Acts of Terrorism megathread

[Habbaku]

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

Hm.  I think we've had a few.  I know I have posted about the First Crusade on more than one occasion here as it's a strong interest of mine.

[Hamilcar]

Let's get back on topic: Isis claims responsibility for first terror attack in Russia after men try to kill police with gun and axes near Moscow
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/isis-terror-attacks-news-latest-russia-moscow-balashikha-police-gun-axe-allegiance-video-chechen-a7198731.html

[Hamilcar]

Here is the always-informative Rukhmini Callimachi on Fresh Air talking about ISIS: http://www.npr.org/2016/08/11/489555425/inside-the-islamic-states-movement-to-spread-terror-all-over-the-world

[Razgovory]

I see a pattern.

Yes. You love to intimidate and shut people up by claiming they are evil. That is a pattern. A tiresome one that makes me loath you immensely.

I noticed you seemed real honestly interested in that case of those two poor Bangladeshis...oh wait you don't give a fuck about them, you just bring it up to use as a weapon to attack people. Just like the Turkish stuff.

Who here did I just claim was evil?  Who did I intimidate?  I didn't know you loathe me, though.     This thread looked a lot like another excuse to go on about how bad the Muslims are.  That has really begun to annoy me.  It annoyed me when folks here cheer the mass murder in Egypt.  Then the perversion of justice where the survivors are sentenced to death for the government killing their fellow protestors.  It annoyed me when every bad thing that happened in Turkey was blamed on the "Islamist" Erdogan including suicide bombings on his own security forces.  It annoyed me when I saw the glee that people here when it was reported that the Turkish military was firing cannon indiscriminately on civilian buildings.

[The Brain]

Cannon kicked so much ass for a fat guy.

[Hamilcar]

I see a pattern.

Yes. You love to intimidate and shut people up by claiming they are evil. That is a pattern. A tiresome one that makes me loath you immensely.

I noticed you seemed real honestly interested in that case of those two poor Bangladeshis...oh wait you don't give a fuck about them, you just bring it up to use as a weapon to attack people. Just like the Turkish stuff.

Who here did I just claim was evil?  Who did I intimidate?  I didn't know you loathe me, though.     This thread looked a lot like another excuse to go on about how bad the Muslims are.  That has really begun to annoy me.  It annoyed me when folks here cheer the mass murder in Egypt.  Then the perversion of justice where the survivors are sentenced to death for the government killing their fellow protestors.  It annoyed me when every bad thing that happened in Turkey was blamed on the "Islamist" Erdogan including suicide bombings on his own security forces.  It annoyed me when I saw the glee that people here when it was reported that the Turkish military was firing cannon indiscriminately on civilian buildings.

Take your meds.

[Martinus]

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).

I think this underplays the religious motivation, though.

I believe there is a link between economic* position and religious zeal, but it does not simply mean people use religious zeal as a cover to get rich. Rather, people who are less invested in the stability of the economic system tend towards zealotry and radicalism, and religion often provides an ample venue to espouse such radicalism.

*And, it is worth noting, it's not the destitute people who do that - rather it's the "lower middle class" - people who are part of the elite by some quirk of birth, yet suffer from the "status deficit"**. That's why it's the third sons of nobility, and not peasants, who end up as religious zealots. And the same mechanism applies to a certain class of Muslim men today.

**And, unlike simple "revolutionary radicalism", religion provides a good way to satisfy that deficit, because it is already ingrained in the broader social system. So while a secular revolutionary/radical is not afforded a status recognition from a broader society, a religious zealot is - because he may be not as smart, or rich, or succesful as his neighbour - but he makes up for it with piety. So his social position grows as a result without a need to get rich. Again, parallels to modern day jihadists and the position they enjoy in Muslim societies can be established.

[Sheilbh]

I think this underplays the religious motivation, though.

I believe there is a link about economic* situation and religious zeal, but it does not simply mean people use religious zeal as a cover to get rich. Rather, people who are less invested in the stability of the economic system tend towards zealotry and radicalism, and religion often provides an ample venue to espouse such radicalism.

*And, it is worth noting, it's not the destitute people who do that - rather it's the "lower middle class" - people who are part of the elite by some quirk of birth, yet suffer from the "status deficit". That's why it's the third sons of nobility, and not peasants, who end up as religious zealots. And the same mechanism applies to a certain class of Muslim men today.

There's nothing here I disagree with. I'm not saying how they balance up or that religion (and culture) is a cover for more material reasons. I just think economic, social/cultural and religious motivations can co-exist within the same person, and even moreso within the same huge social movement. Plus I think it's a natural bit of human psychology that even if you are doing something purely for your material gain you create other equal motivations for doing it that are more altruistic so you think well of yourself. I imagine that was perhaps especially the case in this age of Romances, chivalric codes, courtly love etc.

I wouldn't know enough to say how they should be balanced within - and across - the Crusades. I imagine there are differences over that whole period and all over Europe - I mane I'm particularly dubious how religiously motivated the Venetians were

[Martinus]

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.

Yeah. I think it is a mistake to conflate all crusades and treat them the same. I think the first crusade was mainly religious, the third was mainly political, the fourth was mainly motivated by greed.

[Martinus]

I think this underplays the religious motivation, though.

I believe there is a link about economic* situation and religious zeal, but it does not simply mean people use religious zeal as a cover to get rich. Rather, people who are less invested in the stability of the economic system tend towards zealotry and radicalism, and religion often provides an ample venue to espouse such radicalism.

*And, it is worth noting, it's not the destitute people who do that - rather it's the "lower middle class" - people who are part of the elite by some quirk of birth, yet suffer from the "status deficit". That's why it's the third sons of nobility, and not peasants, who end up as religious zealots. And the same mechanism applies to a certain class of Muslim men today.

There's nothing here I disagree with. I'm not saying how they balance up or that religion (and culture) is a cover for more material reasons. I just think economic, social/cultural and religious motivations can co-exist within the same person, and even moreso within the same huge social movement. Plus I think it's a natural bit of human psychology that even if you are doing something purely for your material gain you create other equal motivations for doing it that are more altruistic so you think well of yourself. I imagine that was perhaps especially the case in this age of Romances, chivalric codes, courtly love etc.

I wouldn't know enough to say how they should be balanced within - and across - the Crusades. I imagine there are differences over that whole period and all over Europe - I mane I'm particularly dubious how religiously motivated the Venetians were

True. But even the Pope at the time excommunicated the Fourth Crusade.

[Martinus]

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

Hm.  I think we've had a few.  I know I have posted about the First Crusade on more than one occasion here as it's a strong interest of mine.

Runciman. 

[Oexmelin]

"Marxist" interpretations of the Crusades owed a lot to thinkers of imperialism generally, who were far from being all Marxists themselves.

"Materialist explanations" are certainly a feature of Marxist historiography, but it is certainly not limited to it, and I think that a lot of what people on this board condemn as "Marxist history", they otherwise celebrate as economism - in giving a priority to economic explanations for human behavior.

[Martinus]

"Marxist" interpretations of the Crusades owed a lot to thinkers of imperialism generally, who were far from being all Marxists themselves.

"Materialist explanations" are certainly a feature of Marxist historiography, but it is certainly not limited to it, and I think that a lot of what people on this board condemn as "Marxist history", they otherwise celebrate as economism - in giving a priority to economic explanations for human behavior.

Yeah, I used to do that, but don't anymore.

[Habbaku]

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

Hm.  I think we've had a few.  I know I have posted about the First Crusade on more than one occasion here as it's a strong interest of mine.

Runciman. 

Pretty writing, but terribly outdated work.  There are plenty of modern works that do better with accuracy than he did.

[Habbaku]

"Marxist" interpretations of the Crusades owed a lot to thinkers of imperialism generally, who were far from being all Marxists themselves.

"Materialist explanations" are certainly a feature of Marxist historiography, but it is certainly not limited to it, and I think that a lot of what people on this board condemn as "Marxist history", they otherwise celebrate as economism - in giving a priority to economic explanations for human behavior.

Economic interpretations certainly have their place, and make significant sense when put into proper context.  The problem is explaining everything through that lens, as many tend to when trying to explain things like religious fervor.  Not everyone is homo economicus.