Since some are making it clear religion had nothing to do with Paris,

[Goblinmonger]

let's come up with some creative explanations for why it did.

What is it that pushed the puppet masters behind this event to do what they did? Because, clearly it was religion, right.

For the inevitable jury: I'm not saying that religion is the only reason behind the attacks in Paris. Frankly, I have seen nobody on DU making that claim. This is just a nice attempt to vent a little after having to deal with those saying that are slapping on and trying to say religion was involved not at all.

[edhopper]

1. Watch out

you may be mocking or provoking someone.
that isn't free speech you know.

[trotsky]

2. The terrorists were possessed by demons.

The largest church in the world says demons are real and and possess people, so there.

[Goblinmonger]

6. Yeah, but which demon smart guy?

Conspiracy theories are best when ridiculously specific.

[Tobin S.]

3. To say that religion had nothing to do with the murders at Charlie Hebdo

is to ignore the elephant sitting in the middle of your living room.

[Goblinmonger]

5. You clearly don't have superior pattern recognition skills.

[Warren Stupidity]

25. Shape Shifting Alien Jews!

They are taking a place right alongside Radioactive Ark Man!

[jeff47]

4. Religion had "nothing to do" with Paris, in that it didn't cause the attacks.

The attacks are about power. The bosses who ordered the attacks want more of it. But it's hard to find minions who will sign up for a life of violence far away.

So you create an environment where it's easier to recruit - you get some of your few minions to conduct an attack. That leads to more oppression, which gives you a larger pool of disaffected to recruit from. More minions, who can then conduct more attacks, which then causes more repression, and a large recruitment pool.

If you'd like a current example of just how well this works, take a look at everything that's happened in the Middle East since 9/11. Al Qaeda's plan worked beautifully. Lots of oppression, lots of backlash, and lots and lots of more supporters. Even knocked off a secularist dictator that was in their way.

What the bosses need is some way to motivate their minions to carry out the attacks. In the Paris and 9/11 cases, they used religion as the tool to motivate the minions. In other historical cases, other tools were used - racism, nationalism, class warfare, anger at repression, and so on.

So the cause of the attacks was sociopaths seeking power. Take away religion, and the sociopaths would use a different tool. Take away the power gain, and the minions don't attack because no one is ordering them to do so.

Claiming it's about religion is to restrict your analysis only to the shooters themselves. Those shooters are part of a larger ecosystem, but talking about that larger ecosystem is more complicated and ugly than only talking about the shooters. So our media only talks about the shooters, leading to lots of other people to only talk about the shooters.

[Tobin S.]

7. So, who ordered the attacks on Charlie Hebdo?

Who are these sociopaths seeking power?

[jeff47]

11. Al Qaeda's branch in Yemen claimed responsibility, IIRC. (nt)

[Warren Stupidity]

23. isn't one of their main goals to establish a sunni theocracy?

How can you possibly separate that from religion?

[jeff47]

27. Wasn't our main goal in Iraq to eliminate WMDs?

Stated goals and actual goals are not the same thing.

[PeaceNikki]

8. Check out the video in this thread. watch it all, if you can.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/123033653

[jeff47]

12. Not gonna watch videos at work. (nt)

[PeaceNikki]

13. k.

[Goblinmonger]

9. Of course it is also about power. Who is saying it isn't?

But are you indicating that those that want power don't want it to a large degree because of their religion.

Or are you saying that at the very core of every religion is someone that knows it is a sham and is just using it for their personal power?

Is the Pope really a non-believer pulling strings to give himself power?

[jeff47]

10. They are sociopaths. They don't give a shit about religion.

To them, religion is just a way to get people to do what they want.

(Note that "sociopath" is being used in a vernacular sense, not a clinical sense)

Or are you saying that at the very core of every religion is someone that knows it is a sham and is just using it for their personal power?

Some are, some aren't. Typically the founder is the kind of person you describe. The followers who take over after them may or may not be true believers.

[Silent3]

14. If pure value-neutral hunger for power is at the core of so much religious...

...activity, then religion is still the problem. It would then be the case that the whole idea of belief without evidence, of treating "faith" as if it's some kind of virtue, is so very susceptible to abuse by the power hungry that it still deserves criticism, including mockery.

If there's some other oh-so-pure and noble core of religion that isn't an abuse of power, one that's so special that we should put it up on a pedestal and treat it with great respect, what exactly is that, and how is it any different from good non-mystical secular moral values?

[jeff47]

15. No, it's at the core of founding a religion.

Later practice of that religion may or may not have such people at it's core. The manipulated often inherit the religion after the founder and their cohorts pass on.

If there's some other oh-so-pure and noble core of religion

There isn't. Feeding the poor because God told you to, or feeding the poor because they are hungry are the same. The problem is the "Got told you to" version often comes with lots of negative baggage.

[Silent3]

18. Beyond adding a layer of conspiratorial narrative about power plays...

...to the situation, I still see no reason then in anything you've said to dissuade me from putting a lot of blame on religion for the Charlie Hebdo attacks, and many other incidents of terrorism.

[jeff47]

19. Yes, keep the narrative simple.

That way we can do things like invade Iraq again.

The point is: could such an attack happen without religion? Yes, they already have. Many times.

Kinda indicates religion isn't at the core of the attack.

[Silent3]

22. So somehow treating religion as besides-the-point prevents pointless wars?

This new learning amazes me, Sir Bedevere. Explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.

[jeff47]

28. Yes, because then you don't follow their plan.

For the plan to work, we have to unleash a broad backlash against all Muslims. Such as invading Iraq.

We don't have to do that.

[Silent3]

33. I see. The only way to combat THEM is to deny reality...

...to an opposite extreme. That'll show THEM.

[AtheistCrusader]

20. "To them, religion is just a way to get people to do what they want."

If it's the ONLY way they know, and they fervently believe it, is this distinction still relevant?

[jeff47]

29. It's not the only way they know.

Nationalism, racism, classism, and all the other tools that have been used in the same strategy are not difficult concepts.

They're using religion right now because it works.

[AlbertCat]

21. The attacks are about power.

And as we all know, religion is NOT about power...


Oh wait.... yes it IS!

"The attacks are about the power of religion"

There, fixed your muddled incomplete statement. So you can just delete the hysterically ridiculous statement "Claiming it's about religion is to restrict your analysis only to the shooters themselves. "

[jeff47]

31. So when Stalinists did the same thing, it was about religion?

Somehow, I think they would have disagreed rather vehemently.

But yes, let's keep the discussion stupid. That way we can invade Iraq again.

[AlbertCat]

34. That way we can invade Iraq again.

Do cut the hyperbole.

Ignoring Islams role is just plain absurd.


And Stalin was about a different kind of religion: A cult of personality (Stalin) and infallibly (the Party) just like a religion.

[Curmudgeoness]

16. I bet it is the commies.

[Warren Stupidity]

24. If we roll this back 40 years....

the argument would be that it wasn't about communism, just some sociopaths using Holy Communism to obtain power.

And actually I had those discussions back in the day.

[Curmudgeoness]

26. I remember those times.

And I remember that the biggest gripe was that the commies were atheists. They were trying to destroy religion wherever they took hold. Hell, I had to do some studying before I realized that communism was more of an economic/social system instead of some form of non-religion.

[jeff47]

30. In many cases, it was.

I don't cite Stalinists as people who used this tactic for entertainment value.

Stalin really didn't give a shit about "the people". Neither did Mao. Both loved power, and used what was handy to get it.

[AlbertCat]

35. What makes you think religion gives a shit about the people?

Religion, after all, is just ancient government. It has always been attached and part of government until 1789. It's about power.

[Rob H.]

17. ...