I don't know what political religious social is, but I do know that anyone who isn't wired wrong or mentally ill can choose how they respond to their anger. That's the point Neitzsche was making, and that is the point you have ignored twice now. You assume the point this story is making is that whatever you conceive of as "political religious social" people are inherently evil. Incorrect. The point is that evil exists, and it will kill you if you offer yourself up to it because you lack a conception of it. Evil doesn't care that you're good, and it doesn't care whether you are political religious social or not. Reacting in a tribal way because you don't want to admit that two westerners biking through ISIS territory without caution who genuinely believe evil doesn't exist put themselves in more danger than an insane man who surrounded himself with wild grizzly bears for years is the choice you've made. You could just as easily have commented "Yeah, that was not a good idea". This couple almost certainly wasn't insane enough to live with wild bears, but they were naive enough to believe that they could bike in a place controlled by people who have nothing but the deepest and most violent tribal hatred for "their kind". Tim gives you his definition of evil in the video I posted - what do you think of his definition?

When a person has been wronged they get to decide how they choose to fix it. They can target whoever they deem or are told are the culprits and vist the same on them, or they can devote themselves to opposing that behavior because they've felt the pain of it themselves and recognize the futility and inevitable lose-lose of the repetitive cycle. No one is saying the people who do these things don't have understandable reasons that they use to justify what they've done to themselves and others. That's not the point.

I'm producing a whole video series based on that clip: