Author Topic: Interesting Take on Origions of Terrorism. (Read 1739 times)

lukster · « **Reply #30 on:** February 01, 2007, 10:14:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
http://www.terrorism-research.com/history/early.php

Maybe we should just drop the term terrorists and name them for their ideology? That would make the current "terrorists" just Muslims right? How unPC.

Sandman · « **Reply #31 on:** February 01, 2007, 10:54:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maverick
National interest is always in the reasoning for conflict Sandie, you know that. Given how the industrialized world is dependant on oil to maintain an industrialized society should that surprise you? There is no society in any industrialized country that will continue to flourish much less survive if the supply of oil is gone. It goes for far more than transportation alone.

This sounds an awful lot like justification to invade another country for their resources.

I'm going to go out on a limb and bet that this would not be greeted warmly by the rest of the civilized planet.

Sandman · « **Reply #32 on:** February 01, 2007, 10:56:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lukster
Maybe we should just drop the term terrorists and name them for their ideology? That would make the current "terrorists" just Muslims right? How unPC.

Fine by me. The term "war on terrorism" is moronic. Call it what it is.

Of course... you can call it the "war on radical islam" but that doesn't quite cover Iraq either. As I understand it, Hussein himself was a bit too secular for Islamic fundamentalists.

lukster · « **Reply #33 on:** February 01, 2007, 10:58:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
Fine by me. The term "war on terrorism" is moronic. Call it what it is.

Can we call it jihad against the infidels?

Maverick · « **Reply #34 on:** February 01, 2007, 11:11:00 PM »

Sandy, the world lives with it every day. An economic action equivalent to, or an actual blockade of a country's resources is a threat to that nations existence.

Now having said that, I want to redirect you to what I was trying to convey the first time. A nation will enter a conflict to either secure it's national interests or defend them. Any one who thinks an indutrialized nation does not consider the means to maintain it's industrialized "lifestyle", if you will, is not in it's national interest is living in denial. Whether you want to consider it PC or not is immaterial.

Slash27 · « **Reply #35 on:** February 02, 2007, 12:36:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dowding
Someone had to continue the mess.

Thanks for taking over that responsibility - you're exceeding all our expectations.

John is in charge now?

Sandman · « **Reply #36 on:** February 02, 2007, 12:43:21 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maverick
Sandy, the world lives with it every day. An economic action equivalent to, or an actual blockade of a country's resources is a threat to that nations existence.

Now having said that, I want to redirect you to what I was trying to convey the first time. A nation will enter a conflict to either secure it's national interests or defend them. Any one who thinks an indutrialized nation does not consider the means to maintain it's industrialized "lifestyle", if you will, is not in it's national interest is living in denial. Whether you want to consider it PC or not is immaterial.

Sounds like a great reason for Iraq to invade Kuwait.

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #37 on:** February 02, 2007, 01:26:43 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
This sounds an awful lot like justification to invade another country for their resources.

I'm going to go out on a limb and bet that this would not be greeted warmly by the rest of the civilized planet.

sorry but its just the way the game is played. always has been. Always will be.

aint the nicest thing in the world.
but it is what it is.

While the populus might object on ethical grounds.
The only reason other governments object is because the attacking country got there first

moot · « **Reply #38 on:** February 02, 2007, 01:33:40 AM »

Does the cost of a war not match that of researching energy self-sufficiency?
Oil snake & al.

straffo · « **Reply #39 on:** February 02, 2007, 03:08:18 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Actually, it can be traced back to when the British started mingling in middle east affairs, and that might go back centuries...

do you know what is the origin of the word "assassin" ?

Mace2004 · « **Reply #40 on:** February 02, 2007, 08:34:53 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by moot
Does the cost of a war not match that of researching energy self-sufficiency?
Oil snake & al.

There is the oil that we (the US needs) and oil that the rest of civilized world needs. That's a fact of life. Self sufficiency for the US does little to sustain the rest of the world, especially now that China is surging forth. Even with a full-court press on alternatives the "world" will not transition to a non-fossil fuel based economy anytime in our lifetimes.

This war, and the previous Gulf war has nothing to do with the US capturing and controlling oil for profit despite what many boneheads say, to a large degree it's about denying control to extremist regimes to protect not just the US but the rest of the civilized and developing world. The whole world benefits from a free-market for oil. It keeps the price down and the desire for profit motivates exploration and development, not what would happen should such a large chunk of the world's oil reserves are controlled by Iran or other radical Muslims.

It just so happens that one of the ways to prevent this from happening also coincides with the need to counter growing Islamic terrorism, hence the Iraq war. Just because protecting the oil supply is one of the objectives of the war doesn't mean it's the only one or even the most important. That would be the same as saying World War II was only about Germany conquering France. Saying this is just a "war for oil" is childish and ignorant.

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #41 on:** February 02, 2007, 08:43:59 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by moot
Does the cost of a war not match that of researching energy self-sufficiency?
Oil snake & al.

Big part of the problem is Oil is still the cheapest way to go.
Being self sufficient is great if you can afford it.
so far any of the new alternatives are going to cost alot moreto use then the oil we now use

We frequently blame Big oil for the cost of gas but we do little ourselves to help the situation and very much to hurt it.

You can tell that by the sheer amount of Suburbans, Hummers and SUVs you see on the roads.

People dont want to spend blood for oil.
but they dont want to have to do anything that might reduce our dependancy on oil either.

Like drive ALOT smaller cars or maybe alot more at the pumps or give up all those cool gagets made out of plastic

Cant have it both ways

john9001 · « **Reply #42 on:** February 02, 2007, 10:10:18 AM »

the USA could cut oil dependency almost over night, do what they did in WW2, ration gas.

painful, but it works, the US govt does not have the courage to do what has to be done. They want to be "re-elected", so all the govt does is talk about the problem and play partisan politics.

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #43 on:** February 02, 2007, 10:19:42 AM »

Sorry, rationing gas won't work. It would probably cripple the economy anyway.

Maverick · « **Reply #44 on:** February 02, 2007, 11:34:04 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
Sounds like a great reason for Iraq to invade Kuwait.

And also a reason to prevent a single beligerant entity (person if you will) from controlling a majority or controlling share of the production too. IE kicking iraq out of Kuwait. Would not all out economic warfare be as devastating to a country's existance as actual combat?