ISIS explanation please??

Sunni vs Shia is not a poltical argumentBut feel free to try and convince us

Sunni vs Shia is still religiously motivated. It is Muslims fighting because they belong different sects.

So really it is irrelevant.

No, it is internal politics (i.e: the struggle for power).

You can't claim people stop responding to you when you present your wonderful statistic (I paraphrase again) if you are doggedly insisting that it's not political and refusing to listen to alternative thoughts than what you've conditioned yourself to believe.

If you have trouble understanding in religious terms, then, in analogous terms, think of it like democracy and a dictatorship.

It's not a fight between democracy and a dictatorship, but more like left-wing and right-wing (within the context of a democracy), but slightly more violent and bloodier.

A load of Hindus have stolen the pyramids from the Sikhs and the Christians have launched a Crusade to bring them back.

Internal politics fuelled by religion. It is more closely linked to Catholics fighting Protestants which again is religiously motivated.

A load of Hindus have stolen the pyramids from the Sikhs and the Christians have launched a Crusade to bring them back.

That again, because they are part of the same faith, is a fight which existed in a political vacuum and not a religious vacuum.

Refer to my democracy and left-wing and right-wing positions.


Come back with a better argument that doesn't put to shame your apparent intelligence?

Starting with ad hominem already?

It is still a religious argument. If they were all believed the same thing I would agree with you however that is not the case. They have differing opinions on how Islam should be practised making it religiously motivated.

Not at all. One of the claims, irrelevant to the discussion, postulated by yourself was that no-one you have come across could argue against those statistics (paraphrasing again). I am simply reminding you of the large ego you seem to have in possession that you seem overly burdened by.

If you would allow me to take some of your load away from you, that should help you, no?



Thank you. You've proved my point.

Regardless of how they think Islam should be practiced (or in other words, which wing is elected in a democratic state), at the end of the day, it is still Islam (or in other words, still a democratic state).

The position of the party within power does not matter if it operates within a contained spectrum.

So that still makes it religiously motivated then.

If Islam was going up against another religion, then perhaps.

Clearly here, it's simply political jockeying within religion.


This failure of yours to appreciate the distinction drawn, whilst claiming some kind of superior intelligence, isn't doing you any favours.

It is fuelled by religion and therefore religiously motivated. Their whole issue is about religion and how it should be practised.

I can only imagine that your self-proclaimed previous "wins" came about with you sticking your head in the sand and going "la, la, la" to any counter thought put forward.


I have, on no less than 4 occasions, explained (through analogous terms) as to why it is akin to variations of a political spectrum, operating within a constrained environment that is a democracy.


Your argument has been to dogmatically, disputatiously, and frankly, quite platitudinously, insist that it isn't.

Can someone please tell me why Isis are doing what they do? I am uneducated in this particular sector, and am very confused lol

You use political analogies to explain a religious issue in order to make it political.

I have used a political analogy to expound upon my assertion, and your disputation, that it is largely political.


Your failure to take this onboard and amend your arguments accordingly is not helping you expand your arguments.

You are effectively saying the same thing that you were stating when I entered into discussion with you. At no point, has there been any efforts on your part to try and understand the conflicts and the sharp distinctions that it draws from your preconceived notions and prejudices.

I understand the conflict. If you removed Islam from the equation there would not be conflict.

Of course there would. It'd simply be akin to Conservatives vs Socialists or some other positions on the political scale.

Changing the backdrop under which conflicts are fought over does not negate or diminish the reason why they are fighting.

Yes it does. If two groups are fighting over oil and then there is no oil it makes the fighting entirely pointless.

If two groups are fighting over how a religion should be practised and you take away the religion, then what are they fighting for?

If they are hoping to gain more adherents to their religion (despite being of the same religion), then I don't think bombing, maiming and killing those whom they supposedly are trying to recruit is a particularly good idea, don't you think?

Perhaps they are simply fighting over territory and control of said territory?