My gut feeling (And I'm not saying I agree with the sentiment, nor am I saying I'm 100% right about it) is that a lot of the resonance and empathy also seems to be based on to personal fears. Like, if it happens in a country/culture remotely comparable to your own, in terms of security, geographical location, heck, racial makeup (I've heard 'it would be harder for suicide bombers to blend in a Caucasian crowd than a Middle Eastern one'), then it has a chance of happening to you, and jeopardizing the safety or well being of you or those around you.
This is doubly true when people (of the Western hemisphere) simply have a higher chance of having visited Paris/France than Beirut/Lebanon and have personal attachment to the location. Heck, Nobuo Uematsu and Yoko Shimomura were both in France a week ago. (Uematsu was actually at Piano Opera Final Fantasy at that very same concert hall, exactly a week prior)
At this point, I'm not even disappointed anymore, just mildly jaded. I'd like to hope that as the world gets less and less separated due to social media and the like, we'd start to have more empathy for each other.
Worst part is when westerners take this attitude and then demand that every Muslim or Arab or brown person in general that they know to be empathetic when it happens on "their soil"
When westerners wave off or forget events like this, they shouldn't be surprised by the same reaction occurring to them, even though this opposite reaction sometimes doesn't even happen (people in other countries are still condemning the PAris attacks)
from what I understand, it is partly political and partly theological and has been culminating for hundreds of years.
first of all there are many sects in Sunni Islam and Shia Islam, the main theological difference (and I could be mistaken, so please correct me if I'm wrong) is that shia's believe in religious leaders that are infallible and are guided by god and consider many of the prophet's relatives to be holy.
In Sunni Islam there isn't a religious authority, the 4 Caliphs are political leaders that are greatly respected and revered. (Shia's consider the first 3 to be usurpers)
Even today there is no such thing as a religiously appointed leader in Sunni Islam. Caliphs, Mufti's and whatnot have no religious authority. Shia's (at least twelver shia's in Iran) have an appointed religious leader. (I'm not sure how much religious authority he has though).
But in the end I think the main reason behind this is because some men want power, and what better way to get something than fuck someone over, and what better way to get the support to do that than have an enemy to rally against.
Twelver shia believe that the Imam himself, the 12th imam, is alive. But Ayatullah Khamenei isn't that leader. Essentially, shia fall itno two man ideologies:
Those that believe in interpreting the hadiths, Qu'ran, etc. to make new rulings- much larger
Those that don't
In the first group , the ones who can do so- the
marja, are scholars who have reached a high enough point in their studying and understanding such that they may issue ruling, fatwas, etc.These are mainly in regards to things that aren't entirely clarified, such as praying in a plane, to the responsibility of more major things, such as Qoms, the donation of a certain percentage of your income to be used for charity or other religious projects (iirc the Al-Askari Mosque is partially being rebuilt with funds from Qoms)
At the age of adulthood, you're supposed to do the research and decide upon a marja based on the qualification, so far as you can figure out, of who is "most knowledgeable"
Ayatullah Khamenei isn't even the marja with the largest number of followers. This is actually Ayatullah Syed Sistani, who lives in Najaf, Iraq.
