Gurgen wrote:

You do not get to decide who belongs to a certain religion or not, people do that for themselves.

No, people don't do that for themselves, the religion itself or the religious writings obviously decide whether you belong to it. I'm not going to dissect their houseboat journal piece by piece and compare it with Quran verses, you can decide whether to trust millions of peaceful people who have read the book loads of times or believe a bunch of murderers and Western right wing media.

That aside we were talking about Boko Haram. Unlike with Daesh with whom there is, no matter how distorted, a religious component to the debate, Boko Haram has nothing to do with Islam or any other religion. Read about Northern Nigerian politics if you want to understand what they are about, I remember lagos and somebody else typing out a couple of interesting posts on the matter.

Your perception of them is no different from their perception of you.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here but I certainly don't like the notion this sentence seems to carry. When ASALA bombed and murdered people in Turkey and France they were claiming to do it for all Armenians; would you deem it fair if you were held in Sippenhaft for their deeds too?

jones wrote:
Gurgen wrote:

You do not get to decide who belongs to a certain religion or not, people do that for themselves.

No, people don't do that for themselves, the religion itself or the religious writings obviously decide whether you belong to it. I'm not going to dissect their houseboat journal piece by piece and compare it with Quran verses, you can decide whether to trust millions of peaceful people who have read the book loads of times or believe a bunch of murderers and Western right wing media.

That aside we were talking about Boko Haram. Unlike with Daesh with whom there is, no matter how distorted, a religious component to the debate, Boko Haram has nothing to do with Islam or any other religion. Read about Northern Nigerian politics if you want to understand what they are about, I remember lagos and somebody else typing out a couple of interesting posts on the matter.

Your perception of them is no different from their perception of you.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here but I certainly don't like the notion this sentence seems to carry. When ASALA bombed and murdered people in Turkey and France they were claiming to do it for all Armenians; would you deem it fair if you were held in Sippenhaft for their deeds too?

No, but I would not deny that they are Armenians 😆

As for your first point, I don't need to "trust" anyone since I am able to read - probably better than most devout believers.

Try to be a bit less angry, you'll feel better.

Meatwad wrote:

they use their money to build mosques and spread wahhabism.

Yes. Their spreading of Wahhabism can be likened to the West building or funding Think Tanks in other countries, promoting free market principles and Western style democracy - I'm pretty sure you know how lasting these values are for our governments when they stand in the way of their or their industries' concrete interests.

Meatwad wrote:

saudi arabia is the biggest benefactor of muslims around the world.

No. Why would they tolerate Gaza and the West Bank right in front of their doorstep if they actually gave a fuck about other Muslims? Saudi Arabia's politics are very heavily influenced by Wahhabism, but their opposing of Iran has very little to do with them being Shi'a and more with them being the biggest threat to their hegemony in the region.

People need to get realistic, the world is not all black and white. When the EU or the US waged economic or real warfare against other countries, be it Greece or Iraq, most of us here didn't buy the reasons set out like fiscal prudence or even economic justice for the former or democracy and human rights for the latter. As the vast majority on this board is Atheist or at least has no religious affiliation my guess is most would say religion is a crutch for the poor; why would you then assume then the people who rule those rich countries are solely guided by their crazy beliefs and never by pragmatic and worldly interests?

Gurgen wrote:

No, but I would not deny that they are Armenians 😆

As for your first point, I don't need to "trust" anyone since I am able to read - probably better than most devout believers.

Try to be a bit less angry, you'll feel better.

Way to completely miss the point not once but twice.

I'm not angry but I appreciate the concern. I'd feel better though if your posts were a bit better.

Saying ISIS is Islam is like saying Zionism is Judaism, they're two different things. There are Jews who deny Zionism is Judaism It's more to do with a political movement for power with hints of either religion.

It's not to do with perception, it's to do with the aims and purpose of group.

jones wrote:
Gurgen wrote:

No, but I would not deny that they are Armenians 😆

As for your first point, I don't need to "trust" anyone since I am able to read - probably better than most devout believers.

Try to be a bit less angry, you'll feel better.

Way to completely miss the point not once but twice.

I'm not angry but I appreciate the concern. I'd feel better though if your posts were a bit better.

I guess I was slightly confused by your post which equated an ethnic group with a religious one.

Gurgen wrote:
jones wrote:

Way to completely miss the point not once but twice.

I'm not angry but I appreciate the concern. I'd feel better though if your posts were a bit better.

I guess I was slightly confused by your post which equated an ethnic group with a religious one.

I didn't equate them, it was a comparison. My point is nobody in their right mind would say Armenia as a country (to be honest my knowledge on the matter is superficial; I haven't read anything that implicated state involvement in their acts) is responsible for the assassinations and bombings ASALA did, yet people are adamant that Islam as a religion is accountable for Daesh's acts.

jones wrote:
Gurgen wrote:

I guess I was slightly confused by your post which equated an ethnic group with a religious one.

I didn't equate them, it was a comparison. My point is nobody in their right mind would say Armenia as a country (to be honest my knowledge on the matter is superficial; I haven't read anything that implicated state involvement in their acts) is responsible for the assassinations and bombings ASALA did, yet people are adamant that Islam as a religion is accountable for Daesh's acts.

That's a bit of a strange comparison don't you think? ASALA did what it did to force recognition of the Armenian genocide - there was no real ideological background to their actions. Nationalism perhaps, but that is conceptually very far from religious dogma. 

Like many nutjobs before them, IS bases its actions on religious texts. Perhaps their interpretations of those texts are wrong and not in line with the majority opinion, but they are existing interpretations nonetheless. I find it truly bizarre that someone would say that the religion itself is innocent in all this. The point is that it shouldn't even come to such interpretation. It took us hundreds of years to interpret away all the moronic shite in the Bible and we're still far from done. If the Koran was a one pager which said that your religious duties were confined to hugging your neighbour every day and giving alms to the poor, would these things happen? This nice imam man explains it very well:

http://www.nltimes.nl/2015/11/16/amsterdam-imam-we-cannot-say-this-has-nothing-to-do-with-religion/ 

Meatwad wrote:

even the Buddhists are acting the fool in Myanmar. The Hindus get down to. religion is synonymous with violence.

Beg to differ. Lived with Hindus, muslims, christians and buddhists. Nobody initiates violence just because of religion. Stating such things callously only offends peaceful people who go about their daily but have an important place for religion in their heart and lives. 
The violence comes mostly when there is powerplay in the picture. Fucked up leaders fuel it. 
Mocking religion in such a context is frankly pretty juvenile at this time when innocent people are dying due to these distortions of religion. 

Great job here btw, playing right into the hands of them mid-east extremists narrative  http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/11/19/house-passes-bill-bar-syrian-refugees-us-without-more-vetting/76041668/ 
wonder how this will play out. 

You could say that the mass murders in Paris are to do with the abuse of religion, an expression of hatred and anger condoned by religious text.

I never see those who murder in the name of their religion as religious,
I believe that only those with sociopathic tendencies, or those who are intellectually impaired, could be inspired to extremes of violence by religion.

Perhaps I'm wrong (probably wrong) but I find it hard to think that anyone who is a fundamentally well adjusted, balanced, decent person could be turned into a mass murderer simply by observing a religion.

Gurgen wrote:

That's a bit of a strange comparison don't you think? ASALA did what it did to force recognition of the Armenian genocide - there was no real ideological background to their actions. Nationalism perhaps, but that is conceptually very far from religious dogma.

I disagree. Killing diplomats and civilians who have nothing to do with the Armenian genocide to achieve a goal which is impossible to achieve using those means is highly ideological in my book.

Like many nutjobs before them, IS bases its actions on religious texts. Perhaps their interpretations of those texts are wrong and not in line with the majority opinion, but they are existing interpretations nonetheless.

They are not perhaps wrong. As I said, if you honestly care enough to know the underlying foundation for this you can read up on it.

I find it truly bizarre that someone would say that the religion itself is innocent in all this. The point is that it shouldn't even come to such interpretation.

Then we should probably be done away with nations, political parties and probably every human concept in existence. Everything has, can and will be used to commit murder, terror and cause pain to others as humans, the one common denominator behind all this, have it in them to commit these crimes for their personal advantage. Given that all human societies shun criminals people always will look for a conceptual pretence to pursue their personal goals, be it national security to bomb other countries with the perpetrators hailed as war heroes or jihad with the murderers depicting themselves as martyrs. Blaming the religion used as a veneer for these acts would on the contrary absolve the culprits of their responsibility.

It took us hundreds of years to interpret away all the moronic shite in the Bible and we're still far from done. If the Koran was a one pager which said that your religious duties were confined to hugging your neighbour every day and giving alms to the poor, would these things happen? This nice imam man explains it very well

Secular and laicistic constitutions in the vast majority of all countries around the world got rid of all religion in state context and guarantee human rights, punish crime and generally encourage people to hug thy neighbour as well. Just like people will always ignore or contort secular laws for their own advancement they will do the same with commandments. Even if it sounds cliched, religion is not the root of all evil, it's just as benevolent or maleficent as the people who apply it.

arsedoc md wrote:
Meatwad wrote:

even the Buddhists are acting the fool in Myanmar. The Hindus get down to. religion is synonymous with violence.

Beg to differ. Lived with Hindus, muslims, christians and buddhists. Nobody initiates violence just because of religion. Stating such things callously only offends peaceful people who go about their daily but have an important place for religion in their heart and lives. 
The violence comes mostly when there is powerplay in the picture. Fucked up leaders fuel it. 
Mocking religion in such a context is frankly pretty juvenile at this time when innocent people are dying due to these distortions of religion. 

Pretty much the essence of the essays I've been typing out on the last few pages. Agree especially with the mocking part; since when has it ever been a good idea to mock anyone?

Mocking is fun, and can be constructive and informative.

when innocent people are dying due to these distortions of religion.

B-b-but if Islam is the religion of peace, surely Muslim extremists would just be extremely peaceful?

It's wrong to say that some violence is not initiated because of religion.

I'm yet to see an example of constructive and informative mocking, this 4chan post probably being the worst example yet.

Irish gunner wrote:

Mocking is fun, and can be constructive and informative.

when innocent people are dying due to these distortions of religion.

B-b-but if Islam is the religion of peace, surely Muslim extremists would just be extremely peaceful?

IG do you think this kind of na na na post is actually contributing something to the discussion?

wow that's some excellent security europe.

and the republicans over here want to use that to deny refugees as if these days we treat security as blasé as europe.

y va marquer wrote:
Irish gunner wrote:

Mocking is fun, and can be constructive and informative.

when innocent people are dying due to these distortions of religion.

B-b-but if Islam is the religion of peace, surely Muslim extremists would just be extremely peaceful?

IG do you think this kind of na na na post is actually contributing something to the discussion?

It's contributing to my amusement, and you've repeatedly told me to not take tolly discussions too seriously, so I'm not.