patrick.net

Where's the "I stand with Saint Petersburg" stuff? Where is the media pictures of people gathered around flowers and candles all over the world? Why did no media media organization reporting, with actual seriousness, "Hollande may have caused Bataclan because of failing poll numbers and LePen surging in polls." and featuring people like Louise Mensch and Gary Kasparov who actually believe it?

You're witnessing concentrated, coordinated propaganda in action.

The guy that planted at least one of them will be hard to punish:

Russian authorities identified Akbarzhon Dzhalilov, a Russian citizen of Kyrgyz origin, as the man responsible for bombing the St. Petersburg metro Monday.

Dzhalilov, 22, is suspected of engaging in the suicide bombing attack, which killed 14 people and injured another 49. Authorities reportedly identified him by finding his head at the crime scene.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/04/fragments-of-suspected-suicide-bomber-found-at-st-petersburg-metro-bombing/

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Where's the "I stand with Saint Petersburg" stuff? Where is the media pictures of people gathered around flowers and candles all over the world? Why did no media media organization reporting, with actual seriousness, "Hollande may have caused Bataclan because of failing poll numbers and LePen surging in polls." and featuring people like Louise Mensch and Gary Kasparov who actually believe it?

You're witnessing concentrated, coordinated propaganda in action.

Ft. Lauderdale, Boston, London, Paris, Berlin, Moscow

CItizen. Check.
Muslim. Check.
Reprisal for government actions against muslims. Check.

Where is the massive outcry about muslim immigrants flooding russian society causing this terrorist bombing? How permissive society and lax law enforcement is to blame? Crickets chirping from the right wing echo chamber. Crickets chirping from patnets resident right wingnuts. What a surprise.

What could possess someone to do this?

Blurtman says

What could possess someone to do this?

religion

HEY YOU says

What's the best punishment for one that light this up?  

Keep them alive and in prison for the rest of their lives. Force them to do things offensive to their religion every day like eating nothing but pork and drawing lewd pictures of Mohamed. Don't let them pray or face Mecca. Make sure the entire Muslim world knows that this is what happens to those who commit murder in the name of their religion. Fear of offending their false god will deter them from taking this risk.

bob2356 says

Reprisal for government actions against muslims

You can call it that, but the cultivation of grievance is central to the Koran. No matter how Muslims are treated, they will always have contempt and hate for all non-Muslims.

This hatred for non-Muslims is on every page of the Koran.

rando says

Koran

Quran. Koran is a South Korean pop band.

Meh, why bother with "qu"? It's probably supposed to indicate something about the Arabic word for the book, but I don't kare.

:-)

Punishment? The guy will be promoted to Major or even Lieutenant colonel.

rando says

No matter how Muslims are treated, they will always have contempt and hate for all non-Muslims.

This hatred for non-Muslims is on every page of the Koran.

Yea sure whatever you say.

rando says

Meh, why bother with "qu"?

At least it has a u after the q, unlike Al Qaeda. How the hell did that spelling of an Arabic word get chosen?

Dan8267 says

religion

Simplistic and misses.

I highly recommend this full documentary for those interested: The Anatomy Of Hate. That's just a youtube clip of what is a full documentary.

There are techniques used by most militaries in the world, that work to overcome the sheer terror inducing potential of a modern battlefield, and to produce an ability to kill in the solider. It is actually not a natural desire, or instinct, in the human animal to kill one another. We do it out of fear of "the other".

What is actually required to kill someone else, for a typically sane person, is overwhelming amounts of fear, hate/anger, and often desperation. You don't have to have all three, you just need enough of one, or enough in combination, to do it. Then the human animal can do things like gouge out another's eyeballs with their bare hands and paint their face in the blood.

Religion/Islam is group identifier. Ideologies can be used as a way to separate yourself from another human. That separation is a key thing required in a human's ability to do very inhumane things. This is what begins the definition of "the other". This self identification starts to give an ability to hate and fear in a big enough quantity. There are many other tribal definers, beyond religion, that can be used to do this as well: skin color, race, culture, nationalism, etc. etc. (It's no accident the best derogatory terms are often coined when countries are at war with one another. I'm sure you can think of whole laundry lists of current/old terms for nationalities and people. Two relatively current one : "skinny" Somalia ... "haji" anything current in the Middle East.)

The more you are able to see yourself in someone else, the less you are able to do harm to them.

Fundamentalists, and hardline ideologies, are setup by their nature to be very "us against them". This means you have a group with typically very strong identity markers of who is part of that group, who is not, and typically massive senses of self identity wrapped up in being in that group. Humans in these types of groups have a much greater capacity to kill other human beings.

Religion, alone, and itself, is too simplistic an answer.

Rew says

Simplistic and misses.

Feel free to back up that assertion with evidence. I've got 10,000 years of history that demonstrates that religion causes people to do horrific things. But hey, maybe you are right. Maybe Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. Make your case. But please tell me why this woman is too simplistic and full of hate.

www.5Z_MzNti8BU

Rew says

The more you are able to see yourself in someone else, the less you are able to do harm to them.

Science, not religion, helps this.

Rew says

Religion, alone, and itself, is too simplistic an answer.

Give me one reason that faith, the belief without evidence and in spite of counter-evidence, is ever a good thing.

Dan8267 says

Give me one reason that faith, the belief without evidence and in spite of counter-evidence, is ever a good thing.

I'm not claiming it is good or bad. I'm simply saying that religion is not the ONLY thing that allows things like your picture. Religion itself is ONE OF the things that allows it ... as I stated above.

Rew says

I'm simply saying that religion is not the ONLY thing that allows things like your picture.

And rape is not the only way women get hurt, but there's no good pro-rape argument. Again, what is the up side of religion that justifies its lies and brainwashing?

Rew says

Fundamentalists, and hardline ideologies, are setup by their nature to be very "us against them"

Why did Lincoln state that all men are to be free, and the southern states refused, and they were democrats and would rather have a revolution than let a man be free as our constitution says.

When your fundamentals are virtue, the desire for liberty for all, and your ideal situation is the only right and fair situation, should those who buy the populace off, and break laws and then justify them be allowed to prosper for doing their evil?

Entitlemented says

they were democrats and would rather have a revolution than let a man be free as our constitution says.

Pre-1960s democrats are republicans today and pre-1960s republicans are democrats today. All the people switched parties because of Nixon's Southern Strategy. It's the people in the party, not the name of the party, that matters.

When today's republicans complain about the democrats before 1960, they are complaining about their older members and their ancestors. Don't forget that.