quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Terrorism differs from the other "isms" you've mentioned there in that it isn't so much an ideology as it is a method. The ideology in this case would be fundamentalistic Islamic facism, terrorism is merely the means used to propogate it. Might sound like I'm just nit-picking but it is a pretty important distinction.

I agree with your premise.

But by and large there is no other major movement that is using the 'insturment' of terrorism, therefore the ideology of fundantalistics islam is closely associated with it.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus I agree with your premise. But by and large there is no other major movement that is using the 'insturment' of terrorism, therefore the ideology of fundantalistics islam is closely associated with it.

Renegade would tend to dissagree with that.

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&forumid=66&threadid=206611

Yoepus, no response? Huh?|

___________________
'That's like telling a Kodiak bear to stop fcking older men.'

apples-->oranges-->bananas-->tunafish

___________________
agenda:


[Dark Disco|Frozen Balearic|Gay Biker-House| Boogie-Trance|Heavy Electronica|Soft-Goth]

quote:

Originally posted by biznology Yoepus, no response? Huh?|

I was sleeping!

And responses to what exactly?

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

Actually Yoepus, there was something I meant to ask you before:

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus There is a reason you don't see terrorism in dictatorships. Terrorism can easily be remedied by severe punishment.

If this is what you believe, then would you now have advocated keeping Saddam in power? Or were you just talking "hypothetically"?

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade If this is what you believe, then would you now have advocated keeping Saddam in power? Or were you just talking "hypothetically"?

thats what a pessimist would believe.

I would disagree that:

quote:

We're currently linving in an era of anarchy. Terrorism has, over the last 50 years, become the most dominant "political" phenomenen and established up a new world order: an order that is totally out of order.

A: Most of us aren't living in anarchy...
B: Terroism is definatly not the most dominant "political" phenomenen I mean everywhere nearly has some form of goverment.

While yes Terrorism is on the rise, it is not the most dominant. I think we need to put things in persective:

Yes...the threat is growing.
Yes...even the effect of preparing for it is a effect upon our lives and as such a sort of victory for them.
Yes...in some areas terroism is a big problem.

but

No...it is not a world wide major problem yet.

Anyway I belive in for many people Terroism is mearly a way to make thier lives (gain meaning)/(gain power).

That is it has its roots not in fact but is (in many but not all cases) only a manifestation of the persons own insecuitys(as are many problems). As such it's going to be very difficult to deal with because someones always got a bigger dick.

___________________
If you can read this, I'm seriously fucking bored.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Actually Yoepus, there was something I meant to ask you before: If this is what you believe, then would you now have advocated keeping Saddam in power? Or were you just talking "hypothetically"?

No, I am talking realistically. This example serves as proof of that point (Saddam was able to quell terrorist against himself).

I don't advocate keeping Saddam in power, he still perpertrated terror against others. And I don't advocate such severe punishment as he used, herein lies the dilema.



Another point:
There is no terrorism against dictatorship as hitting the people, and not the leaders, is a worthless endeavour. You can kill 1000 nationals, this will not change the political will of an all powerful tyrant not faced with re-election. Liberal democracies 'welcome' terrorism by allowing their citizens into the political process. Therefore a vote on civilians has direct political correlations.

This reason explains why dictatorships see more assinations to try and change the political process (they target the leadership) where as terrorism is tried in liberal democracies (regardless if you take the leader another with similar agenda will follow unless you change the will of the people).

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

"The warlike states of antiquity, Greece, Macedonia, and Rome, educated a race of soldiers; exercised their bodies, disciplined their courage, multiplied their forces by regular evolutions, and converted the iron which they possessed into strong and serviceable weapons. But this superiority insensibly declined with their laws and manners; and the feeble policy of Constantine and his successors armed and instructed, for the ruin of the empire, the rude valour of the Barbarian mercenaries."
- Gibbon

Once again History will repeat.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by policerobots we might need aliens to attack us so all humans can unite.... wait a minute this sounds like ID4! LOL

Quick! Someone call Will!

Actually, the movie never went into what happened after the battles... The superpowers went on a freenzy to collect as much of the alien technology as they could. After a few years of studying it new weapons were built and we were right back where we started. Soon another world war broke out for control over this new technology. The alien attack just delayed the inevitable.