3 ms·

Who is “we” here? Also, you are aware there are 35 million people in Saudi Arabia? You know, innocent women, children, people trying to make a living under an a

by llp80 5y ago

Who is “we” here? Also, you are aware there are 35 million people in Saudi Arabia? You know, innocent women, children, people trying to make a living under an admittedly oft-corrupt system? Casually dismissing enough people to fill up California as drone strike eligible because you dislike sharia law and customs that aren’t yours speaks to the foulest, most bigoted type of person with whom I am ashamed to share air. You might as well just admit you hate Muslims and assume all of them are terrorists, and I say that as a bloody Jew. This comment has no place here and is the absolute worst mark on HN imaginable. You can’t really walk back your first two paragraphs with a third “well, actually, I’m making a more nuanced point”. Just vile remarks and absolutely nothing will be done about them, as is typical.

exolymph 5y ago
He's right, though. I'm sure the vast majority of Yemenis are perfectly innocent and fuck-all good that does them. The observation about "drone strike eligible" populations is descriptive, not prescriptive, and it's about who is deemed expendable, not who should be (no one, obviously). That's the point of the third paragraph that you inexplicably dismissed.
- llp80 5y ago
  Uh, no, he very much isn’t. The second paragraph is demonstrably false and is pretty obvious Islamophobia. It’s a disingenuous conflation of sharia law and a caliphate, and imagine how weird it is for me that I find myself explaining this, of all people.
  - h0l0cube 5y ago
    It might be an egregious conflation to say that 'all practices of ISIS' are enshrined by law in Saudi Arabia, but it's maybe a bit naive to think the two don't share some problematic ideology. I think recent leadership has been making some changes to bring SA more in line with Western liberal values, but hostile (religious-based) policy towards women[0], LGBTIQ+[1], and apostate Muslims[2], is still heavily enforced. The road to reform on any of these fronts is a long one. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia#Change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_rights_in_Saudi_Arab... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory#West_Asia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_terr... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_Saudi_Arabia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_Saudi_Arabia
  - sat3492 5y ago
    > how weird it is for me that I find myself explaining this Both the "caliphate" and "sharia law" are advocated by the same book quoran. I dont understand why would you consider it is conflated and not related? Are you suggesting that we look only at the good parts of quoran that is suitable with the modern civil society like some prominent muslims suggest(example: mehdi of aljassera)?
    - dang 5y ago
      We've banned this account for religious flamewar. That's not allowed on HN, regardless of which religion you have a problem with. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- vmception 5y ago
  > The observation about "drone strike eligible" populations is descriptive, not prescriptive, and it's about who is deemed expendable, not who should be (no one, obviously). Thank you I didn’t expect people to misinterpret that when my position is that US/NATO has no business being involved, or has indefensible moral reasons since they exempt so much as well
vmception 5y ago
“We” = US and NATO > I don’t want to kill anyone in Saudi Arabia, I don’t find any moral stance for the droning/wars to be convincing Read what you want to read, I guess, because this is what I wrote You chose to privilege my first paragraph of acknowledging reality, and invalidate my actual opinion. Fascinating. We drone strike weddings. Say it with me: we drone strike weddings, funerals, and summarily dismiss innocents in areas and populations as large as California. Share the air with me and acknowledge reality. We would do the same in Saudi Arabia based on the reasons we do it to “non-state enemy combatants (and their wedding guests)” its supposed to make you uncomfortable, focus on something that matters instead of trying to invalidate the one person that says it. Bad habit that might be reinforced by your surroundings.
- llp81 5y ago
  I liked the version where you said “bad habit in your culture” more, and I know it was there because I started responding to ask what you meant by “your culture” while you quickly edited it to be more acceptable. You should edit that back and own your opinion, because at least I’d respect you more for sticking to your value system. And no, “we” don’t. I don’t live in a NATO country, amigo.
  - vmception 5y ago
    I’m watching you form your thoughts in real time as well. As I’m responding to the third or fourth edit of this post too. So cool your head and give actual counterpoints, because everyone is wondering You are assuming there is no accuracy in what I wrote, replaced by the assumption I am being reductive and Islamophobic. I’m not conflating anything, Saudi Arabia beheads people for legal reasons there that do not match our human rights values here. The beheadings occur for the same reasons ISIS does beheadings, because they are both practicing Wahhabism. People have had their citizenships stripped and have been targeted from summary drone strikes, simply because they werent doing the exact same things within Saudi Arabia.
    - llp81 5y ago
      Why would I engage with someone who told me my commentary behavior is a bad habit in “my culture” and continues insisting that HN has a “here” and a “we”? Why are you still permitted on this site at all? This is like the third time I’ve seen you talking like this and it seems to be just enough on the line that you get away with it. Constantly.
michaelmrose 5y ago
Nobody said we should kill the citizens of Saudi Arabia.

by llp80 5y ago

exolymph 5y ago

He's right, though. I'm sure the vast majority of Yemenis are perfectly innocent and fuck-all good that does them. The observation about "drone strike eligible" populations is descriptive, not prescriptive, and it's about who is deemed expendable, not who should be (no one, obviously). That's the point of the third paragraph that you inexplicably dismissed.

llp80 5y ago
Uh, no, he very much isn’t. The second paragraph is demonstrably false and is pretty obvious Islamophobia. It’s a disingenuous conflation of sharia law and a caliphate, and imagine how weird it is for me that I find myself explaining this, of all people.
- h0l0cube 5y ago
  It might be an egregious conflation to say that 'all practices of ISIS' are enshrined by law in Saudi Arabia, but it's maybe a bit naive to think the two don't share some problematic ideology. I think recent leadership has been making some changes to bring SA more in line with Western liberal values, but hostile (religious-based) policy towards women[0], LGBTIQ+[1], and apostate Muslims[2], is still heavily enforced. The road to reform on any of these fronts is a long one. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia#Change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_rights_in_Saudi_Arab... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory#West_Asia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_terr... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_Saudi_Arabia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_Saudi_Arabia
- sat3492 5y ago
  > how weird it is for me that I find myself explaining this Both the "caliphate" and "sharia law" are advocated by the same book quoran. I dont understand why would you consider it is conflated and not related? Are you suggesting that we look only at the good parts of quoran that is suitable with the modern civil society like some prominent muslims suggest(example: mehdi of aljassera)?
  - dang 5y ago
    We've banned this account for religious flamewar. That's not allowed on HN, regardless of which religion you have a problem with. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
vmception 5y ago
> The observation about "drone strike eligible" populations is descriptive, not prescriptive, and it's about who is deemed expendable, not who should be (no one, obviously). Thank you I didn’t expect people to misinterpret that when my position is that US/NATO has no business being involved, or has indefensible moral reasons since they exempt so much as well

vmception 5y ago

“We” = US and NATO > I don’t want to kill anyone in Saudi Arabia, I don’t find any moral stance for the droning/wars to be convincing Read what you want to read, I guess, because this is what I wrote You chose to privilege my first paragraph of acknowledging reality, and invalidate my actual opinion. Fascinating. We drone strike weddings. Say it with me: we drone strike weddings, funerals, and summarily dismiss innocents in areas and populations as large as California. Share the air with me and acknowledge reality. We would do the same in Saudi Arabia based on the reasons we do it to “non-state enemy combatants (and their wedding guests)” its supposed to make you uncomfortable, focus on something that matters instead of trying to invalidate the one person that says it. Bad habit that might be reinforced by your surroundings.

llp81 5y ago
I liked the version where you said “bad habit in your culture” more, and I know it was there because I started responding to ask what you meant by “your culture” while you quickly edited it to be more acceptable. You should edit that back and own your opinion, because at least I’d respect you more for sticking to your value system. And no, “we” don’t. I don’t live in a NATO country, amigo.
- vmception 5y ago
  I’m watching you form your thoughts in real time as well. As I’m responding to the third or fourth edit of this post too. So cool your head and give actual counterpoints, because everyone is wondering You are assuming there is no accuracy in what I wrote, replaced by the assumption I am being reductive and Islamophobic. I’m not conflating anything, Saudi Arabia beheads people for legal reasons there that do not match our human rights values here. The beheadings occur for the same reasons ISIS does beheadings, because they are both practicing Wahhabism. People have had their citizenships stripped and have been targeted from summary drone strikes, simply because they werent doing the exact same things within Saudi Arabia.
  - llp81 5y ago
    Why would I engage with someone who told me my commentary behavior is a bad habit in “my culture” and continues insisting that HN has a “here” and a “we”? Why are you still permitted on this site at all? This is like the third time I’ve seen you talking like this and it seems to be just enough on the line that you get away with it. Constantly.

michaelmrose 5y ago

Nobody said we should kill the citizens of Saudi Arabia.