Hacker News Reader

Comment by pmorici | Hacker News Reader

The difference is that the people perpetrating the attacks in places like Beirut have strong political support from the population in that country (Lebanon). Violence is part of their political culture and has been for a long time.

The French attacks were from an outside element, ie: an element that isn't a part of the established political structure. That is the difference.

View on HN

Except that we already know that some (if not most) of the attackers in France were French nationals, so that argument doesn't really hold up.

I also think it is alienating (and rather offensive, to be terribly blunt) of you to argue that "they are used to violence" as if that means it somehow affects the population of cities like Beirut, the sense of loss felt by the families of victims, or any of the other human emotional elements.

Beirut is as much a large, cosmopolitan, vibrant city as any in Europe. It is no war zone. And it would do everyone good to remember that the very real and visceral trauma that the Paris attacks constitute is something many people feel on a weekly (or more frequent) basis, and that doesn't diminish the subjective horror of it.

I don't think you understand what drives the violence in Lebanon. It isn't a handful of radical citizens. It is national level political parties that draw strong support from the population. If you can find any French political party or ruling faction that had a hand in the attacks then I would agree with you but I doubt that is the case.

I'm also not arguing that they are used to violence there for it is alright. I'm saying that they support violence or at least the use of it by their politicians to achieve their political goals there for they get what they promote.

I think you're shifting your argument, but whatever: the horror of fearing you might die walking to the supermarket every time you do it isn't any less palpable just because the structures that incentivize the violence are different.

All this article is trying to get people to recognize is that a) the Paris attacks are awful, but b) as awful as that is, remember that this kind of horror is a more constant occurrence for many people, and that we should reflect on that more often as we participate in the politics of our own countries.

> If you can find any French political party or ruling faction that had a hand in the attacks then I would agree with you but I doubt that is the case.

You know, I'm not sure that the far-right nationalist racists like the Front National, or the ban on the burqa, or the other efforts at systematic alienation of France's minorities don't play a roll in all of this. People don't open fire into crowds they feel they have friends in, or attack societies they feel they are a part of, and Europe's attitude that assimilation is a one-way street, and the casual racism of many people here doesn't exactly create a welcoming atmosphere, either for recent immigrants or second- and third-generation ones.

Firstly, these attacks were not perpetrated by any national level political party. Your line of thought, as the article puts it, portrays "a busy civilian, residential and commercial district as a justifiable military target."

However, the more important point is that it is always a radical fringe. Saying it is otherwise is terribly offensive and suggests a fundamental lack of understanding.

I haven't looked into this specific incident but historically an example is Hezbollah who participates in the Lebanese government and is known to have supported any number of similar incidents in the past. They are a national level political party in Lebanon, and while radical by American standards I'm skeptical they are viewed as "fringe" in Lebanon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Lebanon#Cedar_Revol...

This incident has been linked to ISIS, so none of that is especially relevant in this context.

It's relevant to why people don't bat an eye when yet another thing explodes in Lebanon. Even if this time was different in the details.

That might be a relevant difference, but it's definitely not the difference. If the Paris bombings had happened in, say, Bhutan, do you think they would have attracted the same coverage?

(AFAIK Bhutan doesn't have strong popular support for any terrorist organisations, but I mostly picked it at random. Feel free to pick another.)

I'm not sure, if it didn't it would be for different reasons. When you are talking about Beiruit specifically though it's a city that has the potential to be an international level city but has been prevented from attaining that by the political climate that embraces violence, has for decades, and continues to.

> if it didn't it would be for different reasons

Unless you're quite confident that those would be reasons that don't also apply to Beirut - that's exactly what I was getting at.

There is no "the difference". There are differences.

I am, confident. Beirut is very similar to Paris, or New York in terms if it being a place that has strong international mind share. Bhutan is a place so out of the way that the terrorists wouldn't even know how to get there to attack it. CNN probably doesn't have an office in the country.

It's a difference of notoriety vs. obscurity.

Lebanese Muslims are predominantly Shiite, who were the earliest innovators as far as Salafists are concerned, and thereby number one on ISIL's shitlist.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com