Acts of Terrorism megathread

[Valmy]

Absolutely. You here all the time that terrorism is not about religion, but about politics, economics, colonialism, yadda, yadda, yadda. religion is just the cover for their actions, and they would be doing this regardless.

People even point out how they are terrible Muslims - you have certainly heard how the 9/11 terrorists visited strip clubs, for example, to "prove" that they were not actually motivated by religion.

It kind of reminds me a bit of all the people insisting that the Crusades were not about religion. Or were motivated by some sort of economic conditions. But to be fair that is just Marxist historians trying to smash round pegs into square holes. This is probably something different.

[Jacob]

It kind of reminds me a bit of all the people insisting that the Crusades were not about religion. Or were motivated by some sort of economic conditions. But to be fair that is just Marxist historians trying to smash round pegs into square holes. This is probably something different.

You don't think there were economic motivations involved in the Crusades?

[Berkut]

It kind of reminds me a bit of all the people insisting that the Crusades were not about religion. Or were motivated by some sort of economic conditions. But to be fair that is just Marxist historians trying to smash round pegs into square holes. This is probably something different.

You don't think there were economic motivations involved in the Crusades?

Of course there were - but it was not economic motivations that made people decide that the place to go economically get involved was modern day Israel.

[Jacob]

Of course there were - but it was not economic motivations that made people decide that the place to go economically get involved was modern day Israel.

Fair enough.

I reckon that it was economic factors that led enough people to think that going overseas and conquering things was an attractive proposition, while religious factors determined the choice of targets and governed the organization and justification of the enterprise.

That's a vast generalization, of course.

[Martinus]

Of course there were - but it was not economic motivations that made people decide that the place to go economically get involved was modern day Israel.

Fair enough.

I reckon that it was economic factors that led enough people to think that going overseas and conquering things was an attractive proposition, while religious factors determined the choice of targets and governed the organization and justification of the enterprise.

That's a vast generalization, of course.

I disagree. For 99% of crusaders, religious fervour was the predominant motivation, imo. Now, you could argue about the leaders etc. but for the rank-and-file crusaders, it wasn't economic motivation.

[Sheilbh]

Absolutely. You here all the time that terrorism is not about religion, but about politics, economics, colonialism, yadda, yadda, yadda. religion is just the cover for their actions, and they would be doing this regardless.

People even point out how they are terrible Muslims - you have certainly heard how the 9/11 terrorists visited strip clubs, for example, to "prove" that they were not actually motivated by religion.

I don't think the two are necessarily mutually exclusive. I don't know why people are keen on focusing on the theological aspect alone because it seems to me as unhelpful as fighting the Cold War mainly through an understanding of Marxist-Leninist theory. It's important, but it's not that important and there are multiple other factors. It's not to say that the theological angle doesn't matter but that it's generally, in my view, not sufficient without other aspects.

I think the point about homegrown terrorists and the kids going to Syria not being good Muslims is first of all true on the evidence and secondly important. If what really matters is religiousity then that points to a very different approach to intelligence and to counter-radicalisation for example. It would probably be one that would be focused on the Mosque and traditional community structures, which was the approach after 9/11. But the profile of European youths committing terrorism or going to Syria isn't particularly religious. The striking commonality is petty delinquency and alienation which I think requires a different intelligence and counter-radicalisation approach, I'd suggest it's one that's got far more in common with work against gangs than a religion based approach.

I think that is a change since the emergence of ISIS. It seems they're appealing to a different sort of person than al-Qaeda inspired terrorism did (only speaking about in the West). Between 9/11 and ISIS the people who were inspired by al-Qaeda normally did exhibit a sudden and intense interest in Islam and would cut themselves off from people they perceived as apostates.

[Habbaku]

Of course there were - but it was not economic motivations that made people decide that the place to go economically get involved was modern day Israel.

Fair enough.

I reckon that it was economic factors that led enough people to think that going overseas and conquering things was an attractive proposition, while religious factors determined the choice of targets and governed the organization and justification of the enterprise.

That's a vast generalization, of course.

There were significant economic factors involved with the Crusades, yes, but the First Crusade in particular saw the Crusaders involved mortgage their lands, sell as much property as they could, and take massive loans so that they could go on Crusade...and not settle in the lands that were conquered.  Primarily, the economic factors involved in having the Crusades get off the ground was the ready access to credit and resources from stored-up wealth, not the desire to hit it rich in the Holy Land by conquering an area that was not particularly known for its wealth.

The myth that Crusaders were going off in search of riches is mostly an invention of Marxist interpretations of the events, as Valmy noted, and doesn't stand up under scrutiny.

[Sheilbh]

Of course there were - but it was not economic motivations that made people decide that the place to go economically get involved was modern day Israel.

Fair enough.

I reckon that it was economic factors that led enough people to think that going overseas and conquering things was an attractive proposition, while religious factors determined the choice of targets and governed the organization and justification of the enterprise.

That's a vast generalization, of course.

I disagree. For 99% of crusaders, religious fervour was the predominant motivation, imo. Now, you could argue about the leaders etc. but for the rank-and-file crusaders, it wasn't economic motivation.

I'm not sure. Hasn't there been research that showed a huge proportion of the crusading knights were younger sons - ie. no inheritance? I think religion was a part of it but it's pretty analogous to the colonisation of the new world.

[Martinus]

Of course there were - but it was not economic motivations that made people decide that the place to go economically get involved was modern day Israel.

Fair enough.

I reckon that it was economic factors that led enough people to think that going overseas and conquering things was an attractive proposition, while religious factors determined the choice of targets and governed the organization and justification of the enterprise.

That's a vast generalization, of course.

There were significant economic factors involved with the Crusades, yes, but the First Crusade in particular saw the Crusaders involved mortgage their lands, sell as much property as they could, and take massive loans so that they could go on Crusade...and not settle in the lands that were conquered.  Primarily, the economic factors involved in having the Crusades get off the ground was the ready access to credit and resources from stored-up wealth, not the desire to hit it rich in the Holy Land by conquering an area that was not particularly known for its wealth.

The myth that Crusaders were going off in search of riches is mostly an invention of Marxist interpretations of the events, as Valmy noted, as doesn't stand up under scrutiny.

Yeah, the problem with Marxism is that it cannot fathom a motivation other than economical. That's why Marxists so completely misunderstood religion.

[garbon]

Did the Crusades help people's finances?

[Martinus]

Of course there were - but it was not economic motivations that made people decide that the place to go economically get involved was modern day Israel.

Fair enough.

I reckon that it was economic factors that led enough people to think that going overseas and conquering things was an attractive proposition, while religious factors determined the choice of targets and governed the organization and justification of the enterprise.

That's a vast generalization, of course.

I disagree. For 99% of crusaders, religious fervour was the predominant motivation, imo. Now, you could argue about the leaders etc. but for the rank-and-file crusaders, it wasn't economic motivation.

I'm not sure. Hasn't there been research that showed a huge proportion of the crusading knights were younger sons - ie. no inheritance? I think religion was a part of it but it's pretty analogous to the colonisation of the new world.

Saying that poorer people are more prone to religious fervour is not the same as saying that religious fervour is economically motivated.

[Martinus]

By the way: crusades hijack! Languish's first! 

[Sheilbh]

But it's not about poverty. Younger sons had an economic interest in going and conquering new lands - the same motivation in crusades in Germany or the Norman invasion of England or Sicily. In addition very often they had sincerely held religious motivations and possibly socially too (the effect of Romances and the idea of chivalry).

[Habbaku]

Did the Crusades help people's finances?

Some, certainly, but it was mostly a rather large drain on everyone involved.

[Habbaku]

But it's not about poverty. Younger sons had an economic interest in going and conquering new lands - the same motivation in crusades in Germany or the Norman invasion of England or Sicily. In addition very often they had sincerely held religious motivations and possibly socially too (the effect of Romances and the idea of chivalry).

If that were true, why then did these supposed second sons not settle in the lands that they supposedly conquered for economic interests?  The overwhelming majority of the first wave of Crusaders returned home after Jerusalem was taken and the political situation settled in the aftermath.