>The violence is there for other reasons. Religion is an outlet.
That's what I'm talking about. Why do you assume this? Why do you assume people who have been beheading each other for blasphemy going on 1500 years have suddenly decided God can take care of himself and it's all really an excuse?
>Should I assume that you're "a devout Muslim of one of the more violent sects"?
Why would you assume that too? What difference does it make?
Perhaps because scholarly research into the last five or so decades of conflicts has shown that politics is the main cause of violence, and that groups from the European fascists, anarchists to todays militants have been using similar technicques of warfare, organisation, propaganda, and follow conflicts follow similar trajectories.
>Perhaps because scholarly research into the last five or so decades of conflicts has shown that politics is the main cause of violence...
How could you possibly trust "research" into the minds of millions of people? Doesn't your bullshit detector even twitch a little when you read something like that?
Well, I subscribe to this quaint notion that people mean what they say unless there's a solid reason to believe otherwise. The advantage being I don't have to pretend I can figure out what really motivates them. I just listen. The 20th century would have been a lot nicer if the people in charge had done the same.
That's what I'm talking about. Why do you assume this? Why do you assume people who have been beheading each other for blasphemy going on 1500 years have suddenly decided God can take care of himself and it's all really an excuse?
>Should I assume that you're "a devout Muslim of one of the more violent sects"?
Why would you assume that too? What difference does it make?