Most active commenters
  • jacquesm(10)
  • (8)
  • jules(7)
  • mercurial(6)
  • clock_tower(5)
  • threeseed(5)
  • toyg(4)
  • plonh(4)
  • gozo(4)
  • da1(3)

←back to thread

623 points franzb | 141 comments | | HN request time: 1.684s | source | bottom
1. djfm ◴[] No.10563795[source]
I live in Paris and was spending the night in the middle of the hot zone. I was a few hundred meters from the Bataclan but fortunately the area I was in was spared. I tried to get a Uber but they were unavailable, "State of emergency, please stay home", the app said. I took a city bike home, rode about 10kms and barely saw anyone in the streets all the way home. It was really, really weird. I'm awfully sad that people can be proud of having killed a hundred innocents. I'm not afraid, I'm just terribly sad. Please stop this pointless killing.
replies(7): >>10563844 #>>10563860 #>>10563992 #>>10564171 #>>10564206 #>>10564863 #>>10565816 #
2. bedhead ◴[] No.10563844[source]
You are trying to rationalize with people who are irrational. They don't reconcile. It sucks. It's depressing.
replies(4): >>10563887 #>>10563915 #>>10564337 #>>10564397 #
3. Fluid_Mechanics ◴[] No.10563860[source]
If we didn't need to secure their oil by supporting/deposing despots in the region, and didn't want to provide the Israelis with military/political/financial support then we would not be dealing with any of this carnage.

Their attempts to fight back will only escalate the situation, and the carnage will continue.

Edit: I'm not advocating that we not support Israel. I'm simply stating a hard truth regarding "why they hate us".

replies(11): >>10563865 #>>10563921 #>>10564420 #>>10564550 #>>10564593 #>>10564899 #>>10564913 #>>10565037 #>>10565143 #>>10565172 #>>10565383 #
4. 13thLetter ◴[] No.10563865[source]
Maaaaaaaybe wait until the bodies have cooled before you start searching for a way to blame the Jews? :(
replies(3): >>10563881 #>>10563904 #>>10563959 #
5. Fluid_Mechanics ◴[] No.10563881{3}[source]
This has nothing to do with blaming the Jews. The reason for all this carnage is obvious and we shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking otherwise.
replies(2): >>10563908 #>>10564924 #
6. rquantz ◴[] No.10563887[source]
Terrorism is usually a rational act. It is terrible, but it has political goals. This, for instance, may be aimed at ending the European involvement in Syria and their taking in refugees.
replies(12): >>10563905 #>>10563910 #>>10563914 #>>10563944 #>>10563957 #>>10563968 #>>10563970 #>>10563972 #>>10563973 #>>10564084 #>>10564085 #>>10564087 #
7. littletimmy ◴[] No.10563904{3}[source]
Israel = nation state. Jews = ethno-religious group.

Completely different.

replies(1): >>10564552 #
8. Fluid_Mechanics ◴[] No.10563905{3}[source]
Well, this one reeks of "revenge killing". The airstrikes must be taking their toll.
9. roosterjm2k2 ◴[] No.10563908{4}[source]
You're right... but its not the reason, its the excuse.

And a weak one.

Killing civilians doesn't work, and it never has... terrorism never wins... unless your a huge nation like the USA, then it wins...

10. charlesdm ◴[] No.10563910{3}[source]
> aimed at ending the European involvement in Syria

I would be quite surprised if the EU decided against further intervention by this. If anything, I would expect them to intervene more.

replies(2): >>10564012 #>>10564040 #
11. bedhead ◴[] No.10563914{3}[source]
It is only "rational" within an irrational construct, such as extreme religious devotion.
replies(1): >>10563966 #
12. ◴[] No.10563915[source]
13. ArekDymalski ◴[] No.10563944{3}[source]
It might be not about political goals:

http://www.gwern.net/Terrorism%20is%20not%20Effective

replies(3): >>10564363 #>>10564417 #>>10565433 #
14. dlss ◴[] No.10563957{3}[source]
> Which will come first, flying cars and vacations to Mars, or a simple acknowledgment that beliefs guide behavior and that certain religious ideas—jihad, martyrdom, blasphemy, apostasy—reliably lead to oppression and murder? It may be true that no faith teaches people to massacre innocents exactly—but innocence, as the President surely knows, is in the eye of the beholder. Are apostates “innocent”? Blasphemers? Polytheists? Islam has the answer, and the answer is “no.”

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/sleepwalking-toward-armag...

15. ◴[] No.10563959{3}[source]
16. lazaroclapp ◴[] No.10563966{4}[source]
No. It can be rational in the context of anti-colonialism and sovereignist ideology and historical revanchism, as well as many other not at all irrational ideologies. It might or might not be effective, depending on the specific political goals in question. It is not, in general, about religion per se, except in so much as religion is part of group identity (in a similar vein as say, nationalism).

But that is not the point. Targeting civilians for political purposes is not an act of insanity, but it is an unacceptable means, no matter the ends.

(Not saying that the ends are good in this case, nor the opposite. It just really doesn't matter.)

replies(1): >>10563979 #
17. tomphoolery ◴[] No.10563968{3}[source]
A lot of the time, terrorism is carried out by irrational people, but orchestrated by slightly more rational people. The people willing to risk their lives are not the same people that are convincing others to risk their lives. After all, if people like Sayyid Qutb actually risked his life, he wouldn't be able to convince other idiots to die.
replies(1): >>10564048 #
18. n0us ◴[] No.10563970{3}[source]
The data on terrorist attacks does not support this conclusion. Terrorism is rarely effective in its political goals and studies have concluded that it is not a rational or cost effective strategy.
replies(3): >>10563999 #>>10564052 #>>10564388 #
19. clock_tower ◴[] No.10563972{3}[source]
It used to be rational, rather. The classic terrorists of the '70s wanted "a lot of people talking but not a lot of people dead" -- and also wanted to survive the experience. The new breed of terrorism in the '80s and '90s was different from those; the IRA, the PLO, and various state-sponsored terrorists in that period had/have more in common with each other, despite their obvious differences, than any have with al-Qaida and ISIS, which aim for suicide missions with high body counts.

This particular operation is either ISIS-conducted or ISIS-oriented vigilanteism; whichever it is, backing down in Syria will only embolden them. (Or rather, embolden those like them; I don't imagine that very many of the specific attackers here are going to have particularly many opportunities to do this again in the future.)

ISIS is specifically out for either world empire or apocalyptic defeat (see http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isi... ); tactical concessions will work about as well as they did with the Nazis and the Communists -- or even less well than that, since neither Naziism nor Communism believed that success was a sign that Divine Providence was smiling on them.

replies(2): >>10564091 #>>10564144 #
20. cm2187 ◴[] No.10563973{3}[source]
I think it is actually the opposite. They are trying to provoke a christian involvement in Syria so that they can claim it is a cruisade and recruit more fighters in the muslim world. It is usually how terrorism work. IRA or ETA were doing exactly the same.
replies(3): >>10564049 #>>10564145 #>>10565064 #
21. jules ◴[] No.10563979{5}[source]
You really think that the sincere belief that you will spend an eternity in heaven and secure a place in heaven for 70 family members of your choosing and earn the love of God has nothing to do with it? It's hard for people who are not religious fundamentalists to understand that some people really believe this with as much certainty as you and I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow. This belief is precisely why so many of these attacks are suicide attacks. Ask yourself why so many suicide bombers? Why blow yourself up when you can make a bomb and then another and another? Mohamed Merah answers this question: "We love death more than the infidel loves life". To these people death is not death. This life is just a test, a test that you can ace by blowing yourself up, death is not the end but the beginning of the real and infinitely long life.

No doubt there are other factors involved, but to deny this key enabling factor which makes suicide terrorism an eminently rational thing to do is laughable and makes you blind to an important and maybe even the most important strategy against religious terrorism: education that sheds doubt on the literal interpretation of holy books. When you have even 1% of doubt that this is what God wants you to do, you may not be so inclined to blow yourself up.

I'm fully aware that this is a very unpopular observation to make, but ask yourself not whether it would be nice if this were false, but whether it is actually true or false. Wishful thinking does not get us anywhere.

replies(4): >>10564147 #>>10564180 #>>10564246 #>>10564375 #
22. da1 ◴[] No.10563992[source]
> Please stop this pointless killing.

I think by definition this anything but pointless.

replies(2): >>10564577 #>>10565278 #
23. jacquesm ◴[] No.10563999{4}[source]
That depends on what the goal is. My personal belief is that terrorist acts like these are a recruiting tool and a way to split society further enhancing opportunities to recruit and as such they can be effective if the counterparty reacts as they are supposed to do.
replies(1): >>10564991 #
24. jacquesm ◴[] No.10564012{4}[source]
They should do neither and simply carry on with the plans they had to date. Any reaction beyond police action to find out what the chain of command is and then targeting those individuals specifically is playing into their hands.
replies(1): >>10564512 #
25. tormeh ◴[] No.10564040{4}[source]
The EU does not have a common defense policy. A conventional union always has a common defense policy, but may have internally divergent economic policies, so the "U" in EU is misleading in that regard. Currently France and Britain are the only EU countries engaged in the conflict, with Turkey being a loose EU affiliate also in the conflict.
replies(1): >>10564058 #
26. gotchange ◴[] No.10564048{4}[source]
Egyptian here, actually Qutb risked his life and lost it for his "cause" and there's a lot of controversy surrounding this issue and it's a recurrent hot topic in political discussions here that his unlawful detention by the military authorities and the subsequent execution might have resulted in his radicalization and him espousing more extremist views of jihadism and political violence to effect social change in the nation because he was very aware of the fact at the time that he would be executed at any point so he had maybe a "fuck it" moment and decided to screw the world he would depart involuntarily by leaving his vile and despicable writing behind as a vendetta
replies(1): >>10564193 #
27. jacquesm ◴[] No.10564049{4}[source]
I think you are correct. And any kind of extra reaction is bonus and will help to further split the French society indirectly enabling further recruitment as well.
28. ojbyrne ◴[] No.10564052{4}[source]
Citation needed. The US and Israel are 2 rather successful examples of countries born out of terrorism.
replies(3): >>10564366 #>>10564380 #>>10564549 #
29. jacquesm ◴[] No.10564058{5}[source]
NL is involved as well but on a smaller scale.
30. VMG ◴[] No.10564084{3}[source]
It has had a 0% success rate of achieving political goals

http://www.gwern.net/Terrorism%20is%20not%20about%20Terror

replies(3): >>10564136 #>>10564308 #>>10564370 #
31. orthoganol ◴[] No.10564087{3}[source]
Having a logic is not the same as being rational.

All madness has its own logic.

I want a raise so I terrorize my boss until he gives me one is a logic, but it is not a rational approach.

replies(1): >>10564125 #
32. asasasasasas ◴[] No.10564091{4}[source]
> ISIS is specifically out for either world empire or apocalyptic defeat

Which is why (in my understanding) ISIS does not do attacks on foreign soil. Their idea is to re-establish a caliphate (ei Islamic empire, which existed from around the time of Mohamed for centuries). ISIS would probably be okay with those that cannot join the jihad in Syria conducting a terrorist attack on their home turf, but would not actively plan one.

All I'm saying is I would not be surprised if this isn't specifically ISIS.

replies(2): >>10564133 #>>10565746 #
33. calebm ◴[] No.10564125{4}[source]
Typically the irrationality is in the axioms, not the reasoning abilities.
34. clock_tower ◴[] No.10564133{5}[source]
They've inspired a lot of lone-wolf and copycat attacks, though, and I think they endorse the idea that if you can't get to Syria, you can at least kill people at home. I doubt that ISIS' actual government had anything to do with this, but the attackers were clearly thinking of ISIS -- "For Syria!" and all that.
35. toast0 ◴[] No.10564136{4}[source]
How much of that is because when terrorists achieve their political goals, we call them revolutionaries, resistance, freedom fighters, and sometimes insurgents. Only unsuccessful terrorists keep that label.
replies(1): >>10564410 #
36. toyg ◴[] No.10564144{4}[source]
> neither Naziism nor Communism believed that success was a sign that Divine Providence was smiling on them.

You didn't study your history, comrade! Communist orthodoxy believed in a historical inevitability that overlapped very closely with a sort of man-made Divine Providence. The Nazis had their own set of religious and spiritual motivations, their racial destiny and so on.

They differed from Abrahamic religions in the sense that they expected "victory" in this world and in their time, as opposed to vague posthumous compensations and end-of-times prophecies; but they did believe in a "greater power" manifesting itself in their successful deeds.

> backing down in Syria will only embolden them.

That's a false dichotomy. The problems in Syria won't go away with bombs, and it was manifestly stupid for Hollande to join the party willy-nilly, especially after having experienced first-hand the inefficiency of his security apparatus. What is needed is a real agreement between the real power brokers (Turkey, Saudi, Russia, Iran) to cut off the crazies for good. We need hard diplomacy, not hard policies.

replies(2): >>10564185 #>>10564416 #
37. clock_tower ◴[] No.10564145{4}[source]
If they're trying to provoke Christian involvement in Syria, they've succeeded; Pope Francis has called on the community of nations to restore order in Syria and suppress ISIS, and has stopped just this side of explicitly calling a crusade...
38. noobermin ◴[] No.10564171[source]
I wanted to get back to your comment given that this thread has erupted into a political discussion. I just wish you the best, and I hope that I am correct in saying that a lot of us have our thoughts with you and the rest of you in Paris.
39. toyg ◴[] No.10564180{6}[source]
> Why blow yourself up when you can make a bomb and then another and another?

To avoid having to endure the consequences of your own actions. For people with nothing to lose, suicide attacks are actually the most risk-averse choice: regardless of the possible existence of an afterworld, you're certain to escape punishment in this world. Look at Columbine-style attacks - no religion there, just semi-rational choices.

People don't blow themselves up because a book or a preacher tells them so; they do it because they are fed up with living shitty lives (either in material or spiritual terms). That is what education should bring them: the consciousness that there is always something worth living for. At that point, whether god exists or not, it doesn't matter.

replies(2): >>10564189 #>>10564408 #
40. clock_tower ◴[] No.10564185{5}[source]
> You didn't study your history, comrade! Communist orthodoxy believed in a historical inevitability that overlapped very closely with a sort of man-made Divine Providence. The Nazis had their own set of religious and spiritual motivations, their racial destiny and so on.

> They differed from Abrahamic religions in the sense that they expected "victory" in this world and in their time, as opposed to vague posthumous compensations and end-of-times prophecies; but they did believe in a "greater power" manifesting itself in their successful deeds.

Good point; I forgot about the historical-determinist side of Communism. I'm more familiar with the Nazis, who believed in an empty, Providence-less cosmos that was more or less Lovecraftian (and who accordingly made themselves a pretty convincing Cthulhu) -- see _Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning_ for the details.

> That's a false dichotomy. The problems in Syria won't go away with bombs, and it was manifestly stupid for Hollande to join the party willy-nilly, especially after having experienced first-hand the inefficiency of his security apparatus. What is needed is a real agreement between the real power brokers (Turkey, Saudi, Russia, Iran) to cut off the crazies for good. We need hard diplomacy, not hard policies.

Surely both at once wouldn't hurt. We need concerted ground action to defeat ISIS -- and in particular, we need Turkey to decide once and for all which side they're on -- but I don't think it's a bad idea to present a united front; I _do_ think that it's a bad idea to imagine that making concessions will inspire fewer lone wolves and opportunists, rather than more.

41. jules ◴[] No.10564189{7}[source]
This is what many people think, but it is demonstrably false. Most terrorists are highly educated and some are rich. The terrorists involved in 9/11 all had university degrees, for example, and some of them from western universities. These are not people who would be committing suicide anyway out of depression caused by miserable circumstances.

Frankly, I suspect that at least part of this comes from the aversion of highly educated and rich people to the idea that somebody much like them in those respects could do such a thing, and that it must be a poor lowly educated person doing it.

replies(1): >>10564334 #
42. astronautjones ◴[] No.10564193{5}[source]
thanks for the insight - is there good further reading on this topic? I'm really only familiar with it from Adam Curtis' docs
43. clock_tower ◴[] No.10564206[source]
I may be in the middle of an argument about Communism (which is the last thing I was expecting here!), but you and everyone in France are in my prayers.
44. coldtea ◴[] No.10564246{6}[source]
>You really think that the sincere belief that you will spend an eternity in heaven and secure a place in heaven for 70 family members of your choosing and earn the love of God has nothing to do with it? (...) and makes you blind to an important and maybe even the most important strategy against religious terrorism: education that sheds doubt on the literal interpretation of holy books.

That's a caricature. A lot of the perpetrators, like in 9/11, are highly educated and even westernized people, not some backwater goat herders believing such BS.

They could be attracted to those tactics as a mean of compensating for personal issues etc (same way weirdos shoots up a school or a cinema elsewhere), but the political element is involved too.

The fundamendalist is not someone who believes naively such things (most devout village folks are peaceful and pragmatic and could not care less), but rather someone who "goes back" into believing such things (and even has self-doubt he tries to shake by action etc).

replies(1): >>10565263 #
45. ◴[] No.10564308{4}[source]
46. toyg ◴[] No.10564334{8}[source]
I know very well what you mention, but you're not reading what I wrote: "either in material or spiritual terms". Well-educated people are the first to know that society is full of lies and deceit, and without some spiritual rooting (be it familial love or something else), they are at high risk of being depressed but functional individuals. Alienation is a very powerful force. We used to say that only the rich can worry about being sad.

My second statement is coherent with this view: what education should give people is such a rooting. This is not necessarily what it does currently give them. In fact, a lot of academic tracks do their best to kill off any ounce of sentimentalism in one's heart. If it's really "all about data", killing a few hundreds "for the greater good of billions" doesn't look like such a terrible choice. This is something we really should keep in mind.

replies(1): >>10565184 #
47. benihana ◴[] No.10564337[source]
>You are trying to rationalize with people who are irrational.

In my opinion, this is the most dangerous statement in this thread. Saying the actions of these people is irrational loses any ability to understand why they're doing what they're doing and how we can stop them. It turns them into a faceless enemy who are doing things because of hate, which is easy and makes my ego feel better, but doesn't really explain their actions or the actions of anyone. Nobody thinks they're the bad guy of their own story.

There is nothing more rational than terrorizing civilians to achieve a goal. It is the logical conclusion of rationality.

replies(5): >>10564392 #>>10564425 #>>10564608 #>>10564816 #>>10565710 #
48. plonh ◴[] No.10564363{4}[source]
Gwern's analysis looks hopelessly naive in the face of modern ISIS-related acts; and ignores the difference between USA, where poison Tylenol causes a huge response, and China where people expect bad fake drugs with a certain frequency.

And he ignores that over-complicated (in gwern's view) cost over a trillion dollars in US response, from NSA to TSA to Afghan and Iraq war.

49. plonh ◴[] No.10564366{5}[source]
Terrorism (attackif civilians to upset people) or asymmetric warfare against a ruling power apparatus?
50. plonh ◴[] No.10564370{4}[source]
Gwern had a very limited view of "political goals".
51. plonh ◴[] No.10564375{6}[source]
Quite a fraction of suicide attackers were blackmailed into the act.
replies(1): >>10565223 #
52. mc32 ◴[] No.10564380{5}[source]
An insurrection might include some terrorism but they also include a swell and majority of guerrilla foot soldiers whose purpose is to bring their agenda to a close. They don't just go about rampaging and killing without strategy.
53. aianus ◴[] No.10564388{4}[source]
We don't call it terrorism when it's effective, we retroactively apply terms like "revolution" and "war of independence" instead.
54. downandout ◴[] No.10564392{3}[source]
They are doing what they are doing because they have interpreted their primary religious text as explicitly instructing them to kill people that don't believe as they do. Killing another human being that poses no threat to you, regardless of what books you like to read or what instructions you believe they contain, is absolutely irrational - regardless of your "goal". Rational people have no way of understanding these actions, nor should they.
replies(3): >>10564415 #>>10564562 #>>10564831 #
55. rayiner ◴[] No.10564397[source]
It's not irrational. It's terrible, but it's a conscious and thought out attack on French social order, and a purposeful political statement. Which makes it far worse.
56. Chathamization ◴[] No.10564408{7}[source]
Very much so. My guess is if you decide to look at the angry dispossessed young men demographic, you're going to see a group more prone to violence than you would by looking at any racial or religious demographic.
replies(1): >>10565222 #
57. mc32 ◴[] No.10564410{5}[source]
Sometimes, sometimes. Insurrections typically have an obvious oppression they are trying to overcome. Some insurrections have a terrorist arm, but purely terrorist organizations don't have a direct aim other than cause instability. They don't have an end game. So, I think purely terrorist groups tend to not win as terrorists, sometimes they transform in the process to garner more support and subsequently win but not as pure terrorist organizations but will have become more mainstream.
58. spdustin ◴[] No.10564415{4}[source]
Last I heard, they were doing this to avenge their countrymen. In fact, we don't really know all the whos and the whys, we just know the whats. And what happened was a horrible thing that needs to be investigated, pored over, and responded to in a measured, rational way that doesn't become a nationstate-enabled revenge plot.
replies(2): >>10564450 #>>10564573 #
59. josephcooney ◴[] No.10564416{5}[source]
Also, I'm pretty sure Hitler attributed his survival in the face of the assassination attempt in 1944 to his "divine protection" (at least in the propaganda afterwards).
60. gozo ◴[] No.10564417{4}[source]
I've tried to take that analysis seriously when people have linked it before, but to me it just doesn't seem very relevant to the real world. I'm curious what you mean when you say that it's not about political goals and how that is supported?

Terrorists are by definition extremists. They want to upset the status quo to force people to take sides and create a situation where they feel they, who are righteous, have a better chance of being successful or at least relevant. Whether that is a race war, holy war or revolution. The killing itself isn't particularly relevant until your fighting over land and then normally in form of ethnic cleansing.

The analysis you linked misses a the point of e.g. the terrorist plot in Norway. It's wasn't just about killing people, he deliberately tried to effect politics by killing a generation of people he disagreed with. He also believed that it was part of and going to lead to a larger conflict.

61. ◴[] No.10564420[source]
62. ◴[] No.10564425{3}[source]
63. downandout ◴[] No.10564450{5}[source]
This is ISIS, at least that's the best guess of most of the experts being quoted in the media (and most rational observers of world news).
64. pistle ◴[] No.10564512{5}[source]
This presumes that playing into their hands would actually bring forth enough support to rebuff the reaction. If forces overwhelmingly squash the terrorist organization, then it doesn't matter if it plays into said organization's hands.

This isn't a game won by winning a debate. When one side can be essentially removed from the field, that is an option, even if the side being removed wanted that line of strategy to unfold. Controlling the plays doesn't mean you win the game.

Unbeknownst to me, I have a proclivity for alcoholism. I am libertarian during a prohibition and work to remove limitations on what, when, where, and how I imbibe. I am successful in deregulating alcohol... then I become alcoholic and die from liver failure... I WIN!

replies(1): >>10565019 #
65. YZF ◴[] No.10564549{5}[source]
If you're referring to attacks against Britain I don't recall any cases of Americans or Israelis randomly killing civilians in the UK.

I don't see any parallel whatsoever to the events of today.

No one can predict the outcome of today's events so by definition they are irrational. I would bet that no good would come out of this to anyone.

replies(1): >>10567451 #
66. ofirnachum ◴[] No.10564550[source]
Assuming that the majority of the problem will go away with the end of the support of Israel is very wishful thinking. There are many complex causes of events like this and blaming Israel is pure scapegoating.
replies(1): >>10564848 #
67. acjohnson55 ◴[] No.10564552{4}[source]
Distinct concepts? Sure. But completely different is an exaggeration.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_and_Democratic_State

replies(1): >>10564725 #
68. jordigh ◴[] No.10564562{4}[source]
No, that's again a refusal to understand why they are doing it. Happy religious people (say, devout Hindus during Diwali) don't go around killing others. There is a lot of "otherness" and segregation in Europe, poverty and war in the countries of origin, and many other factors that radicalise people. Saying that they're doing it because of a book (that they probably didn't even read) is just your own way to turn them into a justifiable target.
replies(1): >>10564850 #
69. rdudek ◴[] No.10564573{5}[source]
When you avenge your countrymen, you avenge by killing the people at fault... not innocent folks enjoying a concert.
replies(4): >>10564602 #>>10564990 #>>10565021 #>>10567533 #
70. anardil ◴[] No.10564577[source]
What do you mean by this?
replies(2): >>10564943 #>>10565279 #
71. dbcooper ◴[] No.10564593[source]
Are you saying that France is a big supporter of Israel?
72. TeMPOraL ◴[] No.10564602{6}[source]
Unless you want to do actual damage. In terror attacks, deaths are only collateral, the real damage is the overreaction of the attacked nation. It's an effective thing if you blame a country.
73. myegorov ◴[] No.10564608{3}[source]
I agree that with asymmetrical warfare resorting to terrorism is rational. What seems irrational is our inability to recognize the struggle of our enemy for what it's worth and our refusal to negotiate. I can't think of an example where negotiations (as in granting that your partner in negotiations is your peer) haven't led to a net positive outcome. To take but one example close to home: The Soviet Union was founded by a terrorist group. The ultimate recognition of the state by western powers and their foreign policy of engagement -- aside from the Cold War era -- was instrumental in bringing the enemy to its knees (whatever the wider repercussions of this outcome).
replies(1): >>10565038 #
74. littletimmy ◴[] No.10564725{5}[source]
Look, I'm sure Israel wants to be a jewish state, just like Pakistan wants to be an Islamic state and some people want the US to be a Christian state. That doesn't mean much except politics. The fact of the matter is that nation states are very different beasts from ethno-religious groups.
75. 0mbre ◴[] No.10564816{3}[source]
Killing innocent, helpless people IS irrational. Period
replies(2): >>10564919 #>>10564982 #
76. solipsism ◴[] No.10564831{4}[source]
Rational.. irrational.. I hope you can see that it's a pointless argument. The word "rational" is highly subjective so we shouldn't pretend there's some objective measure of rationality.

* Kill an innocent civilian * Have or perform an abortion * Eat meat * Fight in a war * Drop an atomic bomb on a city * Commit suicide

That's all shit that some people call rational and others call irrational. The truth is that "rational" is a word we choose because it sounds objective and authoritative, but it really means: "something that makes sense to me"

replies(1): >>10564981 #
77. gozo ◴[] No.10564848{3}[source]
I don't think it's "pure scapegoating". It's very much a relevant part to understand the mechanics behind thing like this. The French ban on anti-Isreali demonstrations might very well have helped radicalization and recruitment of young people with non-french backgrounds. So might the last years worsening conflict in Palestine. It shouldn't be a particularly controversial statement to say that there are things that Isreal do, like settlements, that is not good for the security of EU/US.
replies(2): >>10564937 #>>10564960 #
78. sampo ◴[] No.10564850{5}[source]
> There is a lot of "otherness" and segregation in Europe

There are lots of e.g. Indian, Chinese, South-East Asian, immigrants in Europe. And all over the world. If anything, they look less caucasian than people from Middle East / North Africa, so one would assume them to face even more racism. But they have not produced terrorists.

79. IvanDenisovich ◴[] No.10564899[source]
So far Israel hasn't featured high on Isis' agenda, and there have been no significant isis attacks on Israeli targets. This is despite the fact that they almost share a border. Neither are Palestinians' rights a top priority for isis. What's left of the the residents of Yarmouk refugee camp will testify to that. In short, Isis is not about israel vs palestine, it's about a deeper social/religious clash of ideas. So maybe before you try to ratonalize isis, you actually read up on their core beliefs. You might find out that this is one murderous organization whose actions you can't blame on israel.
replies(1): >>10564964 #
80. mercurial ◴[] No.10564913[source]
One of the attackers was heard saying it was about Syria. This isn't about Israel at all.
replies(1): >>10567479 #
81. mercurial ◴[] No.10564919{4}[source]
It's irrational if you do it for kicks. It's rational if you expect a strategic advantage for your group/nation-state out of it. Whether it is moral to do is an entirely different discussion.
82. chroma ◴[] No.10564924{4}[source]
Obvious? I'm still not following. I can't figure out how somebody goes from, "The US is responsible for the death and suffering of my countrymen." to "Let's kill lots of French civilians."
83. warsheep ◴[] No.10564937{4}[source]
A lot of "may" and "might" in your reply, and absolutely no facts. The facts are that on ISIS' agenda, fighting Palestinian groups such as Hamas has a higher priority than fighting Israel [1][2], yet people in this thread still manage to "lightly" blame the Israelis, the US, basically anyone except those responsible, as if these people are incapable of independent thought.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/world/middleeast/isis-abu-...

[2] http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/07/islamic-st...

replies(2): >>10564972 #>>10565245 #
84. Abraln ◴[] No.10564943{3}[source]
Not the gp, but "pointless" killing would be more like someone killing people because they were bored and had nothing better to do. Extremism is all about ideals inspiring action. The hate and retorhic IS the point for them, even if flawed. I think "senseless" killing/violence is a better descriptor.
replies(1): >>10565288 #
85. ◴[] No.10564960{4}[source]
86. threeseed ◴[] No.10564964{3}[source]
Exactly right. The plight of the Palestinians is a significant recruiting tool but that's all it is. ISIS has no plans to liberate them.

The purpose of ISIS is exactly what they say it is. To establish their own state governed by hard-right Islamic ideals. And the reason they have so much support is largely driven from the perceived persecution of Muslims worldwide e.g. xenophobia in Western countries, drone strikes on innocent civilians etc.

replies(1): >>10565390 #
87. threeseed ◴[] No.10564972{5}[source]
> lightly" blame the Israelis, the US, basically anyone except those responsible.

This argument is so stupid.

Everyone is blaming the people responsible. That's a given. The reason people are blaming Israel and the US is because they are indirectly responsible since their actions are used as recruitment tools.

replies(2): >>10564997 #>>10565010 #
88. tonyedgecombe ◴[] No.10564981{5}[source]
It's important because to start to solve these problems you have to be able to see things from their point of view, you can't really do that if you think they are irrational.
replies(1): >>10565099 #
89. threeseed ◴[] No.10564982{4}[source]
It's not irrational at all.

If your goal is to terrify a nation in order to pressure it to change its foreign policy then it is quite rational. And there are quite a few examples of this approach actually working.

replies(1): >>10565080 #
90. threeseed ◴[] No.10564990{6}[source]
To be fair the US et al has killed many innocent civilians in the Middle East.

It's not intentional but I doubt ISIS sympathisers see the distinction.

91. Abraln ◴[] No.10564991{5}[source]
Agreed, reputation is critical for a terrorist organization, just like how gang members brag about how "hardcore" they are because the shot someone.
92. akshatpradhan ◴[] No.10564997{6}[source]
They clearly use scapegoats to push forward with their agenda. Didn't Al-Qaeda declare Jihad on India? That's a scapegoat. India has nothing to do with them, but they've declared Jihad. France has nothing to do with them, but they bombed her citizens.
93. warsheep ◴[] No.10565010{6}[source]
The US, France, and other European countries I can actually understand, since these countries performed military operations in Iraq and/or Syria, but I'll be very surprised if Israel is used as a recruiting tool. If you have some sources implying this I'm interested in reading them!
replies(2): >>10565044 #>>10565073 #
94. ordinary ◴[] No.10565019{6}[source]
> This presumes that playing into their hands would actually bring forth enough support to rebuff the reaction. If forces overwhelmingly squash the terrorist organization, then it doesn't matter if it plays into said organization's hands.

That is true as far as it goes, but the fundamental problem is not IS, nor Al-Qaeda, nor any single terrorist group out there, nor even all terrorist groups taken together. It's the extremist ideology that appeals to young, angry men across the Muslim world. Taking out Al-Qaeda in 2001 didn't have any effect in the long term. Going to war with Iraq in 2003 actively made the problem worse. Killing bin Laden in 2011 didn't really do anything one way or the other. If the West goes in now, and (figuratively) nukes Syria, then why would we think that will solve the problem, when it never has before?

If you want to win this like you win a war, by killing your way to victory, then you have to kill not just everyone who's currently carrying a gun, but everyone who may pick up a gun as a reaction to that killing, and everyone who may pick one up as a reaction to killing them, and so forth. That kind of total war is immoral, in my view.

Our approach to defusing this threat should not be focused on killing individuals, but on removing the motivations they have for fighting us in the first place, without judging whether, in our view, they are valid or not. The fact that they have them, right or wrong, is all that matters. I don't know what will achieve that, but after responding to over 30 years of Islamic violence with force and force alone, and failing to really have much impact, we should recognize that a change in strategy is required.

95. alfapla ◴[] No.10565021{6}[source]
> It's not intentional but I doubt ISIS sympathisers see the distinction.

I don't see the distinction either. If you drop a bomb and kill some people that you didn't intend to kill, you're still 100% responsible for those kills.

It is the saddest thing that we have found no better response to terrorism than limiting civil liberties and sending 18 year old boys with guns to foreign countries.

96. oh_sigh ◴[] No.10565037[source]
How do you know? Imagine another 700m people even poorer than they are now. That might breed extremism I'm sure western meddling can explain some of the extremist responses, but I'm not sure it can explain all of them.
replies(1): >>10565952 #
97. oh_sigh ◴[] No.10565038{4}[source]
How about chamberlains negotiations with Hitler?
replies(1): >>10566157 #
98. threeseed ◴[] No.10565044{7}[source]
Why would you be surprised Israel's persecution of the Palestinians would be a recruiting tool ? It's a major issue for almost every Muslim worldwide. ISIS have absolutely been recruiting on the back of this and I've seen recruits from Australia even mention it when interviewed.

There are plenty of examples: http://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-manual-al-qaeda-and-no... http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/king-of-jordan-isis-used-gaza-...

replies(1): >>10565083 #
99. rquantz ◴[] No.10565064{4}[source]
I actually think you're probably right as well – my original post was done before I'd had much time to reflect. Terrorism is usually done to provoke some kind of hardening response, and today in practice that seems to mean trying to further embroil western countries in military conflict in the Middle East.
100. ◴[] No.10565073{7}[source]
101. 0mbre ◴[] No.10565080{5}[source]
Well obvioysly to someone irrational every of his action seem rational.

The point is that for a phycologicaly healthy and balanced human being these actions can not be called rational by any stretch of logic

replies(1): >>10565494 #
102. warsheep ◴[] No.10565083{8}[source]
Interesting articles, thanks!
103. 0mbre ◴[] No.10565099{6}[source]
Well you can wonder why did these people act irrationaly? Could these behaviour have been detected? Could they have been helped out of this narrowed point of view of thinking that killing innocent is the right thing to do ? I don't think anyone today hasn't in mind those questions.
replies(1): >>10565341 #
104. bjourne ◴[] No.10565143[source]
We had a suicide bomber in Sweden who blew himself up because he was angry that the government didn't arrest Lars Vilks, an artist who had made some drawings of Muhammed which he thought was offensive (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lars_Vilks_Muhammad_drawings_c...).

Swedish Muslim terrorists also tried to create a massacre at Jyllandsposten because of their drawings (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_carto...).

These terrorists were born and raised in Sweden, had a better standard of living than me, studied engineering in university and had nothing to complain about. Sweden doesn't attack any countries, we love Palestine and dislike Israel (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/30/sweden-official...) and we shelter 80-100,000 Muslim refugees/year. What should we do exactly? Jail all cartoonists and make it a crime to insult Islam?

replies(2): >>10565173 #>>10565287 #
105. olavk ◴[] No.10565172[source]
It is amazing how many in this thread who make declarations about the underlying political causes for this tragedy. As far as I know, no group have yet claimed responsibilities and very little is known about the perpetrators at this point. Theories have been put forth that they are either IS or al-Queda, two groups with quite different history and agenda. And it is still not confirmed it is either. So any attempt at political explanation at this point is pure knee-jerk.
replies(1): >>10565396 #
106. jamesblonde ◴[] No.10565173{3}[source]
Hard to know how people will react here in Sweden. It's an awful tragedy. I suspect it will lead to large changes in how Europe works, probably not for the better. Just as happened post September 11.
107. jules ◴[] No.10565184{9}[source]
I'm not sure what your stance is in that case. I certainly agree with you that these people are spiritually maladjusted. They way I see it there are two competing theories. One is that terrorism is mainly the result of economic and political grievances against the west and already present psychological disorders. The other is that in addition to economic and political grievances, religion and theological grievances play a major role, and that these people aren't crazy people but people who have become convinced of a crazy idea. The former is the mainstream left wing theory, and while I am generally sympathetic to the left, this theory simply does not fit the data.

If true we would expect terrorists to be more lowly educated and poor people who mainly come from countries that have suffered under the west. We would expect these to be people who hate life, not people who love death. We would expect terrorism to be weakly or not at all correlated to religion. We would expect that the terrorists are not explicitly telling us that they're doing it because of religious dogma. We would expect terrorist groups to be fighting against the west, and not mass murdering Yazidi's for example, who have absolutely nothing to do with what happens in the world. Of all western countries, we would not expect these attacks to be against France so many times. Why have previous attacks and outrages focused on cartoonists? I could go on and on. What we actually observe is the opposite.

All of this is explained perfectly well by the second theory.

replies(1): >>10565610 #
108. jules ◴[] No.10565222{8}[source]
Then why is it the case that virtually all these terrorist attacks come from 1 religion, which coincidentally happens to be the religion whose scripture makes this kind of behaviour rational when interpreted literally?
replies(1): >>10565431 #
109. jules ◴[] No.10565223{7}[source]
Do you have a reference for this?
110. gozo ◴[] No.10565245{5}[source]
People who have historically done these kinds of act don't care about IS nor are they devote Muslims. They care about support for Israel because it is seen as a further proof of the west mistreating Muslims. It's not about blaming Israel, it's about western governments doing things like the french did and first celebrating free speech after Charlie Hebdo, just to ban anti-Israeli demonstrations. That's a great recruiting tool to use on young person in a suburb already feeling mistreated by the government.
111. jules ◴[] No.10565263{7}[source]
> That's a caricature. A lot of the perpetrators, like in 9/11, are highly educated and even westernized people, not some backwater goat herders believing such BS.

I am fully aware of this, I said so in other comment. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10564189 The mistake you are making here is the idea that otherwise intelligent and educated people cannot believe crazy things. Just look at the Christian nutjobs.

112. ◴[] No.10565278[source]
113. da1 ◴[] No.10565279{3}[source]
Because it's very clear that whoever did this had a point, an objective. Therefore it's not pointless.
114. gozo ◴[] No.10565287{3}[source]
Sweden hasn't been as affected as other countries. Instability will always spill over from conflicts, there's nothing special about this era. RAF occupied the West German embassy in Stockholm in 1975 and planned to kidnap a Swedish politician. To some extent it's the same for France, they didn't invade Iraq, created Guantanamo or other things to escalate the conflict yet they are targeted. Maybe because they have a lot of dealings in the Middle East or to please IS supporters or it's just convenient. I'm sure people will speculate a lot about this in the coming months.
replies(1): >>10565374 #
115. da1 ◴[] No.10565288{4}[source]
You totally got it.
116. tonyedgecombe ◴[] No.10565341{7}[source]
But all the while you think they acted irrationally I don't think you will really be able to understand why they did it.
117. jacquesm ◴[] No.10565374{4}[source]
The case of a 'connection' for France is much easier to establish than for Sweden.
118. alfapla ◴[] No.10565383[source]
Actually, both Israel and Palestines are a bit befuddled that their eternal little conflict has lost a good deal of importance to the rest of the world in view of the bigger events in the Mideast. Which probably is a good thing, since both parties were acting like the spoilt children of global attention.
119. jacquesm ◴[] No.10565390{4}[source]
I'm not too worried about ISIS running up against Israel, but I'm very worried about the connection between ISIS and Pakistan.
replies(1): >>10565711 #
120. jacquesm ◴[] No.10565396{3}[source]
"Paris attacks: Islamic State says killings were response to Syria strikes"

http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/nov/14/paris-terr...

121. Chathamization ◴[] No.10565431{9}[source]
Because people with certain biases who want to ignore evidence and blame this all on Islam to define "these terrorist attacks" in a way that excludes many similar attacks? We've been averaging about one mass shooting a day in the U.S. There are so many that I'd forgotten about some major recent ones, like the Umpqua Community College Shooting just a month ago.

These usually get planned well in advance by some very sick people who are trying to kill as many people as they can and go out in a blaze of glory. Sure, the existence of opportunistic terrorists networks that get these people to coordinate their attacks and stamp a ideology on them tends to mean that the one day body count is higher for a particular incident. Still, the body count per attacker is often comparable, it's just that the attacks happen on the same day instead of a few weeks apart.

But yeah, if we ignore the non-Muslims who do things like this we can say it's all the fault of Muslims.

replies(1): >>10565495 #
122. jacquesm ◴[] No.10565433{4}[source]
That link gets way too much airtime. As much as I usually like Gwerns analysis this one seems in spite of the mountain of citations to miss the point entirely.
123. eivarv ◴[] No.10565494{6}[source]
I think you'll find that psychological health has little to do with what people can convince themselves of, or convince themselves to do - i.e. you can't explain away Daesh (or WWII nazis, etc.) with mental illness.

Their actions could absolutely be called rational and logical if you were to accept their premise - which is what I'd argue is irrational.

replies(1): >>10565738 #
124. jules ◴[] No.10565495{10}[source]
There is a difference between a lone mass shooting and a terrorist attack coordinated by a government. It goes without saying that this is not the fault of Muslims in general. It's the fault of some Muslims, in this case IS.
replies(1): >>10565642 #
125. toyg ◴[] No.10565610{10}[source]
The two are nonexclusive. If you are a disaffected/disenfranchised third-generation Algerian immigrant, you have a predisposition to pick a fight with the old colonial power, and you just need an excuse. Same if you come from Syria or Egypt and are well-educated; you have no idea of the amount of propaganda and West-blaming people in these countries grew up with for generations, because of things like the never-ending problem with Israel/Palestine, the Iranian coup against Mossadiq, the Iran/Iraq war and all the other conflicts "we" had an active role in. In the '70s, a lot of violent action was justified with marxism or fascism; today they can be justified with wahabism. If a particular religion was so magic, we would have had "islamic" suicide bombers for 5 centuries, and we just hadn't. You can't make chocolate cake with just chocolate.

> Of all western countries, we would not expect these attacks to be against France so many times.

And why not? They have been among the most brutal colonial powers, with shocking behaviour in Northern Africa and ongoing active military engagement across Africa -- in large part because of their ideological bent on absolutist superiority of the French republican model. They actively worked to blow up Lybia and actively support anti-islamic forces there. And of course they have now joined the anti-IS bombing campaign, because they hate to be left behind when there is to engage around the Mediterranean Sea. All the while, they have huge swaths of disenfranchised 2nd and 3rd generation-immigrant youth in their midst that they simply don't know what to do with. They are the easiest target after the UK, but unlike Britain they are not an island, their borders are very porous, and their security services are clearly less effective than the Five Eyes axis. On top of that, this: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/14/france-active-p...

126. Chathamization ◴[] No.10565642{11}[source]
I suppose, in the same way that Dylan Roof is the fault of some Conservatives, or some Southerners, or some Americans, etc. Yes, the existence of terrorist organizations that make use of these lost angry men means that in a minority of these cases a group can tell them to attack on the same day rather than weeks apart, and means they can stamp an ideology on them, like I said. So yes, there is a difference, just as there is a difference between the shooting that are done by a couple of friends (like Columbine) and the ones done by a lone wolf (VTech).

Still, people don't find it inappropriate to bring up Columbine when they talk about VTech or Aurora. When people try very hard to exclude all the other mass attacks and single out only the ones connected to Islam in situations like this speaks more to their personal biases than anything else.

127. bedhead ◴[] No.10565710{3}[source]
Oh lordy, no wonder this thread got partially shut down. Calling a pack of murdering religious extremists irrational now classifies as the most dangerous thing that can be said about the situation - yikes. Did I invade your safe space?

They did not terrorize citizens, they murdered them in the name of their non-existent god. Life will go on in Paris just as it did in New York. There is no goal other than blood lust and grim spectacle. All because of their nonsense and yes, irrational religion.

replies(1): >>10569073 #
128. mercurial ◴[] No.10565711{5}[source]
Is ISIS really linked to Pakistan? I understand there are strong suspicions of connections between Turkey and ISIS (at least pre-bombings). But I hadn't heard of a link with Pakistan until now. I thought Pakistani intelligence was happy coddling the "right" talibans and their home-grown anti-Indian terrorist groups. Do you have any evidence this connection?
replies(1): >>10565724 #
129. jacquesm ◴[] No.10565724{6}[source]
http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2015/05/25/national/nato-say...

And a ton of other news articles on the same subject. Pakistan is super dangerous because it is not all that hard to imagine a number of groups within Pakistan switching allegiance. It is also super dangerous because it is a nuclear power and has a long history of factions inside it trying to pull Pakistan into a much more radical direction.

replies(1): >>10565818 #
130. mercurial ◴[] No.10565738{7}[source]
You don't even need a Godwin point for that. Nobody was calling Air Marshall Harris, well-known for his strategy of carpet-bombing civilians with incendiaries during WWII, "insane" or "irrational". Instead, they gave him a bunch of medals and made him a baronet.
131. mercurial ◴[] No.10565746{5}[source]
Putting pressure on countries being part of the offensive against them is definitely in their interest, which is why it came to no surprise at all when it turned out that they were behind the attack.
132. born2web ◴[] No.10565816[source]
I stand with you Parisians in solidarity. I have lived and worked in Paris. It is my favorite city in the world. To see the city suffering is so very sad and painful.
133. mercurial ◴[] No.10565818{7}[source]
Didn't know about that. Now, that's not reassuring, considering that they make the child-killing Talibans look like moderates...
replies(1): >>10565864 #
134. jacquesm ◴[] No.10565864{8}[source]
Yes. It's a huge problem, and it looks like it is getting larger by the day.
135. iofj ◴[] No.10565952{3}[source]
Looking at those arrested for joining ISIS here in my home country I don't know how you can say that. They were not poor, they were not excluded or treated in a racist manner at all. And there are very little lines between them, men and women, from different parts of the country, from different backgrounds (semi-rural versus rural, native/non-native, dutch, french, english-speaking, rich/middle class (I'd say no poor people so far), ...).

About the only link between the ISIS members from Western Europe is that they're muslims. Even that is "not 100%" true, since there are also Christians and some Kurds traveling to Syria/Iraq. The examples of that I know went there to help, of course (medically in 2 cases, sort of an amateur doctors without borders, mostly because neither doctors without borders, nor the red cross risk sending people there, but they did have family there). Of course we don't know that's all they did. At least they're claiming to provide medical help, none of the muslims who got caught going to Syria ever even bothered to say they were going for any reason other than fighting, and some saying they went off for killing and some shit about allah.

This is a convicted ISIS terrorist that went off to kill people and came back, talking to a reporter of the public service about how and why : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKg2UsfnxHc

Claiming that people like this are poor or treated badly by the country they were born into is moronic.

Meanwhile the tensions between (sunni) muslims and everybody, literally everybody else are rising ever more. Fights and crimes against the "natives", and every other minority, from the Jews of Antwerp to the Turks of Molenbeek (there is a large (sometimes very) atheist contingent amongst Turks).

136. myegorov ◴[] No.10566157{5}[source]
I understand your point is that direct confrontation at times cannot be avoided. In particular, you may be provoked to defend yourself, as in the Soviet Union entering WWII upon Germany violating the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. I'm of the opinion that only this latter case of agression justifies taking up arms. Any violence by way of preventive action lends itself too easily to abuses, as we see with the so-called war on terrorism. In the context of WWII, it's not at all clear that anything other than collective action of the allies and the Soviet Union could have stopped Germany. And for that, the events had to run their course. One can find fault with indecision on refugees, but not with appeasement efforts.
137. ojbyrne ◴[] No.10567451{6}[source]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing
replies(1): >>10568057 #
138. Reef ◴[] No.10567479{3}[source]
What one of them allegedly shouted, may not be a proof that the whole thing was about Syria.
139. Reef ◴[] No.10567533{6}[source]
What if all you got is an Ak47 and they have ships, tanks, air fighters and drones in the sky?

Please think what would happen if the tables were turned - your country is invaded by a much bigger nation with a technological advantage. Would you organize a peaceful protest for your enemy to ignore?

140. YZF ◴[] No.10568057{7}[source]
Did you even read this before hitting the reply button? No parallels whatsoever.

- The King David hotel is in Jerusalem. Not in the UK.

- Warnings were given before the explosion.

- The hotel was housing the occupying British government, military and police. This isn't blindly targeting civilians in an attempt to terrorize the population.

There are a lot more details that make this very different. This is not to say that the outcome was not terrible in cost of human lives or that the perpetrators aren't responsible. It's just very different.

From the article: "American author Thurston Clarke's analysis of the bombing gave timings for calls and for the explosion, which he said took place at 12:37. He stated that as part of the Irgun plan, a sixteen-year-old recruit, Adina Hay (alias Tehia), was to make three warning calls before the attack. At 12:22 the first call was made, in both Hebrew and English, to a telephone operator on the hotel's switchboard (the Secretariat and the military each had their own, separate, telephone exchanges). It was ignored.[5] At 12:27, the second warning call was made to the French Consulate adjacent to the hotel to the north-east. This second call was taken seriously, and staff went through the building opening windows and closing curtains to lessen the impact of the blast. At 12:31 a third and final warning call to the Palestine Post newspaper was made. The telephone operator called the Palestine Police CID to report the message. She then called the hotel switchboard. The hotel operator reported the threat to one of the hotel managers. This warning resulted in the discovery of the milk cans in the basement, but by then it was too late.[5]"

...

"Security analyst Bruce Hoffman has written that the hotel "housed the nerve centre of British rule in Palestine".[13]"

...

Security analyst Bruce Hoffman wrote of the bombing in his book Inside Terrorism that: "Unlike many terrorist groups today, the Irgun's strategy was not deliberately to target or wantonly harm civilians. At the same time, though, the claim of Begin and other apologists that warnings were issued cannot absolve either the group or its commander for the ninety-one people killed and forty-five others injured ... Indeed, whatever nonlethal intentions the Irgun might or might not have had, the fact remains that a tragedy of almost unparalleled magnitude was inflicted ... so that to this day the bombing remains one of the world's single most lethal terrorist incidents of the twentieth century."[13]

141. hjura ◴[] No.10569073{4}[source]
Even if the religion's interpretation of Daesh is irrational to a scientific mind, does not negates the fact that there is a rational analysis to explain the plans and strategy of the liders of the movement(terrorist group).