For KL/anyone. Hells Angels & AQ

[Merryprankster]

I didn't have time to respond (or the desire at the time) to something absurd said on another thread, so I am doing it here.

The gist of the conversation was this:

I said that a sociologist might consider that the forces that formed Hells Angels and Al Qaida are very similar.

KL asked "Prithee how," while making some not terribly cogent rant on how you can't possibly compare the two.

I never followed up.


Anyway, here's the thing; the sociological/psychological forces involved in the creation of the two are very similar.

The Hells Angels began after WWII. People had formed bonds during the war, had experienced new and exciting (albeit dangerous) things, and were dissatisfied with the life they led in the U.S. They didn't like the idea of settling down. Energized and restless, they sought the same sense of identity they'd had during the war. After all, these guys had just kicked some Nazi/Japanese ass! A tough crowd... At the time, motorcycles were an inexpensive and for many who served, familiar way of experiencing/expressing this, along with drugs, crime and violence. Networks developed during the war helped the Hells Angels grow.

Al Qaida began at the end of the Afghanistan-Soviet Union war. People had formed bonds during the war and had experienced, new and exciting (albeit dangerous) things, and were dissatisfied with the lives they led when they went back to their home countries. They didn't like the idea of settling down. Energized and restless, they sought the same sense of identity they'd had during the war. After all, these guys had just kicked some Soviet ass! A tough crowd. Many formed Islamic radical groups at home (FIS, GIA, etc) to express/experience this. Violence and crime were part of the equation. Networks developed during the war helped the Islamic radical groups network together under the AQ umbrella.

Motiviations and ultimate goals aside, the sociological factors that molded the group, the members and the origins aren't all that dissimilar. Both groups went to war with a powerful ideology. Both groups won. Both came back to countries where their energy and sense of victory had no outlet. Both had a desire/need for identity. Both formed groups in an effort to change their home front experiences. Both use/used violence. Both relied on contacts grown during the war to build themselves.

So yeah, that looks a lot alike.

[red5angel]

[red5angel]

don't forget the beards.....

[Vash]

Mp > KL.

[David Jamieson]

That was the weakest thing I've read.

You actually believe that malarky?

The hells angels was formed originally by a group of flyers who besides their penchant for flying (yes they were airmen), liked motorcycles as well because of the same sense of freedom.

The members who became what is now the criminal organization taht is the Hell's angels have so little in common with the original group it is amazing that you didn't denote that point merry. But I'll chalk that to your lack of knowledge or the persistence in sweeping generalizations that you make towards whatever doesn't fit your view.

AL Q on the other hand were born out of a war that went on and on for more than 20 years. As the Mujahadeen, the Muslim guerillas were supported in thier protracted war with the soviets in Afghanistan. they existed in a war that was outside influences playing both ends against the middle. The war didn't end for them at all, it just continued in different shapes.

When the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, the Taliban rose to power and was linked to the new focus of AlQ which appeared to be organizing terror strikes against any and all that would usurp the power of teh arab nations from arabs.

I think the agendas are slightly different. For instance, the Taliban set to work immediately detsroying the poppy fields in afghanistan. But now that they are gone, them poppies is growing again with the blessings of the new democratic leaders and their supporters abroad despite any bs lipservice any of them pay to wars on drugs and terror.

Meanwhile, someone's sister got a little too deep into a crack debt in Philly and now has to be a ***** to pay it off to some biker. Can you see the dissimilarity now?

[Merryprankster]

Reading for comprehension....

I said that a sociologist might consider that the forces that formed Hells Angels and Al Qaida are very similar.

Of course they are different organizations now. But that's not what was being discussed.

Here is a recap of the ignorant thing you said:

The difference is what is the impetus for the formation of a group such as AQ vs what is the impetus for the formation of a group like the others I mentioned?

and here is what I responded THEN:

A sociologist might claim they were the same. The Hells Angels and AQ have similar beginnings.

I've seen YOUR explanation and it's tripe.

And you will note, it is to this point that I have responded, in full, with historical evidence to back it up.

But by all means, continue to say stuff with no grounding in reality. The rest of us will look to the facts.

I've always loved how you decide to change the subject (we were talking about the impetus for FORMING such a group, remember?) when you are getting *****ed though.

Carry on....

[Yum Cha]

Hells Angles:
FORMED by the desire to express PERSONAL FREEDOM and ESCAPE the horrors of war. "Hey brother, lets PARTY, get wasted and get laid!"

AL Q:
FORMED by the desire to FIGHT for RELIGIOUS and NATIONALISTIC (Pan Muslim) "moralities." "Hey brothers, lets kill infadels!"


HOWEVER,
The circumstances, of there being a bunch of "ronin" on the loose following the end of a major war are similar.


Merry, you said it, forces that formed, not circumstances...

KL>MP

[Mr Punch]

Yum Cha, you're talking about personal forces. Merry was talking about sociological/societal forces.

Mat>The Wooooorrrrrrrllllllllllllllllllllddddddddddddd!!!! Bwuhahahhahhahhahahhetc.

I'm with Red. They should hand out razors and soap to counterract these bearded menaces to society.

[Yum Cha]

Mat,

I got a better idea, give KL and Merry the razors, and see what comes of it....

Armed, full-contact debate....the KFO Reality Show.

KL may have the better logic, but I'd have to back Merry with the straight razor....

[Vash]

Originally posted by Yum Cha
KL may have the better logic

I 'bout pooped myself a little bit.

[Royal Dragon]

Eighty Ones and You:

You know, I think the 81's had more to do with being outcasts after Nam than anything. Yes, sure they, and the Outlaws and others exsted before, mostly as rebelious social clubs, but things got criminal when service men returning from nam were rejected by alot of society. They found acceptance within themselves, and formed a distane for normal society that lives on to this day.

Then they realised Methanphetamines could make them rich and the whole thing turned in to a criminal cult.

It is a sophistcated world, where they have smaller "Affiliate" clubs that act as slow brainwashing, recruiting and training cells designed to find, and recruite the real baddies into the main club.

For example, the Outlaws have the Black pistons, Rebel knights and so on. Hells Angels have the Hell's Hencmen etc... (AlthoughI think the Henchmen are now done and gone but you get the picture)

They more miltant branches even have thier own combat systems, fighting styles and training regimes. Many of these guys would take a notable Kung Fu master and rip them in half as soon as look at them.

I think the psycology of the whole thing is facinateing, it's a complete social microcosum, complete with thier own religious branches, law and order and everything.

[David Jamieson]

royal, you read too much thriller stuff about bike gangs. Lol. they really aren't that complex, are barely organized and frankly there are a lot of average joes who would drop em like a bad habit if it weren't for the fact the attack in packs, have no individual character they can call their own for the most part and in general, the gangster types are just the dirtbags that we think they are. I am a biker and I can't think of a better idea than to focus more anti crime forces on these turds and let us bikers just ride for the sake of it and get these speed freak, pimp, thugs off our precious metals.

listen, vash, wipe yer ass, lol, In my opinion Merry's "logic" is often nothing more than sophism or plain semantics or spin holing something into a quagmire where it gets boring to banter points. IE: He will constantly refer you to read some Tome or 500 page article instead of replying with what he actually thinks.

I personally think that this is because he doesn't think and half the time accepts the stuff he offers up as his stance at face value.

as soon as you make an argument against it, if you aren't already frustrated with this guy's style or lack of it, he'll make another way of sending you down the rabbit hole. lol.

This is called evasiveness and although it is a mark of intelligence, it isn't very smart. It leads nowhere and I guess it's safe because it lets Marry never be accountable for what he says. He always has the quick out of well, I agreed with that, but not this or some other stuff.

Other people of limited intelligence regard this trait as really smart and will often be seen wadding up and adoring the one who spouts this nonsense.

But enough about how I feel.

[Merryprankster]

Yum Cha, you're talking about personal forces. Merry was talking about sociological/societal forces.

Thank you Mat. That is precisely the distinction. A psychologist is concerned with the personal reasons an individual has for doing something. A sociologist is concerned with the systemic factors that identify what choices seem reasonable. Political scientists call this bounded rationalism. That is, the decisions you find reasonable are to a great extent bounded by the social and cultural structure you find yourself within.

I was making the argument that a sociologist might look at these two groups and determine that the structural factors driving their creation are not terribly dissimilar - in fact, they are VERY similar. This makes sense given that their experiences are also similar.

A psychologist might have a different take - The forensic profile of a Hells Angel and an AQ terrorist would probably look different in several respects. I continue to assert, however, that the sociological profile of the groups origins are quite similar.


Yum Cha, the Hells Angels were not an attempt to escape from the war. They were to some degree an attempt to recapture it.

In a list, the similarities:

Bonds created during war
Powerful moral ideology driving the war/warfighters
Sense of victory and accomplishment within the group
Sense of group identity
Dissatisfaction with post-war life/Energized Restlessness
Desensitization to (or even appreciation of) anti-social behaviors (in a sociological vice psychological sense) in order to express any of the above.


There are of course differences between the groups, especially now. But that doesn't mean that the forces shaping the beginnings of the two organizations are also dissimilar. If you take the above list, they almost lead any rational person to the conclusion that you need to join or form a violent group.

But the same experiences effect different people differently - I might go to war and become desensitized to violence. Somebody else might not. You might go to war and not experience a sense of group identity or success. Somebody else might.

A Psychologist asks "Why does a person choose to make the decisions they do within the framework?"

A Sociologist asks "What's the framework, how did it get there, what implications does this have?"

[Merryprankster]

Merry with the straight razor

Occam's Razor, more likely.

[David Jamieson]

Bonds created during war
Powerful moral ideology driving the war/warfighters
Sense of victory and accomplishment within the group
Sense of group identity
Dissatisfaction with post-war life/Energized Restlessness
Desensitization to (or even appreciation of) anti-social behaviors (in a sociological vice psychological sense) in order to express any of the above.

Wit a couple of adjustments you pretty much stated how countries are founded, any society is formed and governments organized.

By a small adjustment to this, we can compare anything like say, VOFW halls or Legion Halls up here in Canada.

The deeds and actions of a group are what defines it Merry, not the sociological aspects of it's impetus for formation.

You can call a turd a badger all you want, but it's still a turd and not a badger.