I am interested in the ginormous solidarity against the ignorant loons that perpetrated this attack.
Surely that cannot serve the interests of lunatic central.
I am interested to note that this was primarily an attack on young people.
I am reminded of the Oxford proposal in the 1930s:
"We will not fight for king and country."
When it came to it, they led the fight against National Socialism.
Perhaps the primitives believe they can scare the young into the Corbyn/Obama "Peace at any cost" brigade.
I see little sign that is going to be anything but counter-productive.
I took time to watch a session of Eagles of death metal - quite an impressive group, and very macho.
I am impressed at how 'soft' are many Middle Easterners. They seem threatened by more advanced civilisation.
You see the same with Pootin's ridiculous posturing as the Russian empire recedes into history.
These people appear to find adjusting to a lesser role in history a very painful experience.
mass murder psychology
Note the similarity to many mass murders, such as in school shootings, perpetrated by 'losers'. They kill as many as they can, and then kill themselves (or provoke the "suicide by cops" option).
There are some unsophisticated 'reporters' calling these self-destructive ignoramuses, 'brave'. As is often said, suicide is the coward's way out.
These sad loons are indeed cowards who cannot face the stresses and problems of normal life.
misthinking can start from childhood
A stick of dynamite is reasonably safe until you light the fuse.
For example, the ruler of Germany, Angela Merkel, was 'educated' in the former German Socialist Republic.
That programming very likely remains buried in her head (computer).
It just needs the appropriate stimulus.
The refugee 'crisis' appears to have sparked that fuse for her.
Most humans are simply mad. They have nuttiness conditioned in during childhood. Those nuttinesses stop them thinking well under appropriate circumstances.
Look at Barak Obama, raised between Islam and Marxism.
It is very foolish to ignore such facts.
Look at the loon that raised Ed Miliband with his Marxist nonsense. Now in Britain, there is Jeremy Corbyn.
This may be psychological rocket science, but it can be understood with sufficient study.
leaders and followers, accolytes
Although the apparent 'calm' behaviour of this type of attacker is related to hypnosis, is more complex than that. It is more a matter of cult conditioning.
These aggressors are losers, following 'leaders' that are often shysters who manipulate them. For another example, look up 'love bombing' by the Moonies (followers of Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church).
The shysters play on the insecurities and resentments of ignorant and lonely/isolated people.
These 'leaders' are more like mafiosi/gangsters.
gangsters, cult leaders, fanatical fervour - taking power
A group of Socialist fanatics took over Russia in 1917. Another similar group took over Germany in the 1930s. The mafia, the Columbian and Mexican drug cartels control billions of dollars and kill at will.
Supposedly idological groups often start as criminal gangs. Then people try to consolidate, they form franchises, they try to get a cut of the market.
It happens in business, it happens as tribes form nations. Lawyers do it, accountants do it, protection rackets and franchises work that way.
This is not 'mysterious'. It is standard human behaviour and social structure formation.
"One 34-year-old Yazidi woman, who was bought and repeatedly raped by a Saudi fighter in the Syrian city of Shadadi, described how she fared better than the second slave in the household — a 12-year-old girl who was raped for days on end despite heavy bleeding.
" “He destroyed her body. She was badly infected. The fighter kept coming and asking me, ‘Why does she smell so bad?’ And I said, she has an infection on the inside, you need to take care of her,” the woman said.
"Unmoved, he ignored the girl’s agony, continuing the ritual of praying before and after raping the child.
" “I said to him, ‘She’s just a little girl,’ ” the older woman recalled. “And he answered: ‘No. She’s not a little girl. She’s a slave. And she knows exactly how to have sex.’ ’’
" “And having sex with her pleases God,” he said."
"That is why it is vital to insist, time and again, on the difference
between this sick jihadism and Islam; and that is why, conversely, we
must do everything we can to stop the likes of Cage and indeed the
MCB from eliding anti-jihadism with Islamophobia. You can loathe
jihadists, in other words, and be perfectly sympathetic to Muslims." [Said by Boris Johnson, Mayor of London]
Boris's nonsense may be good diplomacy, or it may not.
Islam spread by the sword, not by evangelisation. The sword is deep in why Islam was able to spread so far and so quickly. Naturally, many Islamists look with foolish yearning to their old time advances.
How much better to be part of a new winning empire, than struggling for A-levels and jobs among a more advanced and sophisticated society. How much less depressing than accepting that the glory days have long been overtaken by the ever advancing western civilisation.
The problem is integral to Islam. It is integral to some Islamic teachings.
Giving false myths to disoriented young people may give them a false self-regard, but it is not honest and it does not encourage them to learn and advance, and adjust to a modern world.
It is not somehow 'mysterious' that some middle-class teenagers prefer the fake self-belief and a sense of purpose, to the tender-minded socialist secularism touted by incompetent teachers and politicians. You do not grow robust adults by feeding them soft socialist placebos.
Idealism is a great driver of young minds and that is a very good thing, but intelligent adults eventually learn realism. Their parents left often dreadful societies and therefore suffered little delusion. Their children have been taught idealism without realism.
They are taught by their parents myths, beliefs and moral standards. Then they go into schools and are taught other myths, such as the tolerance and scientific achievements of earlier Islamic societies, along with socialist secularism with its attendant irresponsibility and selfishness. It is no wonder that young and developing minds become confused.
what is islam? a modernist apologetic deconstructionist at work
"18. The Inconsistency
Third, if Islamic Law is a methodology, with well-defined principles
and a consistent internal logic, then it becomes clear who is
objectively Islamic and who is not. For Wood and Haykel, all it takes
for a Muslim group to be very Islamic is that they use the language of the Qur'an and hadiths in articulating their interpretation of
Islam. But consider this analogy. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Liberia, the UAE, China, Syria, and Iran have signed and ratified many
international human rights treaties. Their political leaders also wax
poetic about the importance of freedom and democracy with a fervor
that would make Thomas Jefferson himself blush. But does the use of
such liberal democratic language make these political regimes, in
actuality, liberal or democratic? Of course no one would agree with
this, but using the logic of Haykel and his cohorts in the academy,
who's to say otherwise? The underlying bias is that religions, like
Islam, have no objective existence above and beyond the beliefs and
actions of individual adherents, whereas Western normative systems,
like secular liberalism, do have objective content that is not open to
limitless interpretation. This is the bald-faced double standard that
allows the ivory tower to remain coyly noncommittal about the
un-Islamic-ness of ISIS.
19. The Methodology
Finally, then, how is ISIS decidedly not Islamic? Well, what
characterizes ISIS's approach to Islamic Law is a glaring lack of
methodology beyond textual cherry-picking. They cite broadly, scanning
classical Muslim texts for whatever expediently fits their agenda. But
this post hoc scrapbooking is the exact reverse of legitimate juristic
methodology. The proper derivation of Islamic legal opinions, as
practiced for centuries by Muslim jurists, begins from general
methodological principles (usul al-fiqh), takes into account the
relevant scriptural and extra-scriptural indicants, and then arrives
at specific rulings. ISIS, of course, has no usul al-fiqh, no
consistent methodology, and, hence, no connection to Islamic Law. And
this is precisely what Muslim scholars around the world have been
saying in denouncing and debunking ISIS's McSharia. A casual
observer, like Wood, may be impressed with all the citations ISIS
propagandists have up their sleeves,
but anyone with a basic
understanding of the way Islamic Law works will know better. [Quoted from muslimmatters.org]
The above is a response to
an article that is said to have been the most read of any atlantic.com article.
Below is an extract from that article.
"The most-articulate spokesmen for that position are the Islamic
States officials and supporters themselves. They refer derisively to moderns. In conversation, they insist that they will
notcannotwaver from governing precepts that were embedded in Islam
by the Prophet Muhammad and his earliest followers. They often speak
in codes and allusions that sound odd or old-fashioned to non-Muslims,
but refer to specific traditions and texts of early Islam."
"Virtually every major decision and law promulgated by the Islamic
State adheres to what it calls, in its press and pronouncements, and
on its billboards, license plates, stationery, and coins, the
Prophetic methodology, which means following the prophecy and example
of Muhammad, in punctilious detail. Muslims can reject the Islamic
State; nearly all do. But pretending that it isnt actually a
religious, millenarian group, with theology that must be understood to
be combatted, has already led the United States to underestimate it
and back foolish schemes to counter it...
"Leaders of the Islamic State have taken emulation of Muhammad as
strict duty, and have revived traditions that have been dormant for
hundreds of years. Whats striking about them is not just the
literalism, but also the seriousness with which they read these
texts, Haykel said. There is an assiduous, obsessive seriousness
that Muslims dont normally have.
"If al-Qaeda wanted to revive slavery, it never said so. And why would it? Silence on slavery probably reflected strategic thinking, with
public sympathies in mind: when the Islamic State began enslaving
people, even some of its supporters balked. Nonetheless, the caliphate
has continued to embrace slavery and crucifixion without apology. We
will conquer your Rome, break your crosses, and enslave your women, Adnani, the spokesman, promised in one of his periodic valentines to
the West. If we do not reach that time, then our children and
grandchildren will reach it, and they will sell your sons as slaves at
the slave market.
"Before the caliphate, maybe 85 percent of the Sharia was absent from
our lives, Choudary told me. These laws are in abeyance until we
have khilafaa caliphateand now we have one. Without a caliphate,
for example, individual vigilantes are not obliged to amputate the
hands of thieves they catch in the act. But create a caliphate, and
this law, along with a huge body of other jurisprudence, suddenly
awakens. In theory, all Muslims are obliged to immigrate to the
territory where the caliph is applying these laws. One of Choudarys
prize students, a convert from Hinduism named Abu Rumaysah, evaded
police to bring his family of five from London to Syria in November.
On the day I met Choudary, Abu Rumaysah tweeted out a picture of
himself with a Kalashnikov in one arm and his newborn son in the
other. Hashtag: #GenerationKhilafah."
[Quoted from theatlantic.com]
Robert Spencer from Jihad Watch interviews Danish psychologist Nicolai Sennels.
The film is an attempt to psychoanalyse the mental dynamic of jihadism. Most of it is pretty sound.
The model Sennel uses is OK if you’re dealing with vegetarians or those already reasonably socialised, but it doesn’t work with spoiled children, or sociopaths, or psychopaths.
Sennel seems to miss the overwhelming critical factor - violence works for the violent, or they’d stop using violence. It is working for the jihadists and their ilk. President Obama is a weakling and such behaviour, his behaviour, plays right into their hands. Similarly, letting murderers out of prison is not a pragmatic approach.
The only way to treat the violent is to stop violence working for them.
Sennels commits a major logical error at the end. The West is eventually forced to confront Hitler or jihadi Islam, in view of their murderous actions.
Sennels is trying to argue that the twisted logic of Islam is somehow untenable (essentially victimology, and this he correctly links also to socialism).
Unfortunately, the common Western response is not tenable. If you buy into victimology, socialism has killed tens of million on the basis of very analogous ‘reasoning’ to that of jihadi Islam. But in reality, civilised communities are victimised by socialism or jihadism. The only difference is between the reality of jihadi/socialist victimisation of civilised societies and the false perception of victimisation among socialists/jihadists.
Thus the mental state is similar in the two cases, but the jihadis and socialists are deranged. That still leaves us with the problem of stopping their mayhem and various aggressions. However, the film is a discussion between two neece, over-civilised people.
I saw recently, in a film, a Canadian being told to stand up for himself and confront a person who was troubling him. His response was, “but I’m a Canadian”. Sennels seems to have a slice of that problem.