How religion can drive someone to slaughter his fellow citizens – and believe they deserve it

[trotsky]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/15/how-religion-can-drive-someone-slaughter-his-fellow-citizens--an/

...It is understandably difficult for believers of any religion to accept that the very same religious instincts that drive people to do good and help the world are also those which can also can eventually justify the most heinous acts.

The person who drove that lorry believed he was part of an altruistic and utopianist global project intended to save humanity, not destroy it. The people he killed were, in his eyes, a cancerous obstacle to this vision, and having chosen to reject it had to be removed from the equation.

In this sense, notions of right and wrong or good and evil become highly subjective. For most, the interpretation of Islam which supports this approach is, quite simply, "wrong" because it goes against their conventional notions of morality. We must accept, however, that those who adhere to global jihadism have developed an entirely different moral code, and it is one in which most of us do not fare too well in.

It is important to understand that what we are facing here is an interpretation of Islam which, while it could be argued follows a flawed reading of the religion, nonetheless has its own rich scholarly tradition, having been developed by formally trained and knowledgeable Sunni Sheikhs.

I suspect there will be much attacking of the source by people who don't want to hear this information, but I think it's a very valid point being made. So valid in fact that I suspect those who disagree will be unable to anything BUT attack the source.

[struggle4progress]

1. "... The 31-year-old ... drank alcohol, ate pork and took drugs. He never prayed

or attended a mosque ... He worked as a delivery driver, but is believed to have been fired recently after falling asleep at the wheel and crashing into four vehicles on a highway. But he separated from wife Hajer some two years ago following a series of violent arguments, and he was said to have been depressed in recent months as their divorce had been finalised ..."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3691895/He-drank-alcohol-ate-pork-took-drugs-NOT-Muslim-Truck-terrorist-Mohamed-Lahouaiej-Bouhlel-s-cousin-reveals-unlikely-jihadist-beat-wife-NEVER-went-mosque.html?ito=social-twitter_mailonline

[pangaia]

8. I suspect your 5 posts will not go over well here. unfortunately.

And then their is John MacCormack's "The Last Rose Of Summer."

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

26. You confuse piety with belief

One does not have to behave in a pious manner in order to believe.

I'm sure he truly believed that he was going to get his reward in paradise. Yep, he was a loser on earth and would be a big winner in paradise.

(Don't forget the 9/ll terrorists also drank, partied, visited strip bars, and received lap dances.)

[struggle4progress]

2. "... No group has claimed responsibility for the attack. A source close to the investigation tells

CNN that the assailant was known to authorities for petty crime violations ..."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/15/europe/nice-france-truck/

[Igel]

13. Digging into the guys past for any incident.

Meh. Doesn't matter.

These kinds of things, I suspect, tend to follow a logistic curve. Not much, not much, then a big increase. Lots of people fit the pattern; few finish it.

Some do it for religion; some for ideology; some out of a sense of personal humiliation. The Dallas killer went along fairly well, although a bit oddly, for a while. Then his race hatred blossomed as he probably thought he was doing something good.

[struggle4progress]

3. ... The .. truck driver .. was a bitter divorced delivery man with a violent criminal record — but

no apparent ties to any religious extremist group ... The delivery man was previously convicted for armed robbery, domestic violence and making threats, and he was once arrested after he fell asleep while driving for work ... Bouhlel’s neighbors said the dad did not appear to be interested in religion, and was more into dating than prayer after his bitter divorce ...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/nice-attacker-mohamed-lahouaiej-bouhlel-article-1.2712654

[struggle4progress]

4. ... Neighbors told BFM Bouhlel was not overtly religious, but had been depressed – and even

aggressive - over his divorce and financial problems ...

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/07/15/terrorist-behind-nice-attack-creepy-loner-not-overtly-religious-say-neighbors.html

[jonno99]

7. Of course, this could describe literally 100's of thousands (millions?) of people - who don't

go on driving rampages.

[struggle4progress]

5. ... So far, the picture that has emerged is similar to those responsible for the Paris

and Belgium attacks: a solitary man with a history of petty crime, who neighbours said never showed much interest in religion ...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/nice-attack-killer-mohamed-lahouaiej-bouhlel-who-is-he-age-nationality-isis-latest-news-updates-a7138951.html

[Brettongarcia]

10. Who happened to be Muslim and killed 70 people?

70 sounds a bit unusual for an average guy. See anything here that might encourage the big numbers? Can you think of any factor that correlates to say, flying large vehicles into buidings and crowds?

[struggle4progress]

12. ... So far, the picture that has emerged is similar to those responsible for the Paris

and Belgium attacks: a solitary man with a history of petty crime, who neighbours said never showed much interest in religion ...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/nice-attack-killer-mohamed-lahouaiej-bouhlel-who-is-he-age-nationality-isis-latest-news-updates-a7138951.html

[Igel]

14. The thing about not showing much interest in religion is what happens when interest is shown.

Often new converts show excessive zeal. They repent of what they've done to offend God and wallow for a while. They seek to make recompense.

This happens in the case of guilt-wracked bourgeoisie who go all revolutionary and proletarian. It happens with new converts to Xianity. When my BIL went decidedly atheist instead of agnostic he blew up at every mention of religion, any hint of religion in public life--he was deeply and personally offended by "In God We Trust" on coins. New converts and zealotry and uberrighteousness, known problem.

Now, throw in "but if you do this act of penance all will be forgiven and you'll be among the most blessed of people, remembered by your friends, family, and people." Xians have baptism; Jews have mikvot. Some Muslims choose to kill kafir and die in the struggle against unrighteousness and disobedience to Submission.

[Brettongarcia]

17. We "turn to the Lord in times of stress" especially

As countless preachers encouraged us to do.

But then unfortunately, the Lord often next encourages us to smite his enemies; multitudes of them.

Perhaps our latest half-Muslim mass murderer was influenced by his Christian environment.

[Brettongarcia]

19. So the war on Muslim terrorism is wrong?

For years, you have insisted that religion plays no role in thousands of murders, and acts of terrorism. Yet dozens of governments disagree with you. They note a positive correlation between mass terrorist murders especially, and types of Islam.

Are the intelligence services of so many of our governments wrong, while Stuggle 4Pprogress is right? Is there really no relationship between religion, and many murders? Especially mass muders?

[cpwm17]

20. War beget$ more war.

Such a war is guaranteed to be permanent since much of the terrorism would have never happened if we weren't conducting the wars in the first place, regardless of the ultimate reasons for the terrorist acts.

The bozo (Alexander Meleagrou-Hitchens) who wrote the linked piece wrote about his support for the Iraq War (the world's worst crime this century) in 2005, well after only the worst war-mongers still supported that unprovoked disaster.

Without previous US atrocities in the ME by the US, 9-11 would have never happened. Osama made this fact clear.

Without US war-mongering since 9-11, most current Muslim terrorism would have never happened. With just one single terrorist operation on 9-11, the US used that as an excuse to obliterated much of the ME. It didn't take much to radicalize the US public.

With thousands of attacks against the ME over many decades, much of the ME is not surprisingly a disaster area, and many bad elements have taken control.

During the Vietnam War, the US obliterated much of Cambodia, massacring men, women and children. Ultimately the Khmer Rouge took power and they continued the slaughter. (The US then supported the Khmer Rouge when Vietnam intervened, like the US now supports some of the Jihadists against Assad.)

The alleged war on terror is driven by special interests with their own selfish agendas. The neocons have long desired the destruction of Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Iran for obvious reasons. Various war profiteers latch on to the neocons, since any war will do.

We should worry about our own behavior, since that is what we have control over, instead of looking down our noses at and interfering in any other nation's business. Inevitably we make things much worse.

Some people seem to enjoy watching the disaster that is the ME, since they like that fact that they can feel superior to the barbarians over there, and it makes some of them feel good about supporting more war. They have bad people over there and everywhere, but we should worry about the bad people over here.

[Brettongarcia]

21. Religion on both sides, makes it worse

[cpwm17]

22. I think so.

[Albertoo]

23. Do you really believe in what you wrote?

Just that bit:

Without previous US atrocities in the ME by the US, 9-11 would have never happened. Osama made this fact clear.

Islam invaded and conquered countless countries before the US even existed.
Did US 'atrocities' cause the invasion of Spain or the massacres of Tamerlan in India?

As for Osama, he kept changing the 'justifications' for what he was doing. But his ideologue in chief, Zawahiri, was an adept of the supremacism of Said Qutb. Which means that US 'atrocities' or not, his program was forcible worldwide domination of Islam.

Now, tell me why you think the evil US Empire is the prime/main cause of evil on the planet,
and why you think fundamentalist Muslims are not serious when they want world domination?

[cpwm17]

28. It's called blow-back:

Here's the October 29, 2004 video of Osama from Al Jazeera:

with the English transcript from Al Jazeera:

http://www.aljazeera.com/archive/2004/11/200849163336457223.html

This means the oppressing and embargoing to death of millions as Bush Sr did in Iraq in the greatest mass slaughter of children mankind has ever known, and it means the throwing of millions of pounds of bombs and explosives at millions of children - also in Iraq - as Bush Jr did, in order to remove an old agent and replace him with a new puppet to assist in the pilfering of Iraq's oil and other outrages.

So with these images and their like as their background, the events of September 11th came as a reply to those great wrongs, should a man be blamed for defending his sanctuary?

Is defending oneself and punishing the aggressor in kind, objectionable terrorism? If it is such, then it is unavoidable for us.

This is the message which I sought to communicate to you in word and deed, repeatedly, for years before September 11th.

He also speaks of his desire to bankrupt the US

If you think the US can for decades severely abuse the ME and not face some repercussions, you are seriously deluded. If the US were abused like the US is abusing the ME, there would be nuclear winter.

[Albertoo]

29. Did you read what I wrote?

Osama kept changing his claims. What did not change was the line of his ideological kommissar, al Zawahiri, who was a Said Qutb brand of Islamic supremacist.

Ever since the Caliph Omar, islamic expansionists claim to love death better than unbelievers love life, for the islamist's reward for converting people via jihad is paradise.

The US behavior is but a blip on the radar compared to the unvarying goal of a worldwide Caliphate and the promise of Jannah for those who die in its pursuit.

[cpwm17]

31. Yes, it is only a mere coincidence that 9-11 was against the US

after the US had been severely abusing the ME.

More from Osama:

http://www.aljazeera.com/archive/2004/11/200849163336457223.html

Before I begin, I say to you that security is an indispensable pillar of human life and that free men do not forfeit their security, contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom.

If so, then let him explain to us why we don't strike for example - Sweden? And we know that freedom-haters don't possess defiant spirits like those of the 19 - may Allah have mercy on them.

No, we fight because we are free men who don't sleep under oppression. We want to restore freedom to our nation, just as you lay waste to our nation. So shall we lay waste to yours.

Osama would have never been able to pull off 9-11 without the background of US abuse. He would not have likely been able to get the support without the revenge motive.

[Albertoo]

32. You refuse to acknowledge the permanence of islamic expansionist imperialism

And the factual evidence that al Zawahiri explicitly claims to follow Said Qutb's teachings.

As for your claim about Osama, you appear to forget other goals stated by Osama:

1- the key one was Osama's obsession against the presence of infidels in Saudi Arabia
Never mind that US troops there were guests of the KSA regime, as a good radical Muslim, Osama had decided that Quranic purity demanded to not tolerate the mere presence of infidels. So much for even a token peaceful coexistence.

2- another big hope -as related after the events by witnesses- was his hope to draw the US into the ME to create animosity against the infidels. So, contrarily to your opinion, Osama was working to create a revenge motive.

These two points, plus the permanence of radical Islam's objective to subjugate the world, appear to me to put your revenge motive as a minor factor by comparison.

[trotsky]

6. 5 replies I can't even see?

This must have hit a nerve.

[struggle4progress]

11. Have you ever seen this?

[RussBLib]

18. that looks like what you're doing

repeating the same thing over and over and over

We are aware of the news you cite. You seem to be really striving to insist that Islam had nothing to do with this, even before you know all the facts.

[struggle4progress]

27. I posted that

he did not attend mosque, seems to have been fired from his job, and was depressed about his divorce

had a history of petty crime

had a conviction for armed robbery but no evident ties to terrorist groups

reacted aggressively to his financial and marital problems

resembled the Brussels and Paris attackers as a criminal loner with no interest in religion

[Albertoo]

30. What do your links prove? Terrorists are often recruited among 'sinful' Muslims

As very well explained by an ex-Muslim DU member:

One of the easiest recruits for groups like isis and al quida , however, are muslims who have gone astray. Guilt, pressure on there families all plays into it. if they become suicide bombers then there misdeeds get washed away. Dying in the sake of jihad is one of the highest things you can do in islam so your past mistakes get cleansed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8014241

[Albertoo]

24. That pic illustrates someone I blocked one or two days ago

That person dismissed evidence that didn't go his way as garbage.

A childish way of saying "La la I can't hear you'.

[Iggo]

9. LOL...You talkin' to me? I'm the only one here. You must be talkin' to me!

[Igel]

15. People have strange attitudes when something doesn't fit their internal narrative.

Years ago I stopped telling people they really didn't know what they believe. I did that for a while--not the "false consciousness" ideological BS where I think X is good for them, they think Y, and I dehumanize and disenfranchise them by saying I know what's really (supposed to be) in their brains.

At the same time I concluded that real, virulent evil doesn't come along and say, I want to do bad things. Real evil comes along and says, "I want to do only good things," and then enumerates bad things. Convinced it's good, convinced it wants good, narcissistically self-promoting, it convinces people it wants to do good things and so the things it wants are good. Evil is banal for the most part, it's venal--it wasnt to destroy this,kill that, hurt this other things; sow a bit of distrust, backbite. But real evil says, "You're all justified in doing this thing, this good thing, because you've been hurt and wronged. It's justice, it's mercy, it's a good thing to do this."

As soon as something that wants to do bad things while calling them good is accepted as good by people, you're in for a world of hurt.

FMG has people doing what they think is good. GULags were good. Re-education centers are good. Psychologically scarring children can be "good." Sowing hatred and contempt between groups is "good," there's a cause saying it's good (even if you can't quite work out the connection, you're told it's good so it must be).


What I like about this is the bit where the Salafists, the jihadist movement, is stated to have its own tradition. We act like there is only one Islam, and one tradition. The same nasty practices showed up in Spain, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Egypt, separated by centuries. It's because there is a tradition, written, of these things, with old fatawa that are no more or less valid now than any other at any other time.

[Albertoo]

25. All totalitarian ideologies claim they want to promote goodness

The problem is the fine print.

Hitler wanted all the best for the people. But only Aryan people.
Stalin wanted the Communist ideal. At the small cost of millions starving or in camps.
Islam wants the pure bliss of Allah's blessing. At the small cost of unbelievers.

[rug]

16. He's been pushing this war-mongering neo-con crap for at least a decade.

After the events of 9/11 it became clear to many in the US and UK as well as a number of other countries that the West had to abandon its policy of containing Islamic fascists in the countries that harbored them. A more active and decisive policy had to be implemented.

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Alexander_Meleagrou-Hitchens

A very small chip off the old Hitch.

Tell me, trotsky, is there any reason you're posting this rightwing garbage other than it fosters hatred of religion?

[Brettongarcia]

33. Left and Right might agree for once.

Both the US and Russia say, are currently involved militarily in Syria. Against radical Muslims in ISIS.

[rug]

36. No one who understands the Left would buy that.

And don't kid yourself. The U.S. government's interest in the Middle East is other than defeating "radical Muslims". It armed them 40 years ago. Against Russia. Its policy would pivot on a dime if it needed to check Russia, or China for that matter, again.

[whathehell]

35. Isn't it really ideologies in general?..Like that which drove Stalin to kill 20 million of his own?

Pol Pot, Adolph Hitler? No religion on them.

[trotsky]

37. No, it's not in general.

Hard to see the ideology of pacifism leading to brutal murders, for instance.

Religion is especially prone to this phenomenon, though, because it bills itself as impervious to observed facts.

http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2009/11/armor-of-god.html

Because this is the Religion group, discussions tend to focus on religion, oddly enough.

Oh, and Hitler was a Catholic.

[whathehell]

38. Uh, yes, I think it is, and unless you can identify

some religious motivation for the actions of a Stalin or Pol Pot, I'm afraid you're shit out of luck.

"Hitler was a Catholic, by the way"....Riiight!...and I'm sure Uncle Joe's folks were Russian Orthodox

'cause like virtually EVERYONE in his and Adolph's time, they were BORN into some religion or another, duh,

Their crimes were committed in the name of Communism, Trots -- not, as you well know, any 'religion'...Try again.



.

[trotsky]

39. You really didn't read what I wrote.

I didn't say Stalin or Pol Pot's motivations were religious.

What you said was that "ideologies in general" were to blame. I provided a single counterexample to prove you wrong, and then I pointed out the uniqueness of religion when it comes to this topic. You completely failed to address that point.

Hitler was a Catholic, and as a matter of fact, Stalin was educated in an Orthodox seminary. He was going to become a priest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Early_life

[whathehell]

40. You didn't really read what I wrote either...A common DU experience, I'm afraid.

I never denied that Hitler was a Catholic (if one can truly be said to "be" something their parents chose for them -- If that's the case almost everyone "is" their parent's religion. Also figured Joe was Orthodox...You're just feeding me back what I told you (ok, the seminary dropout bit is new to me,
for all that's worth. Unless these lovely boys either sustained their faith lifelong, or fought on it's basis, it means nothing.

[trotsky]

41. Good, I'm glad you can accept Hitler's Catholicism.

Since your first post said he had "no religion."

However it seems now what you're saying is that once a religious believer does something bad, then they are no longer a religious believer, but... what? An atheist?

BTW, still waiting for a response from you about religion's unique armor.

[whathehell]

44. Hitler was about as much a Catholic as Trotsky was an observant Jew..

His parents were Catholic...Beyond that, there's nothing to suggest he was ever a "religious believer"

Sorry, Trots -- case not made.

[trotsky]

46. No, you have yet to make your case.

Hitler claimed to be a Catholic. Explain what makes him not one. Then explain why Catholics who use birth control or are pro-choice are still Catholics.

[whathehell]

47. Um, no, you are the one who's been trying to make a case..

All I had to do was knock down yours, and I did, so, buh bye.

[trotsky]

48. Alrighty then.

You are ever so gracious in defeat.

[whathehell]

49. Hahahaha.

Riiiiight.

[Cartoonist]

42. You need to study history more

Especially WWII
The Catholic church played a large role in establishing Hitler. The Church was against those "godless communists" so they supported Hitler instead of his opposition, which happened to be the Communist party and the Socialist Democrats.

[whathehell]

43. No, I'm afraid you do..

Last edited Mon Jul 18, 2016, 08:55 PM - Edit history (1)

Show me documented evidence of your assertion that the Catholic Church 'played a large part tn establishing Hitler". Otherwise, I call bullshit.

[Cartoonist]

45. Here it is

?w=637

The Vatican Concordat With Hitler's Reich

Seventy years ago a fateful meeting occurred in Rome. The Vatican’s secretary of state, Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli (the future Pope Pius XII), and Germany’s vice chancellor, Franz von Papen, formally signed a concordat between the Holy See and the German Reich on July 20, 1933. This event ended negotiations that began after Adolf Hitler became Germany’s chancellor on Jan. 30, 1933. Among the witnesses to this event were Msgr. Giovanni Battista Montini (the future Pope Paul VI) and Msgr. Ludwig Kaas, the leader of Germany’s Catholic Center Party. Neither Pope Pius XI nor Hitler attended the meeting; both had already approved of the concordat. The pope ratified the agreement two months later on Sept. 10. The Concordat of 1933 specified the church’s rights in the Third Reich.

The political significance of the signing of the Concordat of 1933 was, however, ambiguous in its day and still remains so. Hitler interpreted the concordat to mean that he had won the church’s approval, thereby gaining international recognition of his Nazi regime. At least some German Catholics took the signing of the treaty as an indication that church officials had softened their opposition to National Socialism. Some political commentators, journalists and historiansthen and nowhave viewed this event as a manifestation of Pope Pius XI’s and Cardinal Pacelli’s underlying motives, which allegedly included their preference for dictatorships over democracies, their readiness to use Nazi Germany as a bulwark against the spread into Europe of Stalin’s Communism and their disregard for German Jews.

http://americamagazine.org/issue/448/article/vatican-concordat-hitlers-reich

As I said you need to brush up on history. This just touches the surface.