Had an interesting conversation with a Middle Eastern man this morning....

[clarice]

He works at the corner store where I stop every morning. We usually just pass pleasantries between us.
He is a nice man. I have no idea if he is a Muslim or not...none of my business....never asked. He is from
Lebanon, but has been here for many years. This morning he seemed much more reserved than normal, so I asked him what was wrong. His English is passable, but a bit hard to understand. He told me that the weekend bombings were very
troubling to him. I tried to console him, telling him that sometimes, religion makes no sense at all. He looked at me with a sad smile and said

"Yes, there are many disturbed (his word) people over there who will kill in the name of God.....but..it's mostly about MONEY" I'm going to try to paraphrase at this point because much of the rest was kinda hard to follow.
Basically it came down to his belief that ISIS, Taliban, etc. are HIDING beneath the umbrella
of Islam but are actually no better than common thugs and thieves, pirates and murderers killing themselves and innocent people
for territory and money. I never considered that angle, and wonder if anyone else has heard something similar.

[Wounded Bear]

1. Religion is a business...

It has always been a business. In fact, I consider the Catholic Church to be the prototypical multi-national corporation. Frankly, it set the standard that all multi-nationals have follwed, from the Dutch East India Company, the British East India Company looking forward to the Oil/Energy giants of the present day.

As always, follow the money.

[Oneironaut]

15. +1 - The two are inseparable.

Religion is a business that sells peace of mind- an afterlife where death ceases to exist, justice against those who escaped it while alive, and a general sense of control in a chaotic world. The only reason we don't call it a scheme is because enough people believe in it.

[bemildred]

2. I have always considered them to be armed gangs using religion as a pretext.

It's not exactly a new thing, or particularly Islamic, or even religious.

[TreasonousBastard]

3. The Crusades were about trade routes and...

the Holy Land thing was just to get the rubes in line...

When we took over the Philippines our excuse was to bring the pagan islanders to Christianity. The Archbishop in DC was not amused, saying the Spanish had already converted them to Catholicism a couple of hundred years ago.

It's always about money and power. Every time someone hits you with God, Country, or any other such damn thing, watch your wallet.

I've never believed ISIS and the rest of them were religious fanatics-- they may have started out that way, but became addicted to the violence, money and power.

[Cirque du So-What]

7. When I hear the words

'I'm a Christian businessman/woman,' my hand is ON my wallet.

[Act_of_Reparation]

11. Not for the thousands of foot soldiers who fought them, it wasn't.

And I strongly suggest you consult a history book or two. There were many crusades, and not all of them were fought for the same reasons.

[Wounded Bear]

17. Actually, they were...

for loot, like all Wars of Conquest.

[Act_of_Reparation]

24. Did you just make that up?

Because it sounds like you just made that up.

There is no way to assess the motives of the thousands of poor who journeyed from Europe to Outremer during the First Crusade, as the largely illiterate largely don't write shit down. We do know how they were recruited, however, and that was by homilies given by bishops in churches. We also have some general idea of what these homilies entailed, because they were given by order of the Pope himself.

The notion that landed knights would take the cross for riches is likewise unconvincing. The cost of equipping one's self and one's coterie for battle and travel from western Europe to Outremer was astronomical. How much riches do you think they would get? Moreover, most that survived the journey and the battles opted to return to Europe rather than try to carve out new fiefs for themselves in the Holy Land.

Even the nobility's motivations are questionable. If greed was the motivating factor, then one would expect to have seen younger, non-firstborn sons without much prospect for advancement at home making up the bulk of the fighting force. But this wasn't the case. Many of those who took the cross were established, powerful nobles with more to lose than to gain.

Under the circumstances, it would be absolutely ludicrous to discount personal zeal as at least a major factor in the decision to take the cross, no matter one's social standing.

[TeamPooka]

26. Many nobles bought replacements to send to war for them. So I'm on the side of war is business

[Act_of_Reparation]

28. Many, eh?

Then you should have no difficulty naming them.

[TeamPooka]

33. Tom, Hairy, and Dick. nt

[Act_of_Reparation]

36. Well done.

Though the next time you make shit up, you should probably try to be less obvious about it.

[kag]

19. Right.

And the ISIS members blowing themselves up aren't the ones doing it for the money. They're doing FOR the ones who WANT the money and power and territory.

The whole point is that yes, the rank and file are largely devout followers of corrupt leaders. Those corrupt leaders are the ones addicted to the wealth, power, violence, etc.

It was the same with the crusades...on both sides. The mystique of monarchy in the west (King Richard, Queen Eleanor and those Kings and Queens who followed and who had their own private reasons) against the Charismatic Saladin and his family were able to persuade thousands to risk (give) their lives in wars that very few of the common foot soldiers even understood.

It's the same now. ISIS is fighting for power and the U.S. is fighting for the multinationals who currently HAVE the power. Our troops (for whom I generally have deep respect) and the ISIS suicide bombers are following the orders of those in power.

I agree with the OP. Follow the money. Always.

[druidity33]

34. Well stated. Better than i could have. nt.

[Act_of_Reparation]

37. I don't think so.

And the ISIS members blowing themselves up aren't the ones doing it for the money.

Well, yes. That's my point.

They're doing FOR the ones who WANT the money and power and territory.

I don't pretend to know the minds of ISIS' leaders. Some may crave money and power, sure, but there's no reason they can't be motivated by personal zeal as well. These things aren't mutually exclusive, and since they proclaim rather vociferously their dedication to the faith, I think it silly to discount this out of hand.

It was the same with the crusades...on both sides. The mystique of monarchy in the west (King Richard, Queen Eleanor and those Kings and Queens who followed and who had their own private reasons) against the Charismatic Saladin and his family were able to persuade thousands to risk (give) their lives in wars that very few of the common foot soldiers even understood.

Again, there was more than one Crusade. Richard and Saladin didn't show up until the Third Crusade, unironically called "The Kings Crusade". The First Crusade -- "The People's Crusade" -- was waged by the papacy, and its commanders were largely knights and counts.

It's the same now. ISIS is fighting for power and the U.S. is fighting for the multinationals who currently HAVE the power. Our troops (for whom I generally have deep respect) and the ISIS suicide bombers are following the orders of those in power.

I agree with the OP. Follow the money. Always.

And I don't agree.

Following the money may give you some insight into the motivations of those in power, but those in power don't make history. The people who follow them do. If fifteen crusaders march off to the Holy Land in search of money, and 35,000 follow them for God, then it is absolutely disingenuous to say their crusade is about money. Because for the sweeping majority of those that make the Crusade possible, it's about God. Without God, you have fifteen jackasses with no army.

[kag]

40. I think we are in violent agreement on many points.

Of course everyone has different reasons for going to war, both during the crusades and today, and every war before, between and since. Also, as I stated in a comment down-thread days ago, both religious or cultural zeal can be a factor as well as the quest for glory, money and power, even within one individual much less among many individuals fighting on both sides.

During the many crusades, even the first, there were those who did it for the most sincere and deeply held religious reasons as well as those who did it in hopes of glory, money, power, and even those who did it out of a thirst for violence and a "legitimate" chance to feed their violent tendencies.

But on one point I definitely disagree with you. You wrote, "...those in power don't make history. The people who follow them do." What? Very few "common foot soldiers" are remembered in wars throughout history. Of course, there are notable exceptions, but it is the people who start the wars, control the resources, and benefit from the outcomes who are remembered. Osama bin Laden was no "foot-soldier." Nor was W, nor Saadam Hussein, nor Saladin, Pope Pius II, nor even Eleanor of Aquitaine who played an instrumental role in recruiting men to take the cross.

I understand your meaning though. Without the thousands of "common foot-soldiers" there would be no wars. But they aren't the ones who start those wars, no matter how devout their beliefs. And by and large, I believe that the people who start the wars, even though they may have strong beliefs in a "righteous" cause, do it for the money, power, and territory.

[lark]

22. Not talking about those that fight in these wars.

Those are just foot soliders doing what they are told. This OP is about those who plan the violence, the ones at the top who personally profit from these actions.

[Act_of_Reparation]

38. No, they're not "just foot soldiers doing what they are old"

The crusaders volunteered.

In any event, the ones at the top can't do anything without the ones in the middle and the ones at the bottom. Sorry, but their motivations matter. And, if I may be perfectly honest, it is incredibly stupid to discount personal ideology as a motivator, no matter who we are talking about.

[rug]

39. The First Crusade was in large part a response to the threat of the Umayyad Caliphate.

The Second Crusade was in large part a response to the reconquest of the Crusader State of Edessa.

The Third Crusade was in large part a response to the destruction of the Crusader Army by Saladin at Hattin.

They were not about transubstantiation.

[roamer65]

4. The problem is Saudi and Qatari oil money.

It flows into that god awful sect of Wahhabi Islam.

Ask a Shi'a Muslim and they will tell you what they think of it.

[deaniac21]

5. Ask a Shi'a Muslim

and they will tell you what they think of a Wahhabi.

[closeupready]

6. That money has begun to dry up now, though. I mean,

they still have lots of money, but not like before when idle hands handled so much money, that they couldn't spend it fast enough (to the point, they 'invested' in pipe dream fantasies like the 9/11 scheme)...

[yardwork]

8. Sounds reasonable.

[Matrosov]

9. Terror is a business

These groups know they can never make the US and Europe surrender to them, they can never conquer territory outside of the Middle East, they can never wipe Israel off the map, and so forth.

Their real ambition is to make as much money off their crimes as possible. You'll notice the only ones really getting their hands dirty are the 'foot soldiers.' If the leaders actually believed in the religious rhetoric they preach, about how divine rewards await those who martyr themselves for God, they would be the first ones to strap on a bomb vest and blow themselves up.

Their terror attacks are meant to impress potential recruits as much as they are meant to scare their enemies. For example, the Paris attacks came when ISIS had already had some setbacks in Iraq and Syria and then the Russian started piling on them. The theory is that Paris was supposed to improve the morale of ISIS fighters and make the group more attractive to potential recruits and sponsors again.

Even some of the 'foot soldiers' aren't in it for religious reasons. ISIS promises to provide its fighters with housing and an allowance. Fighters with a wife and children get a higher allowance. They also claim they'll take care of the families of any ISIS fighters that die in battle. That and the threat of being killed for not supporting ISIS is a powerful incentive for many.

[maxsolomon]

10. "No True Scotsman"

the Baghdad bombing & Bangladesh bakery attack should disturb the hell out of him, and everyone. How money is to be made off of that slaughter is beyond me - but I understand why he'd prefer to consider ISIL a criminal gang.

the Sunni Islamists' goals are largely unchanged, and the Bangladeshi Terrorists stated them very clearly: separate Islam and the West. Make any Islamic nation off-limits to Westerners; bomb airports, restaurants, tourist sites, airplanes. Make travel there simply not worth it. They believe that Observant Islam is only weakened by exposure to other cultures, other religions, other customs. Particularly Secular Cultures. Plus, they hate Shiites.

the Jiddah Bombing I have no explanation for - at Mohammed's Tomb, no less. A warning to the Sauds? Houthi revenge for destroying Yemen? Suicide bombings aren't a typical Shiite tactic.

[Act_of_Reparation]

12. It's not about religion, it's about money.

Because there's no way it could possibly be about both.

[kag]

21. Okay.

Once I got past the you make a very good point.

[elleng]

13. That's my impression too,

'common thugs and thieves,' and some 'young' people looking for something exciting to do for attention.

[getagrip_already]

14. and don't forget...

the cheetoh jebus has said he would take the oil. It will probably be sold under contract with trump oil.

To the victors go the spoils. and there are so, so many spoils.

[Betty Karlson]

16. Certainly: the Taliban and ISIs really operate like highway bandits trying to establish a permanent

domain. And having a turf war while they are at it.

And then there is a whole stream of money funding these thugs which we don't easily see. It flows from Saui-Arabia and Qatar, mostly.

[Oneironaut]

18. Here's the "fun" part - You can use religion to justify anything.

Want to be torture nonbelievers, kill, rape children, or capture people and sell them into slavery? Your religion says it's ok! Just tell yourself that your religion says it's ok and get a bunch of other people to agree. There's nothing to actually prove you wrong.

[TeamPooka]

27. that's why it's such a good opiate of the masses.

[lark]

20. Hadn't really thought of that, but the dude has an excellent point!

Look a the disputed oil fields in Iraq, they are a prime ISIS target. Religion has always been about control and power with money being the method to reach the first 2 goals. Religion is just the outer covering.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

23. The propaganda is the entire population there is Muslim....

Just like the entire population here is Christian.

[SHRED]

25. When people are employed and happy

They rarely if ever turn to extremism.

That is the point I was lambasted here by some while trying to make. Maybe I wasn't clear enough?
I had the audacity to suggest that the western world these last hundred years have contributed to the desperation in that region.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027968962.

...

[Skittles]

30. those Bangladeshi cafe killers

came from very wealthy families

[SHRED]

31. Exceptions to every rule

[Skittles]

32. it's not like there was just one or two of them

[pansypoo53219]

29. the saids are using islam to KEEP their riches & control.

[randr]

35. His reasoning is right

This is what rational people along with many veterans who have first hand knowledge accept as fact. The thugs want nothing more tban to draw us into a fight with Islam.
We have troops deployed who are dependent on their Islamic friends for their safety and the last thing they need is to lose their trust. Even GB acknowledged that ISIS represented criminal elements taking advantage of a bad situation.