Why is it that a young man in Afghanistan will kill a bunch of people for a political reason but a young man in America...

>tfw Americans go on killing sprees because girls wont have sex with them
What the fuck? Is there any country more retarded than them.

Really OP? I didn't know the OK City Bombings were for no reason whatsoever.

You learn something every day.

In recent years im talking about, obviously

look I know you feel solidarity with elliot rodger, but it's not political

Could you provide an example of what you would consider murder for political reason as im not quite sure what exactly you mean and on what scale.

So it's literally because organizations encourage those acts? It's not a mentality within a culture that makes a difference between nothin personell and allah akbar?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombings

Like this. They killed them because they want the multinational force out of Lebanon and it worked.

Whereas in the west, the kind of person liable to commit violence would think that such an act was lame, because it wasn't about them getting fired or rejected by a girl.

>In recent years im talking about, obviously
Fuck I feel old. OKC bombing was 21 years ago now. Thanks for reminding me how old I am.

So you're saying that most political deaths nowadays occur in or are performed by residents of, politically unstable countries?

Would you perhaps find it useful to research political killings rather than talking about a subject it seems you have yet to study?

But the west is politically unstable.

I would say it's because of a few reasons such as there being no political conflict in america's soil right now that would require such act,and cultural and religious differences since america has a lot more individualism than countries in the middle east,Although in a way you could consider some of the killing sprees political to an extend like that bowlcut autist that shoot up a black church.

youtube.com/watch?v=SRvCvsRp5ho

>But the west is politically unstable.

Fuck off Fjyodor

Do you have anything to support this statement?

donald trump, syrian refugees/islamization, EU crisis, black lives matter

?

Fairly mild in terms of the stability of a Country, a few protests and some headlines

>donald trump
How is that political instability?
>syrian refugees/islamization,
Is being cracked down on hard. We only need one major terrorist strike until even the war left loonies start to think about their actions.
>EU crisis
Again, how is this political instability?
>black lives matter
The masses already see BLM as the racist organisation that it is. It isn't relevant.

>war
far*

Example of
> >syrian refugees/islamization,
>Is being cracked down on hard.
?

/pol/ memes aside, it hasn't truly affected the domestic stability of any of those countries to a great effect or even to the effect that political strife effects the middle east.

>How is that political instability?

Because if he wins, the left will probably get violent. If he loses, Hillary will open the borders to make sure that something like Trump can never happen again.

>Is being cracked down on hard. We only need one major terrorist strike until even the war left loonies start to think about their actions.

But once they're there, they're there to stay unless there is actually mass deportations or genocide. And there will be terror attacks and a cascade of the far-right.

>EU crisis

Because some countries want to leave the EU and Brussels is going to arbitrarily punish people for leaving, creating tensions.

>The masses already see BLM as the racist organisation that it is. It isn't relevant.

The masses dont matter if BLM lives in their bubble and gets told what to think

"is being cracked down on hard" is probably an overstatement, but Sweden, Germany and the Benelux countries have all dropped their extremely laissez-faire attitude toward border control.

None of this is on the scale of direct terror and instability of the Middle East.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Paris_attacks
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Brussels_bombings

The ones that welcome their attackers with open arms Ahmed.

What?
White dudes who kill a bunch of people for political reasons are called terrorists and shit. Timothy McVeigh, the Colorado Springs guy and shit.

Also Afghanistan and America are very different societies. Americans are pretty thoroughly repressed and monoculture. "Civilization" represses urges and fucks people up mentally. Places less "civilized" don't produce wackos of the same type.

The biggest thing people on the left get wrong is they think liberal/left-wing values are intuitive/obvious around the world. But western society is very, very peculiar and American extra peculiar. The material conditions are just different.

Well actually a lot of Afghans suffer from mental illness due to inbreeding and the terrible environment they have to live in.

That's apparently the reason why you hear some of the ANA going bonkers and shooting at everyone, or why the Taliban don't have much trouble recruiting suicide bombers - because the people they get are marginalised and unstable.

Pic related, an Afghan suffering from schizophrenia and PTSD

Why do you lie, user? Do you get a thrill out of constructing false narratives?

Right. So if someone goes bonkers and kills people without a commonplace political agenda, we treat them as a one-time basket case. Perfectly reasonable.

>A political reason
>MUH VIRGINS
>MUH JIHAD

OP being a faggot, nothing new here.

Why am I lying?
Isn't that what they do in America anyway with those school shooters? I'm not trying to make an excuse, I'm just saying that a lot of Afghans are more malleable to extremism due to their situation and mental health.

Except they generally have outlets. Like, for blacks in America, they have gang violence. Afghans form the Taliban. People who don't get such a choice produce people who go on rampages. Like white people.

1) you have no proof that mental illness causes any of those things
2) those ANA soldiers usually always have Taliban links and carry out attacks for them or are lone wolf attackers
3) there is a wealth of journal articles explaining why people join terrorist organisations
4) simply putting it to "mental health" is a lazy, ignorant standpoint
5) terrorists are rational actors, they are not doing it out of some mental illness of some sort.

Either way they both produce violence, whether or not they're part of something.

America's biggest problem is the educational system and the breakdown of family values. If people actually cared about those boys, I'm sure most of the school shootings would never have happened.

>The biggest thing people on the left get wrong is they think liberal/left-wing values are intuitive/obvious around the world. But western society is very, very peculiar and American extra peculiar. The material conditions are just different.
This makes sense as many Liberal Americans I talked to online think that Trump's Immigration policies will make them a "Rogue state" when in reality most Cultures and Nations think the same way.

There is a lot of evidence terrorists actively promote extremism and use it as a recruitment tool whereas the role of culture is less clear.

Not to mention that they function in weak states and provide goods and services that the state can't. The trade-off for providing those goods and services is that the populace slowly becomes more sympathetic of the terror groups wider plans. They start sending their kids to the schools the group made and start attending mosques funded by the the terror organisation.

This is true for organisations such as Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Shabaab and ISIS.

I agree that I made it sound like I was making a generalisation, but here are some articles to consider

scientificamerican.com/article/what-you-don-t-understand-about-suicide-attacks/

ayubmed.edu.pk/JAMC/PAST/14-4/Peter.htm

I'm not saying everyone kills because they're crazy, far from it, but it does happen just like in US

The first one makes dubious claims that because he once said he "hated ISIS" that his suicide in the name of Islam was just an excuse for him to kill himself. I don't need to make clear that hundreds of assumptions made by the author. That makes it suspicious. Also he wasn't Afghani.

All the second article tells me is that mental illness exists in Afghanistan and people are trying to treat it.

I don't understand why you linked either of them.