2 ms·

Well, there is a lot of crosstalk here, so there might be bit of confusion. Earlier you were contrasting between religious fundamentalists and 'reasonable' acto

by _nedR 11y ago

Well, there is a lot of crosstalk here, so there might be bit of confusion. Earlier you were contrasting between religious fundamentalists and 'reasonable' actors : >"Fundamentalist" as in "religious fundamentalist." >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_fundamentalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_fundamentalism Compare their goals to then successful work of Ataturk in 20th century in Turkey: >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atat%C3%BCrk's_Reforms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atat%C3%BCrk's_Reforms Then you cited IS as an example of religious fundamentalists and linked to an article. My point was that the article you linked to makes the point (at least that was what i inferred) that IS is more 'reasonable'/rational than religious in their calculations and actions (including their cruelty and brutality).

acqq 11y ago
Note your statement in the message before > That IS is not really a group of religious fundamentalists (at least in the higher levels) I agree if it's about the higher levels, in sense that their goals aren't restricted to the religion but to the power. However even if they aren't secretly just religious they do use the motives of religious fundamentalism to support their actions and to motivate their supporters and followers, and their supporters are rarely aware of the nuances. The leaders do excuse what they do with their religious talks. > My point was that the article you linked to makes the point (at least that was what i inferred) that IS is more 'reasonable'/rational than religious I don't agree. We can't equate the higher levels (leaders) and the voters, the supporters and the simple fighters. Only the leaders are those who (by necessity) understand the game (if I remember correctly Bin Laden had the full reports of the US think tanks in his library). The lower levels just religiously believe. Exactly like most of the common people in the US still didn't get that there were actually no WMD and no Al Quaida in Iraq at the time Dubbya Bush (the leader) initiated his war. On one (higher) level in the same political/religious side, there is rationality, on another (lower) ignorance. User gkya just wasn't able to be precise enough, as you see, it takes time until people who take part in the conversation start to understand one another. And I don't believe I'm elitist when I'm aware of these different levels, just as you've felt that it's important to note the obvious rationality of the leaders (even if you missed to make that difference in the second post).

by _nedR 11y ago

acqq 11y ago

Note your statement in the message before > That IS is not really a group of religious fundamentalists (at least in the higher levels) I agree if it's about the higher levels, in sense that their goals aren't restricted to the religion but to the power. However even if they aren't secretly just religious they do use the motives of religious fundamentalism to support their actions and to motivate their supporters and followers, and their supporters are rarely aware of the nuances. The leaders do excuse what they do with their religious talks. > My point was that the article you linked to makes the point (at least that was what i inferred) that IS is more 'reasonable'/rational than religious I don't agree. We can't equate the higher levels (leaders) and the voters, the supporters and the simple fighters. Only the leaders are those who (by necessity) understand the game (if I remember correctly Bin Laden had the full reports of the US think tanks in his library). The lower levels just religiously believe. Exactly like most of the common people in the US still didn't get that there were actually no WMD and no Al Quaida in Iraq at the time Dubbya Bush (the leader) initiated his war. On one (higher) level in the same political/religious side, there is rationality, on another (lower) ignorance. User gkya just wasn't able to be precise enough, as you see, it takes time until people who take part in the conversation start to understand one another. And I don't believe I'm elitist when I'm aware of these different levels, just as you've felt that it's important to note the obvious rationality of the leaders (even if you missed to make that difference in the second post).