uanime5er said:
Did this terrorist attack involve any Christians or was it simply named after 2 Christian cities? Only the former would mean that Christian Palestinians are engaging in terrorism.
It is unknown exactly how many people helped plan and execute the Munich attack, let alone which religion they followed. Most of the senior members involved were Muslim, but that's to be expected seeing as they still made the overwhelming majority of Black September and the PLO.
However, Sirhan Sirhan, the assassin of Bobby Kennedy, was a Palestinian Christian who was motivated chiefly by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Chris Bandak was also one of the leaders of the militant wing of the PLO, and participated in the Second Intifada. There are no doubt Christians who were foot soldiers of the terrorist organizations throughout the conflict.
Germany had almost recovered from the great depression and it was only because Hitler became Chancellor that he was able to obtain a democratic majority in the Reichstag. So at the time Germany was rich and stable, with Hitler becoming a dictator through democratic means.
The Fascists in Italy tried democratic means before resorting to violence. The Fascists were also supported by the king, in exchange for supporting the monarchy and fighting the socialists. Once again this dictatorship came about due to a clash of ideologies, not due to poverty.
Franco's Spain occurred because a group of generals fought against the elected government because they thought it was too left wing. Again the main cause was more to do with ideology (fascism vs socialism) than poverty.
The Soviet Union was formed by overthrowing the Tzar. The communists then formed a parliament and dissolved it because they didn't get the majority of the votes. After a civil war against non-communists the communists controlled the Soviet Union. Yet another civil war which was caused by a battle of ideologies.
In any case all of these countries were significantly richer than other countries that which didn't resort to extremism. They also weren't unstable as many had functioning democracies which the extremist groups used to acquire power. Thus the claims that extremism only occurs in poor and unstable countries is still wrong as it can occur in rich and stable countries where there's two large groups with differing ideologies (such as the US civil war).
I'm sorry but that's some serious cherry-picking of information. Starting from the earliest chronological example...
The Russian Revolution in 1917 happened as a result of extremely poor conditions, most of the country was poor farming peasants with the Czarist aristocracy controlling the mass amount of wealth. Industrialization made things exponentially worse, as peasants became overcrowded and living conditions and quality of life dropped substantially. If you define "rich country" as being one that simply has a lot of wealth in it, then you'd be right, but unfortunately very very few people tasted that wealth. WWI only made all the issues much worse, as food was rationed and boys were sent off to fight in a war none of them really understood or supported. Poverty and disenfranchisement leading to instability and power vacuums which lead to extremists taking power.
It is a similar story in Italy, with much of the country being poor peasants who supported left-wing socialist policies, with the fascists looking to protect upper-class interests as well as placate a sense of national identity, led to violence between fascists and socialists. Northern Italy is where most of the unrest too place, as that was the area with the sharpest upper/lower class divide, leading to paramilitary battles which led to the March on Rome. Political instability was also key, as the existing democratic government could not control the situation, or instill any sense of social stability. Out of all of the mentioned conflicts, Italy had the least to do with poverty exactly, but had much more to do with political instability and ineptitude.
To claim that Germany was "coming out" of the depression is laughable, and again shows a naivety that just because money is flowing through a country, that it is "rich". The German economy was in shambles and showing little sign of improvement, over time things may have gotten a little better, but it still left millions out of work, the currency a joke, and millions more workers poor and desperate. Many German workers felt disenfranchised and found it impossible to find work to support their families, and the Weimar Republic seemed to be doing little to help them, buried under the weight of WWI reparations and political deadlock and divisions about what to do with the economic situation. The Nazis, who had no political power, quickly grew to prominence due to Hitler's expressed support of the poor workers and playing on fears about the allegedly rich Jewish population, along with fears about other ethnic and cultural minorities. The Nazi party did not get a majority of the vote, because the political foundation was so fractured, the Nazi's 37% of the vote in the Reichstag was enough to gain Hitler the Chancellorship. You're essentially saying "Hitler came to power not because of poverty but because he came to power." It's ridiculous.
Like the Italian and Russian revolutions, the Spanish Civil War was born out of a variety of factors, one of the most pressing being the simultaneous rise of industry and the decline of living standards. Very few people were making a whole lot of money, where peasants and various workers were forced into smaller and smaller spaces working in less safe and lower-paying positions. After WWI a dictator came to power, promising reform, only to make the problem worse by wasting a shitload of money on public works projects that had little value, devaluing the currency and causing a mess of the economy. Spain became democratic after that, which led to deep political divisions between a unified powerful elite and a fractured left-wing representation of the poor. These sides eventually split into warring factions, which led to Franco's side winning the war.
Even the American Civil War was born partially out of fears by the southern elite that the abolition of slavery would lead to economic ruin and political disenfranchisement of the southern states. Both sides saw the other as the extremists in that particular conflict.
All of these are historically-accepted explanations and facts. If you wish to refute them, then I would suggest you do so with sources.
