4 ms·

I think we need a third theory of conflict: political-religious extremism/propaganda/brainwashing. Islamist terrorists and white supremacist terrorists derive

I think we need a third theory of conflict: political-religious extremism/propaganda/brainwashing. Islamist terrorists and white supremacist terrorists derive some motivation (but not all) from their indoctrination. If the Quran and the Hadiths were a much more tame and apolitical document then we wouldn't get the extent and mode of fighting that we experience now. Japan in WW2 fits into this third theory of conflict as well. Yes it was partly fear of the Soviets, partly resentment (and fear of missing out) over European colonialism, but the rabid belief in nationalism and race superiority was also a big causal factor as well. Their reasons for advancing so aggressively into China and South Asia have nothing to do with oppression and nothing to do with a rational theory of conflict. Many thought the war with US was impossible to win, their industrial production capacity was 1/20th that of the US for instance. Pearl Harbor was a suicidal all-in motivated by them running out of oil combined with their inability to surrender (rabid nationalism). Very often these human drivers related to cognitive bias, fanatic belief, tribalism, are at the root.

542354234235 6y ago
> If the Quran and the Hadiths were a much more tame and apolitical document then we wouldn't get the extent and mode of fighting that we experience now. I think this is a mistake and is not backed up by history. Christian Europe warred for hundreds of years, often using religious doctrine as justification. But the reality is that these conflicts were struggles for resources, power grabs by heads of state, instability created by power vacuums, incompetent leaders, ect. The exact flavor of each conflict was influenced by the religion, but fertile soil for conflict was very terrestrial causes. The Middle East had long periods of stability. It is only in the 100 years in the post WWI landscape, where the longstanding empire collapsed, European interests carved up the region with little regard, and installed puppet regimes that were often specifically tied to ethnic or religious differences. This created the fertile ground for conflict, revolution, and oppressive regimes. Since many of the puppet governments were ethnic or religious minorities only ratcheted up those aspects in the future conflicts, and it is exactly what we see now. The idea that Islam is just destined to be violent and chaotic is just as misguided as seeing Middle Ages Europe, reading Jesus’s “I did not come to bring peace, but a sword”, and saying the same thing about Christianity.
- hnracer 6y ago
  > The idea that Islam is just destined to be violent and chaotic I agree with you on this point, and this isn't my claim. My only claim is that the doctrine plays some non-trivial causal role in the entire picture, in that it provides motive in addition to the geopolitical context. I also agree with you that without the spark of geopolitical circumstance, the doctrine itself may not be a sufficient condition for war/terrorism etc. It does however acts as a significant magnifier. Consider this thought experiment: If the Quran (or Bible for that matter) were instead absolute pacifistic in stance: explicitly condemning all political violence and terrorism, all war except that which is strictly defensive, and explicitly outlines a delineation between doctrine & state -- would we see more or less conflict, war, terrorism, etc? These are not impotent documents that play zero role in motivating (or at least, failing to attenuate) specific behavior as a direct outcome of the prescriptions outlined in the text. To an extent they're used as a post hoc justification, but they also play a motivating role (especially if we take the words of Islamist terrorists at face value). We have evidence of this causal role (doctrine to behavior) by looking at governance in some Muslim majority countries that adopt Sharia, e.g. in Iran. Without this specific doctrine, their system of governance would in a literal sense be entirely different. If the Quran prescribes that the state should be secular, I believe that would have had quite a large causal impact on the Arabic world. Another example of the causal role of doctrine was when Christians cherry-picked parts of the bible in support of slavery. If the Bible was less self-contradictory in this instance, it's easy to see that it would've been easier to eliminate slavery faster than it happened. It's also interesting that the only time that the doctrine to action causal path is contested is in the cast of Islamist terrorism. Why does this get contested but everyone accepts a causal role when it comes to white supremacist terrorism, Japanese motives in WW2, and Nazi motives in WW2 (partly driven by anti-semitic beliefs/propaganda, in addition to the more pragmatic Lebensraum motive and a wounded national ego after Treaty of Versailles & WW1 loss)?
  - 542354234235 6y ago
    > To an extent they're used as a post hoc justification, but they also play a motivating role (especially if we take the words of Islamist terrorists at face value). Absolutely. But that is what I was saying, that religion determines the exact flavor of conflict, but the root causes are rarely religious. If it was different (if the Middle East was Christian and Europe was Muslim for instance) the Middle Ages would have still been a violent chaotic time for Europe, and the Middle East would have still been a violent chaotic time after WWI. > It's also interesting that the only time that the doctrine to action causal path is contested is in the cast of Islamist terrorism I think largely it is because it is so often been used (especially in the post 9/11 era) as a shoulder shrug “well that’s just how Muslims are” excuse. In this very thread, people have said that the post invasion Iraqi chaos was due to “10,000yr of cultural baggage that needs mopping up” when it was directly a result of the US failing to have any plan for post invasion security after collapsing the government. The picture is often painted that these issues in the Middle East are unsolvable because it’s all because of Islam and they have been fighting for 1,000 years and that’s not going to change. To use your Nazi example, it would be like looking at Germany during WWII and saying “well they are religious anti Semites. That’s why they fight and they will always fight and we can’t change their religious beliefs so that’s just the way it is.” Of course I know you aren’t saying this, but enough people are that I feel it needs to be contextualized. How people understand the situation in the Middle East effects what strategies we support in dealing with the Middle East. If people keep believing that the situation is caused by religion (something we cannot change) instead of economic instability, proxy conflict by regional and global powers, power vacuums from collapsing dictatorships, etc., then it will continue to hamper our foreign policy. Even terrorism is primarily a small number of globally focused jihadists infecting and coopting local causes and grievances. > Another example of the causal role of doctrine was when Christians cherry-picked parts of the bible in support of slavery. If the Bible was less self-contradictory in this instance, it's easy to see that it would've been easier to eliminate slavery faster than it happened. Even this I think is overblown in its influence. Many Christian countries gave up enslaved Africans much easier than the US. If the Bible was silent on slavery, I think it would have still gone very similarly for the US. Slavery was propping up the plantation based economy of the southern States, the 3/5th voting rules allowed for the less populated southern states to have outsized electoral power compared to the northern states, and the rapid expansion West (and the proposed rules on slavery for incoming states) threatened to upset that Southern power. In other words, I think people put too much stock in religious justifications, when underlying structural reasons are often what really shape things.

542354234235 6y ago

> If the Quran and the Hadiths were a much more tame and apolitical document then we wouldn't get the extent and mode of fighting that we experience now. I think this is a mistake and is not backed up by history. Christian Europe warred for hundreds of years, often using religious doctrine as justification. But the reality is that these conflicts were struggles for resources, power grabs by heads of state, instability created by power vacuums, incompetent leaders, ect. The exact flavor of each conflict was influenced by the religion, but fertile soil for conflict was very terrestrial causes. The Middle East had long periods of stability. It is only in the 100 years in the post WWI landscape, where the longstanding empire collapsed, European interests carved up the region with little regard, and installed puppet regimes that were often specifically tied to ethnic or religious differences. This created the fertile ground for conflict, revolution, and oppressive regimes. Since many of the puppet governments were ethnic or religious minorities only ratcheted up those aspects in the future conflicts, and it is exactly what we see now. The idea that Islam is just destined to be violent and chaotic is just as misguided as seeing Middle Ages Europe, reading Jesus’s “I did not come to bring peace, but a sword”, and saying the same thing about Christianity.

hnracer 6y ago
> The idea that Islam is just destined to be violent and chaotic I agree with you on this point, and this isn't my claim. My only claim is that the doctrine plays some non-trivial causal role in the entire picture, in that it provides motive in addition to the geopolitical context. I also agree with you that without the spark of geopolitical circumstance, the doctrine itself may not be a sufficient condition for war/terrorism etc. It does however acts as a significant magnifier. Consider this thought experiment: If the Quran (or Bible for that matter) were instead absolute pacifistic in stance: explicitly condemning all political violence and terrorism, all war except that which is strictly defensive, and explicitly outlines a delineation between doctrine & state -- would we see more or less conflict, war, terrorism, etc? These are not impotent documents that play zero role in motivating (or at least, failing to attenuate) specific behavior as a direct outcome of the prescriptions outlined in the text. To an extent they're used as a post hoc justification, but they also play a motivating role (especially if we take the words of Islamist terrorists at face value). We have evidence of this causal role (doctrine to behavior) by looking at governance in some Muslim majority countries that adopt Sharia, e.g. in Iran. Without this specific doctrine, their system of governance would in a literal sense be entirely different. If the Quran prescribes that the state should be secular, I believe that would have had quite a large causal impact on the Arabic world. Another example of the causal role of doctrine was when Christians cherry-picked parts of the bible in support of slavery. If the Bible was less self-contradictory in this instance, it's easy to see that it would've been easier to eliminate slavery faster than it happened. It's also interesting that the only time that the doctrine to action causal path is contested is in the cast of Islamist terrorism. Why does this get contested but everyone accepts a causal role when it comes to white supremacist terrorism, Japanese motives in WW2, and Nazi motives in WW2 (partly driven by anti-semitic beliefs/propaganda, in addition to the more pragmatic Lebensraum motive and a wounded national ego after Treaty of Versailles & WW1 loss)?
- 542354234235 6y ago
  > To an extent they're used as a post hoc justification, but they also play a motivating role (especially if we take the words of Islamist terrorists at face value). Absolutely. But that is what I was saying, that religion determines the exact flavor of conflict, but the root causes are rarely religious. If it was different (if the Middle East was Christian and Europe was Muslim for instance) the Middle Ages would have still been a violent chaotic time for Europe, and the Middle East would have still been a violent chaotic time after WWI. > It's also interesting that the only time that the doctrine to action causal path is contested is in the cast of Islamist terrorism I think largely it is because it is so often been used (especially in the post 9/11 era) as a shoulder shrug “well that’s just how Muslims are” excuse. In this very thread, people have said that the post invasion Iraqi chaos was due to “10,000yr of cultural baggage that needs mopping up” when it was directly a result of the US failing to have any plan for post invasion security after collapsing the government. The picture is often painted that these issues in the Middle East are unsolvable because it’s all because of Islam and they have been fighting for 1,000 years and that’s not going to change. To use your Nazi example, it would be like looking at Germany during WWII and saying “well they are religious anti Semites. That’s why they fight and they will always fight and we can’t change their religious beliefs so that’s just the way it is.” Of course I know you aren’t saying this, but enough people are that I feel it needs to be contextualized. How people understand the situation in the Middle East effects what strategies we support in dealing with the Middle East. If people keep believing that the situation is caused by religion (something we cannot change) instead of economic instability, proxy conflict by regional and global powers, power vacuums from collapsing dictatorships, etc., then it will continue to hamper our foreign policy. Even terrorism is primarily a small number of globally focused jihadists infecting and coopting local causes and grievances. > Another example of the causal role of doctrine was when Christians cherry-picked parts of the bible in support of slavery. If the Bible was less self-contradictory in this instance, it's easy to see that it would've been easier to eliminate slavery faster than it happened. Even this I think is overblown in its influence. Many Christian countries gave up enslaved Africans much easier than the US. If the Bible was silent on slavery, I think it would have still gone very similarly for the US. Slavery was propping up the plantation based economy of the southern States, the 3/5th voting rules allowed for the less populated southern states to have outsized electoral power compared to the northern states, and the rapid expansion West (and the proposed rules on slavery for incoming states) threatened to upset that Southern power. In other words, I think people put too much stock in religious justifications, when underlying structural reasons are often what really shape things.