Anniversary Of 9/11

[High-Test]

My intention from the start has been to try and understand what motivates the people conducting these atrocious acts.

You seem to think their motivation is only based on religion and I don't agree with your analysis.

Religion exacerbates the problem, though. If someone is aggrieved or destitute and their religious leader says that violence will solve the problem, what are they going to do?

Commit violence.

In this scenario, the ruler provides the suffering, the people provide the passion to commit violence, and the religious leader allows the people to prosecute a holy war.

 

[Vegard]

Religion exacerbates the problem, though. If someone is aggrieved or destitute and their religious leader says that violence will solve the problem, what are they going to do?

Commit violence.

In this scenario, the ruler provides the suffering, the people provide the passion to commit violence, and the religious leader allows the people to prosecute a holy war.

Yes, I can agree with that. But I would argue that this is only a symptom of an underlying conflict, a tool for the religious leaders, used to achieve a political goal.

What I want to explore is why the population is aggrieved and destitute in the first place?

 

[Danoff]

My intention from the start has been to try and understand what motivates the people conducting these atrocious acts.

You seem to think their motivation is only based on religion and I don't agree with your analysis.

I suppose you think their issues with Sykes-Picot agreement you cited above are not religious? How about Osama's issues with US troops working with the Saudis as cited by @Dotini above? Not religious?

Are we interested in illegitimate motivations that we're guessing might be behind their actions - like concerns about Gulf War I (which was in defense against Iraq attacking a US ally) or Gulf War II (which is in response to a violation of the cease fire terms of Gulf War I). Are you talking about the proxy war that the US got involved with between Iraq and Iran? That's the closest one I can find to a non-religious reason, but like I said I'm not up on my history well enough to know whether that motive is legitimate. But even still, supposing it's legitimate and non-religious, it's not what gets cited by ISIS, Osama, etc. What gets cited is the existence of Israel and US support for Israel, and the reason that's a problem is... religion.

You have to put blinders on to try to separate religion from these "motives". The US was in Saudi Arabia working with the Saudi government and that made Osama mad - non-religious. But why did that make Osama mad? Religion.

What I want to explore is why the population is aggrieved and destitute in the first place?

Also religion (specifically religious government). Certainly not due to a lack of natural resources.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

Not if people of your own religion are your targets. I understand that you can view it as collateral damage, but at a certain point a lack of respect for collateral damage just becomes indiscriminate killing. To the suicide bomber, whose life is not forfeit?

Ever hear of Catholic vs Protestant killings? It's the same thing, just a different religion. Muslims in the West wouldn't be looked on too favourably by those aiming to hit the West.

We now know that Abedi, the guy behind the latest bombing was "very religious". That he began saying prayers loudly in the street and had become "increasingly devout".

This is a common thing amongst those radicalised. Me and my Muslim friends joke about such individuals in that we should stay away from them as they are probably on the "Prevent" program (the UK version of anti-radicalisation).

The fact is we are in a religious war that started over a millennium ago and shows no signs of abating. The world will turn more Islamic and there will be renewed calls for a caliphate to be created. At the moment thousands call this caliphate ISIS, but it could conceivably be Turkey in a few years:

TURKISH President Recep Erdogan has called on his countrymen and women who have emigrated to the West to have loads of children and become the “future of Europe”.

Erdogan has urged the country’s youth to ‘look to 2071’, the millennium of the Battle of Manzikert, where Turks defeated the Christian Byzantine Empire

Religious wars also tend to persecute other religions. In Islam's case it is particularly Christians and Jews:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-shoot-nine-Christians-dead-Philippines.html

That makes me wonder, hypothetically if al-Qaeda and the other groups get rid of everyone who disagrees as they want. What happens next?
I almost see it as a gang unraveling. The gang had a similar objective, over time their views changed and they start fighting each other.

Such is life. You can read what happened with Islam after Muhammad died to see how it unravelled and infighting began. Doesn't make it any less religious

 

[Danoff]

We now know that Abedi, the guy behind the latest bombing was "very religious".... Doesn't make it any less religious

I'm not saying that the motivations aren't religious. Exactly the opposite actually, and if that makes it a religious war, so be it. I'm saying that the effect, indiscriminate killing of whoever happens to be in the building that gets blown up, doesn't seem so directed by religion. Religion is definitely the cause, but the effect is "kill everyone" it seems.

 

[PeterJB]

I'm not saying that the motivations aren't religious. Exactly the opposite actually, and if that makes it a religious war, so be it. I'm saying that the effect, indiscriminate killing of whoever happens to be in the building that gets blown up, doesn't seem so directed by religion. Religion is definitely the cause, but the effect is "kill everyone" it seems.

Kill everyone because they either don't subscribe to my version of Islam or they're not Muslims at all?

 

[Danoff]

Kill everyone because they either don't subscribe to my version of Islam or they're not Muslims at all?

Kill everyone because they either do subscribe to my interpretation of Islam (and so are ready to die) or they do not (and so deserve to die).

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

I'm not saying that the motivations aren't religious. Exactly the opposite actually, and if that makes it a religious war, so be it. I'm saying that the effect, indiscriminate killing of whoever happens to be in the building that gets blown up, doesn't seem so directed by religion. Religion is definitely the cause, but the effect is "kill everyone" it seems.

Shouldn't the motivation be the primary focus. For instance with Anders Breivik, what if some of the children he killed would have grown up to follow his political ideology? Does that make it any less of a politically motivated killing?

 

[Danoff]

Shouldn't the motivation be the primary focus. For instance with Anders Breivik, what if some of the children he killed would have grown up to follow his political ideology? Does that make it any less of a politically motivated killing?

I'm not following.

 

[Carlos]

I'm not following.

The end justifies killing a Muslim I think he means. But it's not just Muslims, it's variations of Muslims in war with each other too. And luckily over a billion living in peace!

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

The end justifies killing a Muslim I think he means. But it's not just Muslims, it's variations of Muslims in war with each other too. And luckily over a billion living in peace!

Not quite, where did you get that from?

I'm not following.

You can't guarantee all your targets are going to be from the group you are primarily targeting. And that risk rises with the more people you aim to kill. If they get caught in the crossfire, does that diminish the reason why you initiated the violence?

 

[Danoff]

You can't guarantee all your targets are going to be from the group you are primarily targeting. And that risk rises with the more people you aim to kill. If they get caught in the crossfire, does that diminish the reason why you initiated the violence?

When you say "politically motivated" you're assuming the conclusion. If we say a murder was "religiously motivated" then if the motivation was religious, viola, it's satisfied. But if we say it's a religious war, that's slightly different. Some people will interpret that as killing based on religion. To me, it becomes a stretch when you have a group that's ready to kill everyone. Is that a religious war? Or just crazy people trying to kill everyone.

 

[Carlos]

Not quite, where did you get that from?


You can't guarantee all your targets are going to be from the group you are primarily targeting. And that risk rises with the more people you aim to kill. If they get caught in the crossfire, does that diminish the reason why you initiated the violence?

From your own words. If the motivation is the primary focus then everything else is justified.

 

[Dotini]

If the motivation is the primary focus then everything else is justified.

This is a heavy thought. In my view of liberalism, if in the pursuit of doing good you create a disaster, then you are covered by moral justification. This is so because otherwise how would progress be possible? But in the conservative view, if you create a disaster, then no matter the motive you bear responsibility. Progress is by definition not the object of conservatism.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

From your own words. If the motivation is the primary focus then everything else is justified.

Ahh I see what you mean. Sorry I misread your post

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

When you say "politically motivated" you're assuming the conclusion. If we say a murder was "religiously motivated" then if the motivation was religious, viola, it's satisfied. But if we say it's a religious war, that's slightly different. Some people will interpret that as killing based on religion. To me, it becomes a stretch when you have a group that's ready to kill everyone. Is that a religious war? Or just crazy people trying to kill everyone.

Well with Islam it's simple, there are the believers and unbelievers. The texts support killing unbelievers, but is loose on the definition. Therefore even other Muslims can be classed as "unbelievers" depending on who's interpreting the faith. As for religion and violence:

In 2010 a German study, which involved intensive questioning of 45,000 Muslim teenagers from 61 towns and regions across the country, found that the more religious they were the more likely they were to become violent.

The leader of ISIS itself holds a PhD in Islamic studies.

The most recent attacks in England were carried out by a "very religious man" who chanted his prayers loudly and then by a group saying "this is for Allah" as they ploughed into people before going on a knife rampage.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Well with Islam it's simple, there are the believers and unbelievers.

You're flat-out plain wrong. There are divisions of belief and instruction the same as there are in most religions (narrow cults aside). Some muslims find other muslims to fit into the "non-believer" category, for example.

The texts support killing unbelievers

As do yours, remember.

Therefore even other Muslims can be classed as "unbelievers" depending on who's interpreting the faith.

So it's not simple? Make your mind up.

Your initial over-simplification seems either deliberately ignorant of the issue or simply misinformed - in either case it seems to me to be difficult to have a sensible discussion with you on the topic.

The most recent attacks in England were carried out by a "very religious man" who chanted his prayers loudly and then by a group saying "this is for Allah" as they ploughed into people before going on a knife rampage.

Yes, we call them murderers. You've described a religiously extremist murder and tried to tie it to a particular theologian's doctorate. You continue to ignore parallels between your own religion and your right to pick-and-choose which bits apply... but expect us to accept your flailing assertions that muslims simply can't think like that in the most part. To prove your comparison you invoke the Anders Breivik of islaamic study. Hmmmm.