 11y ago
it's unquestionable that radical Islam is an aggressor Sure, but why stop there instead of going just a tiny bit deeper and identifying the money layer? You'll find it has a lot less to do with religion and a lot more to do with efforts by the House of Saud to maintain an increasingly dubious hold on worldly power. You'll also find a rat's nest of illiberal interests from nominally liberal countries with an interest in their survival. Thus, the broader desire to deflect attention from the very dark and concentrated heart of this to a much more diffuse and amorphous target like "radical islam". Every time you're tempted to say "radical Islam" try saying "Saudi Arabia" instead. More often than not, you'll find you've hit on the more accurate term.
- cryoshon 11y ago
  Yes, this is my perspective as well, but for ease of conversation I didn't mention it here-- people get very upset. But take it a step further. Who funds Saudi Arabia, and why? Who backs radical Sunnis, and why? Who backs the radical Shia? Geopolitical problems have many causes and symptoms which can grow into entire pathologies in their own right when they get really out of control, as the West's idiotic power struggle with Russia in the Middle East has.
  - alexqgb 11y ago
    Who funds Saudi Arabia? Nobody "funds" Saudi Arabia. It's a sovereign nation with massive reserves of oil and independent wealth, not some Silicon Valley start up. To the extent that the money comes from somewhere, it comes from all of us, because we need to get to work and gas costs money. The point is that the US has its own set of deeply vested interests in these markets, and they're more than willing to tolerate what the Saudis are doing to underwrite jihadi terrorism and the Wahhabi strain of Islam that animates it if the alternative involves seriously consideration of changes to the way the developed world produces and consumes the energy it depends on.
- gotchange 11y ago
  Make no mistake Iran is a dangerous state too and Shiite Islam can be weaponized too and could prove much more lethal than Sunni Islam given that religious Shiites usually follow their "Pope" or Supreme Leader blindly. Just imagine an army of 500 mln or so that can be mobilized with a single fiery speech or declaration. Actually, that kind of empire or army is the wildest wet dream that Sunni radicals could have.

Mikeb85 11y ago

Unfortunately, the ugly truth is that communal punishment is the only form of punishment that truly works. Right now, Muslims won't turn in their neighbors and children to the authorities if they're radicalized. It's only when they're more afraid of the consequences of not turning them in that extremism will finally begin to be purged from their communities. As long as Muslims say "they're not REAL Muslims" and absolve themselves of what their neighbors and family members are doing, radicalism will never be eliminated. Since extremist sects recruit from within moderate sects, the moderates need to be more diligent in truly eliminating the extremist element. That means more consequences to the community. Which is unfair, but it's either that or the rise of the 'Sixth Reich' in a generation because right now, we're just kicking the can down the road. Disclaimer - this of course doesn't touch on the root causes of extremism, namely the Saudi state and its support of Wahhabism, as well as the overthrowing of several moderate states in the Middle East during the 20th century, as well as the demise of Arab Nationalism (and secularism) and rampant inequality and poverty in many Arab and Muslim countries. Unfortunately the proverbial Genie is out of the bottle...

Kristine1975 11y ago
>Which is unfair, but it's either that or the rise of the 'Sixth Reich' in a generation That sounds a bit like Sam Harris advocating for genocide in his book End of Faith: Sure it would be a crime, but otherwise millions would die.
- Mikeb85 11y ago
  Except I'm not advocating genocide. Just pointing out that, if more tolerable solutions don't work, and it does become a perceived choice of 'us' vs 'them', people will choose themselves 10/10 times.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  Murdering millions because millions might die? Forgive me if I can't follow you.
- methodover 11y ago
  What the hell are you talking about? Harris doesn't advocate for genocide in End of Faith. That's insane.
  - Kristine1975 11y ago
    I'm talking about his "if Islamists acquired nuclear weapons, a nuclear first strike against Middle East countries would be the only way to protect the Western Way Of Life."
    - yesbabyyes 11y ago
      Interesting. That's strikingly similar to the idea, held by many in the US, that the new nuclear weapons should be utilized against Soviet ASAP, before they had the chance to build their own. Even Bertrand Russell advocated for this. That someone I hold as a model in so much could display such levels of collective madness is one of those things I use to remind myself, of how fickle we are.
JacobiX 11y ago
Not only the Muslims are targeted, if you are an Atheist Arab and it happens that you have an Arabic name you will receive the same treatment.
- Mikeb85 11y ago
  Which is why many of my wife's family have changed their names, and given their children non-Muslim names. On the flip side, my wife has also had other Muslims judge her for being too secular... BTW, Arab-Christians are a thing, they're not named Mohammed, Ali or Abu Bakr... 'Muslim' names are distinct from 'Arab' names (ie. Are names of Islamic saints).
  - gotchange 11y ago
    Do you really think that the bigots, angry mob or lowlifes would be capable of telling a secular Arabic name from an Islamic or Christian one? Good luck with that! Try convince them first that "Syed" the first name of the Muslim terrorist who carried out the San Bernandino attack is a secular name and not Islamic one then we can talk about your "Final Solution" for the Muslims.
    - Mikeb85 11y ago
      Well Saeed (or Said, Syed, etc...) WAS one of Mohamed's companions... And I'm well aware of the bigots, who attack Sikhs for what Muslims do, and attack Jews because, well, Jews... I don't know if you follow politics, but the far right is rising in Europe. Those bigots and idiots are raising their voice. Every time there's an attack by Muslims, those idiots gain more votes... A decade ago the FN was a joke. Today there's a real chance the next French President comes from the FN.
      - gotchange 11y ago
        سيد or سعيد are not religious names. The former means "Lord" or "Master" and the latter means "Happy" or "Gay". They're perfectly secular names. The religious names are Mohammad's aliases plus the Big Four figures in Sunni Islam and the other big figures in Shiite Islam. Other than these, the rest are non Islamic names. If some low level Mohammad's companion was called سعيد, this doesn't change the fact that it's a secular name. To be honest with you, the whole thing looks so ridiculous because ( عمر Omar, فاطمة Fatima ) are considered religious but some Latinos are called Omar or Fatima. Maybe we should drop the whole thing. > Today there's a real chance the next French President comes from the FN. Let them have this experiment. If they're so bigoted and extreme to their own detriment, I wouldn't stop them. Let them learn by experience not to be guided by fear or populist demagoguery.
IkmoIkmo 11y ago
Eh, could you hold that thought for a moment? We're busy with our collective punishment programme of Christians, they should've stopped Breivik because hey, all Christians exchange terrorist plans and knew it was coming but they didn't warn the police! The only way we can convince them to warn the police next time is to punish them collectively this time, these Christians just don't care otherwise... Can you see how silly your reasoning is or do you want more jokes? Collective punishment is a stupid, barbaric, medieval idea we've fortunately gotten rid of. You're suggesting guilt by association, it's on the level of ridiculous ideas you'd expect from groups like IS.
- Mikeb85 11y ago
  First of all, Breivik himself stated he's not a Christian, claiming allegiance to Odin. Second, if someone knew of his plans and didn't turn him in, they're guilty of complicity under current laws in most western countries. Third, far-right groups are regularly 'punished' (ie. Prosecuted under various laws) for the actions of their members, even if it doesn't comprise all their members. As are gang members, etc... Harboring, aiding and abetting criminals is punished in our society as a crime. Why not aiding and abetting extremism?
  - celticninja 11y ago
    Laws exist to prosecute those that help support, aide and abet terrorists and they are frequently used against people in the aftermath of an attack. You seem to either think that all Muslims are guilty of aiding and abetting so should all be prosecuted or that these laws are not being used against Muslims who had prior knowledge of these attacks.
  - IkmoIkmo 11y ago
    > First of all, Breivik himself stated he's not a Christian, claiming allegiance to Odin. I was mostly using Breivik as a joke, I don't care for his beliefs as they have no root in reality. But for the record, Breivik has said a lot of things, indeed that he was not a religious man, indeed allegiance to Odin, but also statements like 'I consider myself to be 100 percent Christian.' He contradicted himself on many different occasions, but it'd be myopic to say he has never identified himself as a Christian. Again though, I don't care and certainly don't see him as a Christian terrorist, I was just using it for material for my joke to show how silly your reasoning is. Anyway, on to more important things. You bring up aiding and abetting multiple times and then end your post. I don't see your point. Well I do but it's so wrong that I'm left wondering if you were trying to make another point. The point you're making is 'sometimes people who indirectly are responsible for a crime, get convinced'. And that's true, and that's good. If you drive a getaway car for a bank robber or murderer, you're responsible. Now, how that in any way reflects on the responsibility of say my father, who stays awake at night because he can't sleep, saddened about the loss of innocent life due to the recent terrorist attacks (I'm not making up a sob story here, take it how you want it), a man who happens to be a muslim, is beyond me. He has zero connection with these attacks, never condoned it, never supported it, never saw any indication it happened. He's simply a decent muslim, in no way different from any other, who let his own son grow up an atheist without ever making a fuss. Your idea to punish him by mere association on the basis of his religious beliefs, is again, something you'd expect from the terrorists you're so against. Further, it strengthens the very strategy that IS has, which is to recruit a billion muslims by scaring the world into resorting to medieval instruments like collective punishment of muslims you suggest, creating systems of apartheid based on religious beliefs, and pitting people like my dad against people like myself. Collective punishment is a very distinct idea. It's not punishing the crime of aiding and abetting which is a normal and useful part of virtually every justice system on earth. Collective punishment is specifically punishing those with innocent associations. How you can not see the difference is beyond me. Next when a man does something, all men must be punished. When a black person does something, all blacks must be punished. When a computer engineer does something, all engineers must be punished. It's like I'm talking to a child with all due respect, defending collective punishment is an idea silly beyond reason. Some of the worst atrocities have happened under the guise of collective punishment and the world has created laws against it for this very reason. Lastly I'll finish with this, and I hope you'll be convinced then. Because you must see the irony... to punish innocent people, merely because they're associated under an umbrella (a very wide umbrella, amongst which one may find many differences) of islamic faith, is to do exactly what some terrorists have done in the past... Terrorists have attacked and punished innocent people in the west, merely for their association with the west, whose governments have been responsible for various atrocities in the world. They have collectively punished and murdered innocent people on the basis of this association, including ordinary folks who resisted these atrocities, voted and marched against them, as well as punished kids who had no say in the matter. That's collective punishment, it's insane, it's immoral, and you're a supporter. I hate to throw a terrorist-supporter card on the table, but you're asking for one.
r00fus 11y ago
On the gripping hand... what if ISIS is completely a western-security-state construction (yes, warning: CT ahead)? The authorities control all the discussion, they sift through (or plant) the evidence, and it's possible that the ISIS was indirectly funded directly from large western governments. ISIS is the perfect Emmanuel Goldstein.
gkya 11y ago
> Right now, Muslims won't turn in their neighbors and children to the authorities if they're radicalized. In Turkey, we've seen on TV or heard of many families turning in their children many many times. In fact, the suicide-bomber-brothers who killed upwards of a hundred victims in Ankara were reported to be islamic state militants multiple times by their parents. They've reported them many times to different authorities. Death of a hundred people may be alien to French, but it is not alien to us. It's middle east, both killers and the victims are often muslims. And muslims themselves are the ones that suffer the most from this radicalism. > Since extremist sects recruit from within moderate sects, the moderates need to be more diligent in truly eliminating the extremist element. That means more consequences to the community. Which is unfair, but it's either that or the rise of the 'Sixth Reich' in a generation because right now, we're just kicking the can down the road. It's not easy for the moderate muslim to avoid extremism. And I speak as an irreligious agnostic. Fact is that if they are not in Turkey, they are either in direct contact with war, or a subject of a kingdom. And then there's Iran. And Turkey is not the most serene place either. Here, the west is to blame. They drew these borders in the middle east after WWI, they spoiled them in the 20th century. Now if this "Sixth Reich", if I understand you correctly, is a threaten of genocide, I will not be shocked. That is the best possible fruit of the western canon, which is built on the extermination of the other and national pride, with the motto "it's not sin if we do it". A hundred people died in Paris, and all EU now wants to taste muslim blood. That's mundane here in middle east. The most serene of the countries has at least two wars at the border. Isis bombs mosques, kills people for being of a different sect of islam; and it rapes children, enslaves women, steals immigrants' goods here, in the middle east. Before it was Saddam, etc. But the fact is that since WWI there has been a power that killed innocent people here. Neither France nor any other europeans are in real danger. All that happened was a side effect of what they did, how they messed up the life here, always for imperial affairs. I may go on, but I'll finish here. You're not the europe that built the Roman Empires, you're the europe that made them suffer and die. You're no more good than islamist terrorists. The world is a bad place because of your empire building games.
- ethbro 11y ago
  Let's not forget that the Roman Empire was not without its atrocities in the name of the Greater Good. Bad often has to be done so that More Bad for More People won't happen. And before we catigate Europe, let's not forget that there are a substantial number of sectarian and ethnic minority/majority tensions even inside of the Muslim governed world. No one is without blood on their hands.
dang 11y ago
> the ugly truth is that communal punishment is the only form of punishment that truly works I appreciate from your other comments that your views are nuanced, but posting something this glib about something this horrific crosses the line here.
- Mikeb85 11y ago
  > I appreciate from your other comments that your views are nuanced, but posting something this glib about something this horrific crosses the line here. Here's the thing. Eventually, Islamic extremism WILL disappear. Today, tomorrow, or in 100 years. The only question is how that happens. My wife is Muslim (and dark-skinned). I married her in an Islamic ceremony (meaning I became Muslim, at least in the eyes of some Islamic authority). Her family all have Muslim names. Our children will be visibly non-white. We're also secular, and like to do secular things. I'd love to go to Europe with her, we both have family there, and I'd love for the world to be a place where she isn't discriminated against (and she HAS experienced racism here, in Canada), either by the state, by ignorant red-necks, or by other Muslims. The fact is, every time terrorist attacks happen, she feels it. The looks at work, the comments on Facebook. I don't remember people talking about 'deporting all the Muslims' in Canada until very recently. We (as in myself, my wife and family) have a stake in this. She didn't choose to be Muslim, but she does suffer consequences today. And she knows it can get worse. Some of her family have converted to another religion and changed their names - she's considered it as well. It would be nice if abandoning your birth identity wasn't something you even had to consider. Anyhow, either extremism is rooted out now, or it'll be rooted out later. It'll likely be more painful later...
  - dang 11y ago
    I appreciate all of that, but calling for communal punishment with a bogus claim that it's the only thing that will work (something you can't possibly know) still crosses the line here. It shouldn't be hard to see why. Imagine reading HN and hearing your fellow users call for you to be punished for crimes you are at least as aghast at, and personally more likely to suffer from, than the rest of the HN population is.

alexqgb 11y ago

it's unquestionable that radical Islam is an aggressor Sure, but why stop there instead of going just a tiny bit deeper and identifying the money layer? You'll find it has a lot less to do with religion and a lot more to do with efforts by the House of Saud to maintain an increasingly dubious hold on worldly power. You'll also find a rat's nest of illiberal interests from nominally liberal countries with an interest in their survival. Thus, the broader desire to deflect attention from the very dark and concentrated heart of this to a much more diffuse and amorphous target like "radical islam". Every time you're tempted to say "radical Islam" try saying "Saudi Arabia" instead. More often than not, you'll find you've hit on the more accurate term.

cryoshon 11y ago
Yes, this is my perspective as well, but for ease of conversation I didn't mention it here-- people get very upset. But take it a step further. Who funds Saudi Arabia, and why? Who backs radical Sunnis, and why? Who backs the radical Shia? Geopolitical problems have many causes and symptoms which can grow into entire pathologies in their own right when they get really out of control, as the West's idiotic power struggle with Russia in the Middle East has.
- alexqgb 11y ago
  Who funds Saudi Arabia? Nobody "funds" Saudi Arabia. It's a sovereign nation with massive reserves of oil and independent wealth, not some Silicon Valley start up. To the extent that the money comes from somewhere, it comes from all of us, because we need to get to work and gas costs money. The point is that the US has its own set of deeply vested interests in these markets, and they're more than willing to tolerate what the Saudis are doing to underwrite jihadi terrorism and the Wahhabi strain of Islam that animates it if the alternative involves seriously consideration of changes to the way the developed world produces and consumes the energy it depends on.
gotchange 11y ago
Make no mistake Iran is a dangerous state too and Shiite Islam can be weaponized too and could prove much more lethal than Sunni Islam given that religious Shiites usually follow their "Pope" or Supreme Leader blindly. Just imagine an army of 500 mln or so that can be mobilized with a single fiery speech or declaration. Actually, that kind of empire or army is the wildest wet dream that Sunni radicals could have.