Kabul attack on Shiite Hazara kills 61

The violence isn’t even close to over in Afghanistan. 84 people were killed in Nice by Islamist terrorism, now another 61 Afghanis, members of the Hazara minority, were killed by bombs in Kabul, and another 207 were injured. ISIS claims responsibility.  As CNN reports:

The Islamic State claimed responsibility for the attack through its Aamaq news agency. The purported claim was reported by SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors militant websites. It says two of the group’s fighters detonated explosive belts and were targeting a “gathering of Shiites.”

The thousands-strong march through Kabul on Saturday was demanding that “a major regional electric power line be routed through their impoverished home province,” as the AP reports. Government officials had rebuffed their calls, saying that rerouting the line “would cost millions and delay the badly needed project by years.”

. . . Hazaras make up most of Afghanistan’s Shiite minority – and the Islamic State group considers Shiite Muslims apostates.

The Taliban has killed thousands of Hazaras, as NPR has reported. It condemned this attack and denied involvement, according to the BBC.

There’s a video on the CNN site that shows the aftermath of the bombing, but since it shows the dead and wounded, you can go to the site yourself to see it.  Multiple 268 by the average number of people in each person’s network of friends and loved ones. That’s the toll of grief. Or multiply what you felt when you lost a loved one, and multiply it by 61. That’s the titer of misery—beyond, of course, that of the lives that were lost, who will never feel anything again.

As the BBC reported, a freelancer working for its Afghan service said “blood and body parts were everywhere, with debris strewn around.”

The Times spoke with Muhammed Ali, a protester “whose clothes were covered in blood.” He said “he had personally loaded dozens of dead bodies into trucks.”

“People were going toward a prayer break when two explosions happened – one near the truck where speeches were given,” Ali told the Times.

It is the height of insanity for anybody to kill in the name of religion, but it’s even more ridiculous when you see that these two groups are both Muslims, but kill each other because they differ in who they see as the rightful heirs of Mohammed. And I can’t imagine that if we had a world without religion, those people would be dead.  I’m not, of course, saying that in a religion-free world we’d see no murders. People kill for all sorts of reasons, and all manner of ideologies. But is it too much to claim that removing the ideologies would lessen the deaths?

UPDATE: Reader Barry contributed this:

Ricky Gervais



  1. Posted July 23, 2016 at 12:08 pm | Permalink

    “People kill for all sorts of reasons, and all manner of ideologies. But is it too much to claim that removing the ideologies would lessen the deaths?”

    I am in complete agreement this time. Religion can be a sufficient condition, whether it always is or not.

  2. Hempenstein
    Posted July 23, 2016 at 12:23 pm | Permalink

    It’s not religion, it’s Shiite Imperialism that’s to blame.

  3. Claudia Baker
    Posted July 23, 2016 at 12:24 pm | Permalink

    Bloody fucking insanity. I can’t even…

  4. W.Benson
    Posted July 23, 2016 at 12:25 pm | Permalink

    The Soviets had set up a functional secular government in Kabul before Washington convinced the Afghan tribes that the Soviets were atheists, abominations, and should, with US assistance, be kicked out. There is a video of James Earl Carter’s Secretary of State Zbigniew Brzezinski doing this very thing. I simplify, but not much. I think WEIT posted some photos taken of Afghan women wearing skirts from about that time.

    • Historian
      Posted July 23, 2016 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

      Brzezinski was not Carter’s Secretary of State. He was Carter’s National Security Advisor. Cyrus Vance was Secretary of State for most of Carter’s term, followed by Edmund Muskie near the end of it.

    • Posted July 23, 2016 at 3:10 pm | Permalink

      Numerous reports, including testimonials by Soviet veterans, disprove the idea that the Soviet war in Afghanistan was benigh. Example:

      “For all the period of my deployment in Afghanistan (almost a year and a half) beginning with December 1979, I heard so many stories of our commandos killing civilians for no reason that I simply cannot count them, and I never heard that our soldiers saved any Afghan – among soldiers, such a deed would be considered helping the enemy…”

      http://afghan-war-soldiers.ru/crime-001.html (source in Russian)

      Actually, the moral bankruptcy of the Soviet war in Afghanistan, revealed by veterans, accelerated the “Perestroyka” and the Soviet collapse.

      • somer
        Posted July 23, 2016 at 8:50 pm | Permalink

        Thank you. You can read that in the original Maya but “progressives” can’t

    • somer
      Posted July 23, 2016 at 10:26 pm | Permalink

      In 19th Century the British reported that any non Muslim travelling thru Afghanistan or todays NW Frontier territory in Pakistan would be killed by the Pashtun tribes, who traditionally kept their women in purdah. The culture is highly religious and there was always going to be a severe pushback to the Russians or a russian puppet.

      The Pashtun kings prior to this period had allowed liberal dress for women in Kabul anyway, though there were signs of push back from other members of the royal family

      The Soviets installed a non Pashtun ethnicity puppet ruler prior to the invasion, who savagely removed opposition and feathered his own nest but had secular policies. When the uprising got out of hand the Russians invaded. The uprising was throughout Afghan society except some Uzbeks in the sparsely populated far north who backed the russians, and was not engineered by the US.

      There was huge opposition through the country and (in good soviet style) lots of killing by the Soviets. Re the behaviour of the Soviet army Mayas post is revealing, and Ive also read various places that they killed indiscriminately.
      Within the former USSR itself, in central Asian republics (known in shorthand as the “‘stans”) and Tatarstan large portions of the Muslim tribes there were shipped off to Siberia and allowed to return decades later under strict soviet rule, and later under a pro Russian dictator.

  5. dougeast
    Posted July 23, 2016 at 12:32 pm | Permalink

    I think the recent headlines should be more like this:

    “A group of religious people kill 61 in Kabul.”

    “A religious person kills 84 in Nice using a truck”

    “A religious youth attacks people on a train in Germany with an ax”

    “A group of religious people kill 130 in a coordinated attack on Paris”

    “A group of religious people kill 32 people at the Brussels airport”

    These people killed BECAUSE of their religion and the headlines should reflect that.

    • bluemaas
      Posted July 23, 2016 at 3:09 pm | Permalink

      I have asked for this exact reporting for decades.

      As well, I have asked that the killers’ gender be stated. AT the moments of all of the reports.

      Both i) when individuals or groups of ones perp the killings and ii) when countries’ or agencies’ armies and governments either do or back the killings.

      I have failed. To even be noticed. For my asks.

      My point ? For accuracy. The gargantuan amount of any one of these attacks — Worldwide — have never been thought up, then initiated by and then carried out by only women.


      • Posted July 23, 2016 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

        To me, women are far from innocent in these affairs. Whenever Islamist terrorists get killed while mass-murdering people, we will then see their mothers, all piously wrapped in cloth head to toe, saying that it is unthinkable that their sweet boys have performed such a deed, must be a false flag operation or something. This includes the mother of the Tsarnaev brothers, though by all reports it is exactly she who radicalized her elder son, starting the process that led to the Boston bombing.

        Also, let’s remember the Palestinian mother known as Umm Nidal – from Wikipedia:
        “She attracted public attention after being filmed advising her 17-year-old son, Muhammad Farhat, for his March 2002 operation against Israeli settlers. After entering the Gaza Strip former settlement of Atzmona, opening fire on the Israeli students and throwing hand grenades at the school where they were studying, killing five students and wounding 23 others, he was shot dead. Upon hearing of her son’s death, she proclaimed “Allahu Akbar!” and gave out boxes of halva and chocolates.”

        • bluemaas
          Posted July 23, 2016 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

          And why modifiers such as ‘the gargantuan amount’ (instead of ‘all’) and ‘only’ were used.

          I know of these attacks: cuz = Always the few with attacking human beings who are heavily female – engaged ones are front and center. My point = Importantly as far as the media’s reporting / representation goes, with these such, it is always.always made clear that they are female attackers.

          The same standard in reporting should, when the attackers are other than female – perpetrating persons, be held.


        • somer
          Posted July 23, 2016 at 9:31 pm | Permalink

          Religions teach social status is more important than anything else. The Palestinan mother gets huge kudos for raising and encouraging a “martyr” son. Its what the culture and/or the religion teach are necessary to gain status. Women are just as susceptible to this as men and since religions are always especially interested in controlling the behaviour of women, they are expected to become (and become) the upholders of family sexual morals once they acquire respectable mother status. Eg Robert Wyman Global problems of population growth notes that mother in laws in extended family cultures quite often most insistent about having large families. Likewise a recent 2016 UNICEF set of surveys on FGM in Africa finds that upholding long tradition/social expectation is by slight margin the single biggest factor in maintaining the practise – women slightly more so than men but then more women think men want it to be done than men actually think it should be done. So women are acting on social expectations of what they should do that are traditions handed down about women’s role. Its all related though cos the reasons for male circumcision are completely different – these don’t include the other reasons for FGM marriageability of the woman based on her having clitoris cut out or at the very least reduced or worse so that she gets little sexual satisfaction or sex is actually painful – so she is considered less likely to be unfaithful during marriage or engage in sex before marriage. Thus she is also considered “clean” and “pure” because she fulfils this subordinate role related to days when certainty of parentage essential and women an extremely low status.

          Like women in traditionalist societies that have extended families, dowries and wives must live with /look after/defer to the husband’s parents, the mother in law is a tyrant because that’s the only status available to her. She’s hard on her own daughters too because the oppression is the key to their being married, being a mother with many children and grand children brings status. In Indonesia, according to the Encyclopaedia of Women and Islamic Cultures, Vol III General Editor Suad Joseph, Muslim women often are married under the legal age of 16 and parents commonly arrange daughters marriage around onset of puberty . “It is also accepted by society as a measure to avoid permissiveness or premarital sex” plus unmarried women are stigmatised as virgins with no one willing to marry them (PP 343-344)

          Sexual morals are always central to successful organised religions because they are at least preserving, and even better expanding, the population of believers. These things are always what traditionalists hold to be non negotiable core values – other things are a side dressing – like economic justice for the poor – which is always counterbalanced by verses about (including in Islam – Muhammed was a merchant) rewarding commerce and investment, or marrying only those of similar clan status or else similar status occupation or wealth (Islam – Hidaya book of the Islamic laws) or bounty to the faithful who work hard who deserve everything they have and will continue to get richer (Judaism, Christianity), or successful conquest and booty to the faithful (all three faiths)

          • somer
            Posted July 23, 2016 at 9:43 pm | Permalink

            PS re successful conquest and booty to the faithful – Islam is considerably more upfront about that than the other two Abrahamic faiths, though the evangelism of both Christianity and Islam are also a problem

  6. Posted July 23, 2016 at 12:32 pm | Permalink

    No, it’s certainly not too much to claim at all. Without the rotten ideology, we’d probably be left w/ those having serious mental problems committing such acts; which is probably the case right now anyways.

    On further thought, it surely would reduce the incident count but probably not significantly overall; we’re still left w/ a yuuuge number of nutbags who believe that destroying your “enemy” (along w/ his family, friends and relatives) produces something positive.

  7. Heather Hastie
    Posted July 23, 2016 at 12:52 pm | Permalink

    Some people say we’re hard-wired to believe in a god. However, imagine the brainwashing that had to occur to persuade these men that killing themselves in order to kill and injure dozens of others in the name of their version of god. This is not a natural behaviour.

    • Posted July 23, 2016 at 1:07 pm | Permalink

      It’s contrary to the natural principle of self-preservation. That, perhaps more than anything else, identifies the person committing such acts as batshit looney.

      • Posted July 23, 2016 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

        I am not sure. Kin selection is common in nature. Suicide terrorists typically come from large families and from cultural indoctrination that the extended family is everything and the individual is nothing. Some may see their sacrifice as killing Other people to make more space for Their people.

        • somer
          Posted July 23, 2016 at 10:33 pm | Permalink

          Hamas offer a replacement house and cash, celebratory parades and honour to the family of any “martyr” – which as Pinker noted in a culture that doesnt allow men to marry until they are deemed capable of supporting a wife and family – gives male relatives of the “martyr” a better/earlier chance of marriage and of having more children

    • Posted July 23, 2016 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

      This reminds me of something I always find annoying. As soon as archaeologists find some sort of ancient structure whose use or intent is not clear to them, they say it was probably for religious use. Why don’t they just admit the haven’t a hoot in hell what it is?

      • Heather Hastie
        Posted July 23, 2016 at 1:46 pm | Permalink

        Ha ha! That’s a pet peeve of mine too.🙂

      • Posted July 23, 2016 at 2:00 pm | Permalink

        I saw a programme where the presenter suggested that a large ball of rubber found in a lake was probably an offering to Pre-Columbian gods.

        The idea it might have accidentally been kicked into the lake by kids from a civilisation known to have played an early form of football didn’t seem to have occurred to him.

        • Posted July 23, 2016 at 3:33 pm | Permalink

          Unfortunately, the presenter is quite likely to have been right.

          “The game had important ritual aspects, and major formal ballgames were held as ritual events, often featuring human sacrifice… Captives were often shown in Maya art, and it is assumed that these captives were sacrificed after losing a rigged ritual ballgame. Rather than nearly nude and sometimes battered captives, however, the ballcourts at El Tajín and Chichen Itza show the sacrifice of practiced ballplayers, perhaps the captain of a team.”


          • Dave
            Posted July 24, 2016 at 4:44 am | Permalink

            As a perpetually disappointed English football fan, I would like to see this practice reinstated to encourage a bit more effort from the national team!

      • Posted July 23, 2016 at 3:44 pm | Permalink

        If it looks absolutely ridiculous and appears completely useless for any practical purpose, it must be a temple.

    • somer
      Posted July 23, 2016 at 11:08 pm | Permalink

      In some ways it is not abnormal – In an environment of scarcity and natural harshness where raids and conflict is normal (which is where the heartlands of Islam are namely Middle East, north Africa and Central Asia) tribalism and sectarianism flourish. Thing is there are other means to survive in the modern world. Such violence certainly shouldn’t be necessary any more – its completely maladaptive and is destroying the Islamic world. The great majority of these areas are agricultural but still tribally oriented

      According to Pinker, and orthodox (individual gene) centred evolutionary biologists, hunter gatherer societies don’t take risks in the same way – though they do often fight each other these are opportunistic surprise raids on sleeping or vulnerable enemies or else semi ritualistic fights with low fatalities. Nonetheless these are frequent and in these small societies even low fatalities translate into high overall mortality. The fights are about women, territory and/or military reputation (i.e. in Pinkers terms ability to retaliate against offensive violence – which can become self perpetuating and escalating between traditional societies). Chimps, periodically expand into the territory of other chimps and wipe out all the males. Food is extremely plentiful in the forest and there are fewer predators for climbing species. However in the more challenging environment of the savannah humans developed social skills and a social means of surviving to gather food and to defend themselves so reproduction became associated with defending the interests of the group. Human young also take years to become self supporting, able to defend themselves or flee, or sexually mature. Even chimpanzees are a social group species but for raisng individual human families it is almost impossible to survive even economically – for food,clothes, care of young and shelter – without social cooperation. Thus reproduction is tied in with the norms of the society one belongs to

      According to some looking at ancient skeletons from paleo or mesolithic times hunter gatherer societies have lower overall violence with some exceptions than grave excavations of ancient historical times “civilisations” – but according to others looking at modern hunter gather societies – greater violence – but they definitely have intersocietal group violence.

      Larger settled, organised societies are more willing to send young men to certain deaths, and the latter are willing to die. Why – because agricultural land its at such a premium they can support far higher populations (you can’t carry numerous small children around on long nomadic trips on foot and you can’t feed a big population on seasonal hunting and gathering)

  8. rickflick
    Posted July 23, 2016 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

    Are these incidents getting more frequent in the last year or so? Seems like the toll is mounting ever faster.
    The cause isn’t really much of a mystery, but removing that cause seems impossible.

    • Torbjörn Larsson
      Posted July 23, 2016 at 4:39 pm | Permalink

      There are several causes, but this year religious terrorist killings has overtaken secular (mainly separatist) terrorist killings in Europe.

      2012 the proportion wasn’t 50 %, it was 1 % religious killings. It is a steep increase, and now that the recruitment of the failing Daesh ‘caliphate’ is going downhill faster than a lemming migration, the returning terrorists is the new factor. With recruitment failing, we have to wait until we have run out of lunatics.

      Speaking of multiple factors, the recent Munich deed seems may have been inspired by the right-wing terrorist Breivik. The young shooter had researched school killings, but he targeted youngsters and used the saame gun and head shots as Breivik on the year day of the latter’s terrorist act. [According to local analysts, but I am pretty sure this is reported everywhere.]

      So there could be an increased political/ideological/racist polarization, whether or not we can source that to religious views or not. On the other hand, if UCDP can significantly show that global killings are still trending down after the Daesh spike (which I still haven’t seen the publication of), I am not overly worried about violence driving any future increased polarization (if any).

      I worry about populists like Putin and Trump. Now *both* threatens NATO.:-/

      • Torbjörn Larsson
        Posted July 23, 2016 at 4:41 pm | Permalink

        Putin and Trump both threatens free trade et cetera too, of course. I was just ranting about killings/wars.

      • rickflick
        Posted July 23, 2016 at 6:16 pm | Permalink

        As I read your comment, I was thinking – Trump will take advantage of this. I hope there isn’t a massive murder on election night. Hillary might lose.

      • somer
        Posted July 24, 2016 at 12:14 am | Permalink

        I think its the interplay of religious instability (this internecine violence has displaced nearly 65 million Muslims and now Turkey is becoming increasingly immoderate and also unstable)and renewed great power ambition. The nuclear arsenals of the great powers have not been further reduced – instead they have been “modernised” to make them more stable but the “modernised” stuff is even more powerful. More other powers now have nuclear weapons. The religious stuff keeps injecting uncertainty and preys on weaknesses of the superpowers who are also eying each other.

        Russia is obviously somewhat expansionist now under Putin but China has now built or acquired an oil pipeline to port in Balochistan on the Arabian sea and built a highway through Pakistan to it with the latter’s approval) The oilfields are in Baluchistan. China is also acquiring large tracts of land in north Burma/Myanmar and displacing tribal people (who the ethnic Burmese don’t like and Aung San Sui Chi has openly said on the BBC now that Burma is to be governed for the benefit of ethnic Burmans). It has built up and made military ports out of islands in the South China sea and plans to put another ring east of Japan and finally close to America – it announced those plans years ago and the first leg is complete.

        I also think Trump is actually more dangerous than Putin. At least Putin is predictable – a power hungry dictator but reliable and not crazy. Trump is a weather vane will do anything for attention and is responsible only to himself. Trump will simultaneously neuter NATO, enrage China (and possibly trigger world wide embargoes and trading barriers) by abruptly ending the free trade agreement which for good or ill we are stuck with for the time being, enrage neighbours and the Muslim world, and possibly start disastrous wars that cannot be won and will engender great resentment. Nor does he appear to have any regard for what is at stake in great power relations.

  9. Posted July 23, 2016 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

    “It is the height of insanity for anybody to kill in the name of religion, but it’s even more ridiculous when you see that these two groups are both Muslims, but kill each other because they differ in who they see as the rightful heirs of Mohammed.”

    To a lesser extent we see a similar phenomenon among leftists. The Authoritarian Left squabbles with and shames those who don’t virtue signal the loudest. The Left eats its own.

    • Posted July 23, 2016 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

      I don’t give much credence to Freud but his idea of the ‘vanity of small differences’ does make sense.

      • Posted July 23, 2016 at 4:09 pm | Permalink

        I didn’t know that concept, Speaker. I quickly read the short wiki post about it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_of_small_differences). Makes sense. The last bit in the wiki about consumer culture is fascinating. I do think there is something there to the small differences being places where pecking orders are made, fights around the small differences being about the establishment of power.

      • Posted July 23, 2016 at 4:23 pm | Permalink

        Also, Speaker, your gravitar spooks me. I suppose that’s the intent, though. That’s the Joker, right?

  10. Randall Schenck
    Posted July 23, 2016 at 2:06 pm | Permalink

    Becoming one of the most used phrases – Sectarian violence. Why not say religious murder.

  11. Cindy
    Posted July 23, 2016 at 2:58 pm | Permalink

    And this is why I don’t buy the line that Islamists only violently murder people because they ‘have a legit grievance against the west’

    The urge to genocide the ‘wrong’ kind of Muslim is because the religion is barbarous, not because the West invaded Iraq.

    • Posted July 23, 2016 at 3:37 pm | Permalink

      The Koran explicitly says that those who wage jihad in the name of Allah will receive the best afterlife. Hence, if you are a Muslim wanting the best afterlife, you must kill other people who are either non-Muslims or “bad” Muslims. And Maajid Nawaz is hoping to reform this! I can only wish him good luck.

      • Cindy
        Posted July 23, 2016 at 3:41 pm | Permalink

        Yep and it amazes me how so many otherwise smart, liberal folks make excuses for Islamic violence whilst not having a clue what they are talking about.

        For example, apparently Sunni Muslims are attacking Europeans and gay people in Orlando because the USA shot an Iranian airliner down many years ago. I mean, these people who defend violent Islam don’t even know the difference between Sunni and Shia.

      • somer
        Posted July 23, 2016 at 11:26 pm | Permalink

        most Muslims don’t interpret this as holy war – they interpret this as applying to Mohammeds companions and supporters in his time – or the first couple of generations of muslims who are seen as being embattled for their survival. Most Muslims see jihad as general struggle for good though of course there’s too much in the scriptures that enables people to be radicalised. There has to be some way to modernise a faith followed by 1.6 million. The Borgia popes implicitly sanctioned the Atlantic slave trade and celebrated Catholic conquests around the world (largely complete even in their time) Only recently have there been explicit papal apologies for this.

  12. merilee
    Posted July 23, 2016 at 4:21 pm | Permalink


    • Diane G.
      Posted July 24, 2016 at 2:29 am | Permalink


  13. keith cook + / -
    Posted July 23, 2016 at 5:22 pm | Permalink

    In anger about the futility of such deaths when tribalism melds with religious ideology, and what a duality of runaway psycho thought processes that is to content with…
    these killers have little or no chance of fighting off the indoctrination/ tribalism it is so complete. Living absorbed in a lie, dying for a lie, and our misery for victims and perpetrators is to know the utter pointlessness of it all.
    Sunday where I am and that’s my sermon for the day.. fucking hallelujah, I hope that pleased the lord.

    • somer
      Posted July 23, 2016 at 11:55 pm | Permalink

      You know what pleases the LORD your God

      Kill Apostates/followers of Other Religions.
      (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

      If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or your intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst.

      (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)
      Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death.

      Its just Jews and Christians don’t follow it any more, let alone stone people (for Christians, one of the Jewish prophets is supposed to foretell the birth of Jesus as the coming messiah in the OT Bible, so the Jews are not obeying their own messiah supposedly)

  14. somer
    Posted July 23, 2016 at 10:15 pm | Permalink

    Most of Islam is intolerant and its mainstream branches (including Shia ones) have never seen peacefulness as a positive virtue. Patricia Crone in God’s Rule Government and Islam outlines the violent conflicts over leadership (which was also considered religious leadership) that broke out a couple of decades after the death of the prophet and have been going on since.

    • Cindy
      Posted July 23, 2016 at 10:17 pm | Permalink

      Somer, I always learn a lot from your comments on Islam!

      Much appreciated!

      • somer
        Posted July 23, 2016 at 11:27 pm | Permalink

        Thank you = Im a cranky old thing who might annoy some people with my spiels, but personally I feel its important and I hope its of value.

  15. somer
    Posted July 23, 2016 at 11:18 pm | Permalink

    What suffering and what a tragedy.

    As far as I’m concerned “the great” (i.e. most successful) organised religions ultimately aren’t and never were about quality of human life they are about population and imposition of norms that increase this. Once they were necessary to maintain population (if unpleasant in this often evil world). Now they aren’t

    Only in the era of modern technology they (and religion like ideologies like laissez faire or communism dedicated to territorial extension of their adherents around the world but less lasting cos they don’t have an explicit population component) are a long term danger to the survival of humanity at large.

  16. Posted July 24, 2016 at 12:51 pm | Permalink

    ISIS is uniquely religious, relying on specific Islamic scriptures interpreted in specific ways, in its ability to attract foreign fighters to come fight on its side. But in general, there’s no shortage of violent ideologies, be they religious, political, or ethnocentric. If the religious category could somehow be taken away, I expect the other two categories would grow at least somewhat to fill the ecological niche.

    I wonder to what extent the “economy” of ideological violence is supply-side driven, versus demand-side. In the worst case scenario, violent ideologies will just spring up to provide the “justification” craved by violent human beings, and nothing will change except the labels. I don’t think it’s quite that bleak, but, there is the Robbers Cave experiment to consider.

  17. somer
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 4:34 pm | Permalink

    Mo Dawah has links to a Go Fund Me site for the families of the Hazara minority that were bombed

  18. KD
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 9:09 pm | Permalink

    What did Trotsky say, atheists don’t assassinate atheists?

One Trackback/Pingback

  1. […] via Kabul attack on Shiite Hazara kills 61 — Why Evolution Is True […]

%d bloggers like this: