Horrific Attack On Afghani Mosque !?!?!?

[trippymonkey]

What an awful, horrendous attack on worshippers in this Shia mosque in Afghanistan yesterday !!!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4751112/Suicide-attacker-kills-100-Afghan-mosque.html

Just what exactly ARE the differences between Shia & Sunni beliefs that would prompt such an attack.?
Nobody has claimed responsibility,  YET !!! More than likely IS are behind it.

[Robbie]

It does look likely according to this:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-40802572

There's been another one since, in Kandahar.

A couple of articles about differences between Sunni and Shia, second one better imo :-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16047709
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/z373wmn

[trippymonkey]

AAH YES.
Mohd didn't announce his successor !!!
A bit careless, eh

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

The Shia - Sunni religious differences are exploited for political reasons. Since Iran used religion to rally support from the Iranian people in 1979 to overthrow the Shah, their dictatorial ruler, the rulers of surrounding countries, especially Saudi Arabia, have been worried that this popular religious influence could spread to other countries and cause a threat to their power.

In Afghanistan both Shia and Sunni united to drive out the Soviets in the 70s and 80s but they looked to Iran and Pakistan respectively for training and arms so were influenced by extremist organisations in both countries. Shias have gained more political influence in Afghanistan since the Taliban were driven out, with some Sunni politicians choosing Shia running mates - the current and former vice presidents are Shia.

Both Pakistan and Iran have an interest in trying to maintain their influence in Afghanistan by promoting sectarian conflict.  If there is no enemy waiting to kill you, there is less and less reason for groups in Afghanistan to buy arms from or rely on help (with strings attached) from Iran or Pakistan.

[Nearly Sane]

There seems to be a narrative there that somehow religious beliefs are taken advantage of by political beliefs, and religious beliefs can have a free pass because if it wasn't for those nasty thuggish political beliefs everything would be so so lovely.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

There seems to be a narrative there that somehow religious beliefs are taken advantage of by political beliefs, and religious beliefs can have a free pass because if it wasn't for those nasty thuggish political beliefs everything would be so so lovely.

Really, where is the suggestion that religious beliefs can have a free pass or that everything would be so so lovely? 

 

[Nearly Sane]

Really, where is the suggestion that religious beliefs can have a free pass or that everything would be so so lovely? 

 

It's a figure of speech called exaggeration but then since you know that, can I suggest playing dumb doesn't suit you?

The point is that you posit a narrative where religious ideas are simply used by politocal ideas. This seems simplistic and unjustified. They are, it seems to me, simply ideas and it seems far more likely that itherr s feedback between them rather than religion is politic's servant which was the approach of  your post as it read to me.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

It's a figure of speech called exaggeration but then since you know that, can I suggest playing dumb doesn't suit you?

I don't waste my time debating exaggeration - I have no idea what the actual point being made is and I don't want to waste my time trying to decipher what you meant. If you want to use exaggeration someone else might be willing to debate whatever point you are trying to make.

The point is that you posit a narrative where religious ideas are simply used by politocal ideas. This seems simplistic and unjustified. They are, it seems to me, simply ideas and it seems far more likely that itherr s feedback between them rather than religion is politic's servant which was the approach of  your post as it read to me.

I think some religious ideas are used to further political aims e.g. funding madrassas in order to indoctrinate students in order to have a convenient source from which to recruit fighters at a later stage . It doesn't absolve individuals who act based on those religious or political ideas from personal responsibility for what they do with those ideas so you're exaggeration of a free pass is wrong.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't waste my time debating exaggeration - I have no idea what the actual point being made is and I don't want to waste my time trying to decipher what you meant. If you want to use exaggeration someone else might be willing to debate whatever point you are trying to make.
I think some religious ideas are used to further political aims e.g. funding madrassas in order to indoctrinate students in order to have a convenient source from which to recruit fighters at a later stage . It doesn't absolve individuals who act based on those religious or political ideas from personal responsibility for what they do with those ideas so you're exaggeration of a free pass is wrong.

When you decide to stop playing dumb for effect, get back to me.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

When you decide to stop playing dumb for effect, get back to me.

When you decide to stop writing dumb responses, get back to me.

[Nearly Sane]

When you decide to stop writing dumb responses, get back to me.

  You are better than this. If you want the banter option, then fair enough, I'l leave you to it. But stop pretending you don't understand the concept of exaggeration as a figure of speech.

We could, were I willing to, do the little dance of one liners but that's for another time and another thread and another poster.


You presented a narrative where the 'bad' outcomes were caused by political ideas and religious ideas appeared exempt. Now if you want to justify that, there is a discussion to be had. If you want to explain that is the wrong conclusion for what you meant, great. But the banter stuff with no substance, then I'll pass.