I find this very disturbing... boy lops own hand off for a mistaken blasphemy...

[berserkfan]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/19/world/asia/boys-response-to-blasphemy-charge-unnerves-many-in-pakistan.html?_r=0

There are so many things wrong with what went on in this article that I don't know where to begin.

The level of religious fanaticism here isn't just medieval; it is pre-feudal. Even in a feudal society, people were not that insane.

And it is not some tiny minority. It is widespread in that country, ok? And no one thinks to question these beliefs and practices?

It is not surprising that so many terrorists emerge from that country.

[KingRama]

Family members buried his hand in the village graveyard.

welp

That is so disturbing

edit: das messed up

[berserkfan]

What's disturbing is not family members burying a severed hand. It is them APPROVING of the boy chopping off his hand because of one wrongly answered question about loving their prophet.

[KingRama]

What's disturbing is not family members burying a severed hand. It is them APPROVING of the boy chopping off his hand because of one wrongly answered question about loving their prophet.

Yeah of course, just thought it was weird, did they put a gravestone on it???

I agree man, it's incomprehensibly fkd up :/

[rowdy]

Apparently by cutting his hand off he avoided a potentially worse fate.  Make of that what you will.

[katushkin]

It is not surprising that so many terrorists emerge from that country.

That is a REALLY HUGE over-generalisation. It isn't widespread in the country. If it was, you wouldn't read about it in the NY Times. There is religious fanaticism in LOTS of countries, don't just decide that Pakistanis are crazy. Yes this is extreme, but you can't just go; "Pakistanis are all religious fanatics and nobody cares. Look how mad these people are about religion".

[Photekq]

That is a REALLY HUGE over-generalisation. It isn't widespread in the country. If it was, you wouldn't read about it in the NY Times. There is religious fanaticism in LOTS of countries, don't just decide that Pakistanis are crazy. Yes this is extreme, but you can't just go; "Pakistanis are all religious fanatics and nobody cares. Look how mad these people are about religion".

No, not all of them.. But a surprisingly high number. We're not talking about some tiny minority here. Pakistan is nowhere near the worst for extremist beliefs either.

http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf

[Air tree]

As far as I have seen, this kind of extremist thought is on the decline in recent years, and yes it is a larger portion of some muslim societies than I would like, but we can hope that it will improve.

[fohat.digs]

I have come to view religion as aggressive ignorance.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

[baldgye]

That is a REALLY HUGE over-generalisation. It isn't widespread in the country. If it was, you wouldn't read about it in the NY Times. There is religious fanaticism in LOTS of countries, don't just decide that Pakistanis are crazy. Yes this is extreme, but you can't just go; "Pakistanis are all religious fanatics and nobody cares. Look how mad these people are about religion".

No, not all of them.. But a surprisingly high number. We're not talking about some tiny minority here. Pakistan is nowhere near the worst for extremist beliefs either.

http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf

+1

I wouldn't recommend a holiday there.

[berserkfan]

I have come to view religion as aggressive ignorance.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

Religion IS aggressive ignorance. An extension of 'will of power'. Instead of using the scientific method to explain things, religion tries to impose it via nothing other than sheer willpower aka faith in glib and simplistic claims.

Allah willed the universe to come into being, so it did, and the Muslim has no need to investigate further.

That's a much easier explanation for goatherds and camel herders who don't want to spend the next few decades studying astrophysics and having their brains challenged.

But on another note, I think that if Allah were really this nuclear physicist in some grand universal lab, and he made our universe come into existence by accelerating some weirdon particle to crash into some inscrutubtron particle thereby conferring enough energy to cause the big bang, this Allah would be so infinitely big that Muslims and non Muslims alike cannot comprehend nor observe him. Allah would be maybe 10^1000 meters across and seeing His face would require us to be very, very far away.

I, too, have wondered what the European CERN experiments are likely to do. Who knows, they are unconsciously making new universes every time they supercollide some superparticle in some superexperiment.

[bocahgundul]

so you guys don't hate typical muslim right? 

[Vittra]

so you guys don't hate typical muslim right? 

Most rational, intelligent people understand that a majority of muslims are not violent and live their lives no different than christians, other religious groups, and non-religious people. However, because muslims comprise a very large part of the population, even a small percentage of extremists would account for a large value when looking at absolute numbers not not relative ones.

A lot of the things that go on in places like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia really can't be condoned though. This article is a good reminder of that.

I have come to view religion as aggressive ignorance.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

Religion IS aggressive ignorance. An extension of 'will of power'. Instead of using the scientific method to explain things, religion tries to impose it via nothing other than sheer willpower aka faith in glib and simplistic claims.

Careful. There are plenty of scientists that are religious and still living, and plenty that previously lived and gave humanity some of our most significant advancements.

I really don't care what a person's religious beliefs are, provided they accept the scientific method and it's purpose. As soon as religion or other nonsensical views start trying to supplant logic and reason, that's where I take issue. That would essentially be fanaticism or zealotry of any kind, and not necessarily specific to religion, since we see this in anti-GMO/anti-geoengineering movements and all manner of other things.

[baldgye]

Careful. There are plenty of scientists that are religious and still living, and plenty that previously lived and gave humanity some of our most significant advancements.

lol

[berserkfan]

Careful. There are plenty of scientists that are religious and still living, and plenty that previously lived and gave humanity some of our most significant advancements.

lol

There's a difference between using religion to explain science, and being a believer in private, but still using the scientific method to attain the significant advancements you talk about.

Francis Bacon invented the scientific method, and he was religious, but he didn't use the bible for scientific inquiry. Once you use your holy book to explain everything and justify that as a basis of your actions against other people, that is the aggressive will to power right there.

As I said earlier, this universe could easily have been created by Allah the Super Scientist in the superconducting supercollider funded by a Caliphate. We are unable to observe Allah because he is outside this universe or else too big to be comprehended. Even the smallest cell on this Allah would be bigger than our observable universe.

[sth]

Careful. There are plenty of scientists that are religious and still living, and plenty that previously lived and gave humanity some of our most significant advancements.

lol

homey

[baldgye]

My 'lol' was simply because a scientist believing in magic doesn't make the argument for the magic existing any stronger and it's a totally meaningless statement.

[fanpeople]

My 'lol' was simply because a scientist believing in magic doesn't make the argument for the magic existing any stronger and it's a totally meaningless statement.

What are you saying, magic isnt real? What about harry potter. Next you will be telling us santa was just my mum forgetting to buy me presents and not really santa calling me out for being a naughty child.

[baldgye]

My 'lol' was simply because a scientist believing in magic doesn't make the argument for the magic existing any stronger and it's a totally meaningless statement.

What are you saying, magic isnt real? What about harry potter. Next you will be telling us santa was just my mum forgetting to buy me presents and not really santa calling me out for being a naughty child.

You, I like you.

[tp4tissue]

The majority of people stop believing in the "story mode" god as soon as they get into the sciences..

Now, given that the majority of wealth is controlled by the educated community.. well,  it's only a matter of time before we abandon "story mode"



There is almost certainly a "God" Entity,  but to characterize him so flawed and human-like is typically human..

Our story mode gods, are merely slightly better humans..

[Vittra]

My 'lol' was simply because a scientist believing in magic doesn't make the argument for the magic existing any stronger and it's a totally meaningless statement.

My reply was within the specific context of using the blanket statement of "aggressive ignorance" to describe religion as a whole. Many don't do this, and there are scientists with personal beliefs that do not allow conflict in the work they do.

The fact of religious belief essentially being believing in magic is irrelevant.

Careful. There are plenty of scientists that are religious and still living, and plenty that previously lived and gave humanity some of our most significant advancements.

lol

There's a difference between using religion to explain science, and being a believer in private, but still using the scientific method to attain the significant advancements you talk about.

Francis Bacon invented the scientific method, and he was religious, but he didn't use the bible for scientific inquiry. Once you use your holy book to explain everything and justify that as a basis of your actions against other people, that is the aggressive will to power right there.

As I said earlier, this universe could easily have been created by Allah the Super Scientist in the superconducting supercollider funded by a Caliphate. We are unable to observe Allah because he is outside this universe or else too big to be comprehended. Even the smallest cell on this Allah would be bigger than our observable universe.

All fair statements. My contention was not clearly stated - it is with using it as a term to describe all religion. Evidence seems to suggest that at least half of people in the US in particular may believe some rather ludicrous things, but that still leaves the other half which do not use religion as a means to usurp scientific explanation.

[fohat.digs]

at least half of people in the US in particular may believe some rather ludicrous things,

And the problem for the overall group is that they get painted with the same brush.

When I "lost my religion" upon entering adulthood, I simply turned my back on it and walked away. But it is as if those rational people who persevere in their beliefs are too accepting of the speech and behavior of the crazies on the edges who are impeaching the credibility of all of them.

[baldgye]

My 'lol' was simply because a scientist believing in magic doesn't make the argument for the magic existing any stronger and it's a totally meaningless statement.

My reply was within the specific context of using the blanket statement of "aggressive ignorance" to describe religion as a whole.

lol

[cryptokey]

I have come to view religion as aggressive ignorance.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

That's a very big blanket to put over all religion.  Have you ever heard of Buddhism?

The way I look at it, believe whatever the **** you want.  If you're a good person, then I respect you regardless of what you believe in.  As for islam, there is nothing inherently violent about it.  It is the extremists who are ****ty people not because of their religion but because they're insane and they try to use their religion to justify it.  I have many Muslim friends and in the case of ISIS, they tell me that those aren't real Muslims.  They try to say that they are to justify what they're doing but it's all bullcrap.  This is analogous to the Westborough Baptist Church being extremely homophobic.  The bible preaches acceptance and equality i.e. when Jesus washes the feet of the prostitute and eats meals with lepers.  Those people are calling themselves Christian and trying to use Christianity to justify their extreme homophobia.  The crazies are not representing the religion itself, merely using it as a banner to attempt to justify their actions.  You've got to be careful with this because it's easy to turn these scenarios into stereotypes.

[berserkfan]

And the problem for the overall group is that they get painted with the same brush.

When I "lost my religion" upon entering adulthood, I simply turned my back on it and walked away. But it is as if those rational people who persevere in their beliefs are too accepting of the speech and behavior of the crazies on the edges who are impeaching the credibility of all of them.

That's the disturbing part, which Katushkin and some other people who have posted in this thread don't seem to understand. It is not that there are crazy people in Pakistan. There are crazy people everywhere. It is that the crazy people in Pakistan are accepted in their crazy ways. Therefore making it a crazy country.

If I lopped off my hand the same way in my country, I would be immediately sent off to the mental hospital. And with the demographics in my country, probably a fair proportion of the medical orderlies, policemen, judges and doctors involved regarding my enforced incarceration in the asylum would also be Muslims.

[cryptokey]

And the problem for the overall group is that they get painted with the same brush.

When I "lost my religion" upon entering adulthood, I simply turned my back on it and walked away. But it is as if those rational people who persevere in their beliefs are too accepting of the speech and behavior of the crazies on the edges who are impeaching the credibility of all of them.

That's the disturbing part, which Katushkin and some other people who have posted in this thread don't seem to understand. It is not that there are crazy people in Pakistan. There are crazy people everywhere. It is that the crazy people in Pakistan are accepted in their crazy ways. Therefore making it a crazy country.

If I lopped off my hand the same way in my country, I would be immediately sent off to the mental hospital. And with the demographics in my country, probably a fair proportion of the medical orderlies, policemen, judges and doctors involved regarding my enforced incarceration in the asylum would also be Muslims.

So you're saying Pakistan is a crazy country. K.

[fohat.digs]

That's a very big blanket to put over all religion.  Have you ever heard of Buddhism?

I don't really think of Buddhism as a religion. I think of religions as organizations that aspire to control or direct thought. The very act of advising people to think for themselves is the antithesis of how I see "religion" operating in the modern world.

My comment was an attempt to say that "religious education" would be an oxymoron - education sets you on the path to follow wherever the facts and evidence lead, while (Western or God-based) religion presents its teachings as if it were itself actually factual or evidence-based - thus short-circuiting the fact-finding and verification experience.

[cryptokey]

That's a very big blanket to put over all religion.  Have you ever heard of Buddhism?

I don't really think of Buddhism as a religion. I think of religions as organizations that aspire to control or direct thought. The very act of advising people to think for themselves is the antithesis of how I see "religion" operating in the modern world.

My comment was an attempt to say that "religious education" would be an oxymoron - education sets you on the path to follow wherever the facts and evidence lead, while (Western or God-based) religion presents its teachings as if it were itself actually factual or evidence-based - thus short-circuiting the fact-finding and verification experience.

Well, for starters, Buddhism is a religion.  Look at any university religion major's courses and you will see Buddhist religion courses.  Religion is not defined by a power structure which you speak of.  Also, you're looking at it from an atheist perspective.  Just as you would not want a particular religion forced upon you, people who want to learn more about and explore their religion deserve to be able to do that.  You can believe what you want and they can believe what they want since who is right or wrong is a matter of perspective.

[fohat.digs]

Well, for starters, Buddhism is a religion.

Buddhism is really a non-religion in my opinion. But for the sake of clarity, you should do a search-and-replace of my use of the term "religion" and substitute "Western religion" to make it direct and simple.

"Spiritual philosophies" and "personal belief-systems" fall into the "religion" bucket because the English language doesn't have any better place to put them, but this is a shortcoming of the language. And I really miss the common American term "free-thinker" that was prevalent in the 18th and 19th centuries.

[fanpeople]

That's a very big blanket to put over all religion.  Have you ever heard of Buddhism?

I don't really think of Buddhism as a religion. I think of religions as organizations that aspire to control or direct thought. The very act of advising people to think for themselves is the antithesis of how I see "religion" operating in the modern world.

My comment was an attempt to say that "religious education" would be an oxymoron - education sets you on the path to follow wherever the facts and evidence lead, while (Western or God-based) religion presents its teachings as if it were itself actually factual or evidence-based - thus short-circuiting the fact-finding and verification experience.

Well, for starters, Buddhism is a religion.  Look at any university religion major's courses and you will see Buddhist religion courses.  Religion is not defined by a power structure which you speak of.  Also, you're looking at it from an atheist perspective.  Just as you would not want a particular religion forced upon you, people who want to learn more about and explore their religion deserve to be able to do that.  You can believe what you want and they can believe what they want since who is right or wrong is a matter of perspective.

If you believe that people should be able to believe what they want why are you arguing with someone about their beliefs?

Fohat framed his ideas as how he sees something, therefore as you have explained shouldn't you respectfully accept that this is fohat's belief and he is free to see religion as he does? Or do you only accept other peoples beliefs so long as they fit within a defined religions context/your own ideology?

Also you completely seem to fail to understand what berserk is trying to say about the dangers of the behaviour in the article as appearing to be socially/politically acceptable. There is merit in what he is saying. I read your comments and some of what you said I agree with, I also read berserk and fohats and there is some good points there. Why not try and understand the other persons perspective (you still don't have to agree with it) as opposed to stating "Look at any university religion major's courses and you will see Buddhist religion courses" this is a dumb way of arguing your point and generally reserved for the primary school playground.

As I said I agree with some of what you said, but that is clouded by what I see as immature responses to people who have responded to you in a constructive way.

Right or wrong is also not a matter of perspective, that is a humanities cop out designed to prevent people from appearing confrontational towards various established concepts.

[cryptokey]

That's a very big blanket to put over all religion.  Have you ever heard of Buddhism?

I don't really think of Buddhism as a religion. I think of religions as organizations that aspire to control or direct thought. The very act of advising people to think for themselves is the antithesis of how I see "religion" operating in the modern world.

My comment was an attempt to say that "religious education" would be an oxymoron - education sets you on the path to follow wherever the facts and evidence lead, while (Western or God-based) religion presents its teachings as if it were itself actually factual or evidence-based - thus short-circuiting the fact-finding and verification experience.

Well, for starters, Buddhism is a religion.  Look at any university religion major's courses and you will see Buddhist religion courses.  Religion is not defined by a power structure which you speak of.  Also, you're looking at it from an atheist perspective.  Just as you would not want a particular religion forced upon you, people who want to learn more about and explore their religion deserve to be able to do that.  You can believe what you want and they can believe what they want since who is right or wrong is a matter of perspective.

If you believe that people should be able to believe what they want why are you arguing with someone about their beliefs?

Fohat framed his ideas as how he sees something, therefore as you have explained shouldn't you respectfully accept that this is fohat's belief and he is free to see religion as he does? Or do you only accept other peoples beliefs so long as they fit within a defined religions context/your own ideology?

Also you completely seem to fail to understand what berserk is trying to say about the dangers of the behaviour in the article as appearing to be socially/politically acceptable. There is merit in what he is saying. I read your comments and some of what you said I agree with, I also read berserk and fohats and there is some good points there. Why not try and understand the other persons perspective (you still don't have to agree with it) as opposed to stating "Look at any university religion major's courses and you will see Buddhist religion courses" this is a dumb way of arguing your point and generally reserved for the primary school playground.

As I said I agree with some of what you said, but that is clouded by what I see as immature responses to people who have responded to you in a constructive way.

Right or wrong is also not a matter of perspective, that is a humanities cop out designed to prevent people from appearing confrontational towards various established concepts.

Fohat disregarded Buddhism as being a religion, as it didn't fit within the power structure he was trying to prove his point with. This is within the context of religious beliefs. You're extrapolating me saying that we should respect others' religious beliefs to believing whatever you want.

So you said my way of arguing  my point is dumb and should be reserved for an elementary school playground. That's an immature response in itself. Anyways, don't get me wrong, I agree that while we should have a right to our own beliefs, I certainly don't condone the extreme practices that the original post showed an example of.

When I said right or wrong is a matter of perspective, this was in the context of religious teaching. I stand by what I said, as it is pointless for an atheist and someone religious to try to argue about their world views. Note that I am agnostic so by someone religious, I am not referring to myself.

You mentioned that I'm responding  immaturely to constructive responses, yet in many if these posts, although there are some legitimate concerns, it's just dripping with Islamophobia.

My main motive for commenting on this thread is that people need to know when to differentiate extremists from an entire religion. That is where Islamophobia and stereotypes come from, when the word terrorist becomes codified racism.

Anyways, this has turned into a wall of text hahaha. I'm heading out so I can't really afford to continue this conversation on mobile. Nevertheless, I enjoyed hearing    peoples' perspectives.

Cheers.

[fohat.digs]

Fohat disregarded Buddhism as being a religion, as it didn't fit within the power structure he was trying to prove his point with.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

[fanpeople]

Fohat disregarded Buddhism as being a religion, as it didn't fit within the power structure he was trying to prove his point with. This is within the context of religious beliefs. You're extrapolating me saying that we should respect others' religious beliefs to believing whatever you want.

So you said my way of arguing  my point is dumb and should be reserved for an elementary school playground. That's an immature response in itself. Anyways, don't get me wrong, I agree that while we should have a right to our own beliefs, I certainly don't condone the extreme practices that the original post showed an example of.

When I said right or wrong is a matter of perspective, this was in the context of religious teaching. I stand by what I said, as it is pointless for an atheist and someone religious to try to argue about their world views. Note that I am agnostic so by someone religious, I am not referring to myself.

You mentioned that I'm responding  immaturely to constructive responses, yet in many if these posts, although there are some legitimate concerns, it's just dripping with Islamophobia.

My main motive for commenting on this thread is that people need to know when to differentiate extremists from an entire religion. That is where Islamophobia and stereotypes come from, when the word terrorist becomes codified racism.

Anyways, this has turned into a wall of text hahaha. I'm heading out so I can't really afford to continue this conversation on mobile. Nevertheless, I enjoyed hearing    peoples' perspectives.

Cheers.

See I respect this as a proper response, I feel like you have put some thought into what I said before responding to my points. The fact that I disagree some of this does not really worry me, I also know that I would just be repeating myself if I was address your concerns so that would just be a tit for tat waste of time.

You do understand that you will rarely if ever change a persons point of view in this manner, in fact it is very difficult to alter how someone thinks without a great deal of time and effort. I would even go as far to say that you could explain your point, in great detail, every day, for the next 10 years in this thread and you would still not alter a single persons point of view.

[tp4tissue]

There is very little difference in the way "Religion is organized"  around the world..

Buddism is the same as Christianity,    Give me your money ,  build a bigger temple , and once cash flow is consistent,  they take the money, lend it, leverage that, etc etc..

THe majority of these funds come from unscrupulous sources..  Religion goes under the radar, but today they're  one of the largest money laundering players..




This has nothing to do with the Religion itself or their books..

It has to do with the HUMAN side of things....

Because regardless of how religion preaches the idealized behavior,  PEOPLE just can't do it..

[berserkfan]

You mentioned that I'm responding  immaturely to constructive responses, yet in many if these posts, although there are some legitimate concerns, it's just dripping with Islamophobia.

My main motive for commenting on this thread is that people need to know when to differentiate extremists from an entire religion. That is where Islamophobia and stereotypes come from, when the word terrorist becomes codified racism.

Anyways, this has turned into a wall of text hahaha. I'm heading out so I can't really afford to continue this conversation on mobile. Nevertheless, I enjoyed hearing    peoples' perspectives.

Cheers.

It's not surprising to me that you were reading this on mobile and didn't have time. The quality of your response shows it.

An isolated example is not conclusive of an entire society... unless of course the acceptance of this isolated example fits into a bigger pattern, and reveals deeper social mores and trends underneath.

How many black people were lynched in the entire history of the United States? Not even four thousand. Even if 250 white people took part in each lynching, and there were no repeated incidents of the same white people taking part in a posse, that's a total of 1 million participants. It's not even 0.3% of all the white people who lived in the US over this time period.

Very often I hear black people saying that white people 'don't get it'. And most white people really don't. The whole thing about white racism, is not about every single white person, or even a majority of white people, being blatantly and violently racist.

It is about 0.3% of white people being blatantly and violently racist.

And 99.7% of white people looking the other way, being in denial, being wilfully blind, being deliberately negligent, assisting or abetting or accepting or giving comfort to the KKK members and other racial terrorists who live among white people.

And the same analogy applies to the Pakistanis and other societies where religious fanaticism is allowed to thrive without being challenged. You don't want people to look negatively at your society, then keep the bad guys from taking control of the narrative. If for whatever reason you don't want to, or cannot, then the bad guys will steer your country down a bad path. It's as simple as that.

Do you know that only a small proportion of all Germans ever voted for Hitler? Or joined the Nazi party? Or became concentration camp guards? But the bad guys were permitted to take control, and you see what happened next. Now the entire Western world is dripping with Naziphobia and stereotypes. I can't even wear a Buddhist swastika when I visit Europe.

[fohat.digs]

You don't want people to look negatively at your society, then keep the bad guys from taking control of the narrative.

And this is what disturbs me so much, as an 8th generation American on both sides of my family, when I see the consolidation of wealth and power into the hands of so few who have so little respect for the people who actually make this country great.

The Founding Fathers trusted that free speech and a free press would ensure a well-informed public voting base who would act in the best interests of their society. But today's media conglomerates, under the control of "the elite" who continually whip the gullible or ignorant into emotional frenzies over second- and third-tier issues to disguise their own hidden agendas, are the greatest tools of disinformation ever created.

And since Godwin has entered this thread, it is no surprise that Hitler quickly placed his best and most trusted friend into the position of Propaganda Minister.

[berserkfan]

Fohat

As you know well I love talking to you.

I have a lengthy reply that discusses the complexities of the Islamic world, and I'll send it to you privately. Basically I wrote a bit every day until it became too long for ordinary people to read it on their phones. I don't want to draw one liner responses from the wrong folks.

You don't want people to look negatively at your society, then keep the bad guys from taking control of the narrative.

And this is what disturbs me so much, as an 8th generation American on both sides of my family, when I see the consolidation of wealth and power into the hands of so few who have so little respect for the people who actually make this country great.

The Founding Fathers trusted that free speech and a free press would ensure a well-informed public voting base who would act in the best interests of their society. But today's media conglomerates, under the control of "the elite" who continually whip the gullible or ignorant into emotional frenzies over second- and third-tier issues to disguise their own hidden agendas, are the greatest tools of disinformation ever created.

And since Godwin has entered this thread, it is no surprise that Hitler quickly placed his best and most trusted friend into the position of Propaganda Minister.

[berserkfan]

fohat, as per our recent conversation about Pakistan's role in international terrorism and extremism...

here's a NYTimes article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/07/opinion/sunday/pakistans-hand-in-the-rise-of-international-jihad.html?ref=world

Quote from NYT
"Pakistan is intervening in a number of foreign conflicts. Its intelligence service has long acted as the manager of international mujahedeen forces, many of them Sunni extremists, and there is even speculation that it may have been involved in the rise of the Islamic State...  the region’s triumvirate of violent jihad is living openly in Pakistan.

To anyone in the know, it is no surprise that all the troublemakers in the region are living in Pakistan without official harassment.

What amuses me most is that this article came out barely a few days after I sent you that long discussion, and they make about the same points as me with more details.

[chyros]

It's 2016, why is religion still even a thing? :/

[fohat.digs]

It's 2016, why is religion still even a thing?

Because if you have a ****ty life then the prospect of eternity in heaven is your only hope.

Plus ignorance, tradition, and superstition.