Does terrorism ever actually work?

[the other mike]

Terrorism is a trillion dollar a year boondoggle for the military industrial intelligence complex.


^Rest in peace Ed Schultz.^

 

[Wyatt earp]

You're delusional. The U.S. is the number one producer of oil in the world and a net exporter of energy. We don't need Mideast oil, and we didn't steal Iraq's when we had the chance. More ignorant America hate.

The US is not a significant producer of oil.

Here is a pie chart of the top oil producers, and the US is not even on it.
We have increased production to the point we no longer import much, that is temporary, and we will totally run out of oil very soon, like 10 years or so. In contract, countries like Saudi Arabia and Iraq each have over 10 times the amount of oil reserves.

And you are wrong. We did steal Iraq's oil, and illegally forced Iraq to let us middle off of Iraqis oil while we occupied the country.

Do your parents have any idea as to what you are doing while on the family computer?

Here are the true figures. List of countries by oil production - Wikipedia

No, the US is just being stupid lately.
The US could always have been the largest producer if it wanted to, because we have the greatest refining capacity.
But it is stupid to do so, and in the past the US was smarter and deliberately conserved instead of producing as much as possible.
That is because we are running out, and oil now is cheap.
So then it is stupid to use up all we have now, when later we will have to buy when it is expensive.
The US has almost no oil reserves at all.

We Are Trained to Judge Truth by the Power of Those Who Tell Us How to Think

The scarcity scare story of Peak Oil is broadcast by those who have used it as excuse to jack up prices.

You are not making sense.
Oil is a very sparse commodity, created only when huge swamps get covered over by oceans.
And it takes over 100 million years for aerobic bacteria to cook the decaying vegetation into oil.
There is not going to be any more when it is gone, and it won't be long now.
The Mideast has much, much more oil because there used to be a huge swamp between Africa and the Mideast, that will never happen again.

When was there a huge swamp in Ohio?




Oil Industry


Drilling for oil in Ohio began in 1860. Drillers opened the first oil well in Ohio history near Macksburg, in Washington County. Additional wells soon appeared in Washington County and Noble County as well. By 1950, various companies had drilled more than 175,000 wells in forty-five Ohio counties. These wells had produced approximately 615 millions of oil. Most of Ohio's oil reserves are located in northwestern and eastern parts of the state, with the largest concentrations being located south of Toledo. As of 1950, oil companies guessed that the equivalent of another twenty-eight million barrels of oil remained under Ohio's surface.

During the late nineteenth century and the early twentieth century, numerous Ohio companies amassed fortunes from the oil industry. The Standard Oil Company came to dominate oil refining during this era, having a virtual monopoly. As the federal government sought to prohibit monopolies during the late 1800s and the early 1900s, Standard Oil lost its stranglehold over the industry. By the start of the twentieth century, oil drilling in the United States had shifted from states like Ohio to locations in the American Southwest. Ohio companies also moved westward. The Ohio Oil Company began to drill for oil in the Rocky Mountains during the early 1900s, although it also continued to extract oil from Ohio's soil. At the start of the twenty-first century, Ohio still produces some oil. In 1981, more than six thousand new wells appeared in the state, although companies drilled fewer than seven hundred new wells in 1993.

 

[Toronado3800]

I'm sitting here thinking about it, and I'm wondering, has terrorism ever actually achieved the desired effect that the terrorist intended?

Instead of causing fear, Islamic terrorist attacks usually cause people to band together like 9/11. They actually create courage, not fear. Yes, there will be more security than before, but people are still going to visit the Christmas markets in Berlin. That won't change.

Now let's look at this new guy. Does he really think Muslims are going to stop moving around the world because of his actions? It will ultimately be pointless because, in my opinion, TERRORISM IS NOT EFFECTIVE. Why people keep trying to make it work, I can't understand. Maybe it is just a narcissism thing.

Nuking Japan worked on a couple levels so ridiculous violence does work.

If the terrorists just wanted to change our way of living, make us spend tons of money for security and give up rights to the Patriot Act types, they won.

If they wanted to get their beef in the news, they accomplished that.

If they want to wipe Israel off the Earth, not yet.

A nuke can wipe out a city. Terrorists can only kill so many people, so they arent the same. Japan would not have surrendered if we had merely brought down 2 of their buildings.

We weren't just bringing down two of their buildings. We were firebombing cities at will.

Terrorists with an atomic bomb can kill plenty of ppl btw. In my mind its a fine line between the two, especially since we've "declared war on terrorism" or Iraq, or Syria, or Afghanistan or whatever.

This is an interesting topic to me. A few decades back I did a paper concerning the Japanese screwing up surrender negotiations and getting themselves nuked due to intercultural communication problems (we'll ignore their fragmented government). One factor was their misunderstanding of the relationship between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. It was my opinion those who favored surrender should have been on short wave radio shouting it out to the English speaking world that if they could keep the emperor and avoid occupation (the latter was unrealistic) they would surrender.

Not the best of sources, but there are varying opinions on the subject

Would Japan have surrendered without the atomic bombings?

The Greatest Hoax In American History: Japan’s Alleged Willingness to Surrender During the Final Months of World War II | History News Network

{...
The atomic bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have dominated the retelling of WWII history, but as a single attack the bombing of Tokyo was more destructive.

The firestorms killed about 100,000 civilians and wiped out about half of the city.
Kisako Motoki, then 10 years old, fled to a bridge to seek refuge after her parents and brother had just been burnt to death.

The firestorm, hundreds of metres high and fuelled by strong winds, quickly turned 40 square kilometres of Tokyo into an inferno.

"I saw melted burnt bodies piled up on top of each other as high as a house," Ms Motoki said.

"I saw black pieces, bits of bodies everywhere on the ground and burnt corpses in the water.

"I couldn't believe this was happening in this world."

Survivor says US should be held to account
The firebombing of Tokyo was designed to terrorise and bomb the Japanese into surrender.

It was also seen as payback for the Pearl Harbour attacks and the mistreatment of Allied prisoners of war.

In just two days, more than 100,000 people were killed, a million were maimed and another million were made homeless.
The US military had waited for a clear and windy night to inflict maximum damage, and on March 9, 1945 the conditions were perfect.

Three hundred B29 bombers dropped nearly 500,000 cylinders of napalm and petroleum jelly on the most densely populated areas of Tokyo.

The raid, which came a month after the firebombing of Dresden, brought mass incineration of civilians to a new horrific level.
...}

Tokyo firebombing: Deadliest raid in history remembered 70 years on

If you read the "Potsdam Diaries" by Truman, he writes that Stalin told him the Japanese were trying to negotiate a surrender 6 months before the Atomics were dropped, and Stalin and Truman agree to delay them.

Do you have a copy of the points of surrender or 14 points of surrender or something like that? I read a "meeting at potsdam" book a few decades back....wonder if the reference was in there.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I'm sitting here thinking about it, and I'm wondering, has terrorism ever actually achieved the desired effect that the terrorist intended?

Instead of causing fear, Islamic terrorist attacks usually cause people to band together like 9/11. They actually create courage, not fear. Yes, there will be more security than before, but people are still going to visit the Christmas markets in Berlin. That won't change.

Now let's look at this new guy. Does he really think Muslims are going to stop moving around the world because of his actions? It will ultimately be pointless because, in my opinion, TERRORISM IS NOT EFFECTIVE. Why people keep trying to make it work, I can't understand. Maybe it is just a narcissism thing.

Yea see 1776 and a bunch of sheep herders in the Middle east

Rightists Are Redcoat Relics

Despite what our transnationalist rulers want us to believe, our War for Independence was not anti-colonial. Those doing all the hard work of imperial conquest and development of the former savage-occupied wasteland felt that only they should get the benefits of pioneering, not the idle-rich HeirHeads back in England.

From that well-hidden logic, we can conclude that our own hereditary plutocratic parasites are totally unAmerican. A second Revolutionary War must be fought to send the Preppies back to the crumbling castles of Europe where they belong.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

You're delusional. The U.S. is the number one producer of oil in the world and a net exporter of energy. We don't need Mideast oil, and we didn't steal Iraq's when we had the chance. More ignorant America hate.

The US is not a significant producer of oil.

Here is a pie chart of the top oil producers, and the US is not even on it.
We have increased production to the point we no longer import much, that is temporary, and we will totally run out of oil very soon, like 10 years or so. In contract, countries like Saudi Arabia and Iraq each have over 10 times the amount of oil reserves.

And you are wrong. We did steal Iraq's oil, and illegally forced Iraq to let us middle off of Iraqis oil while we occupied the country.

Do your parents have any idea as to what you are doing while on the family computer?

Here are the true figures. List of countries by oil production - Wikipedia

No, the US is just being stupid lately.
The US could always have been the largest producer if it wanted to, because we have the greatest refining capacity.
But it is stupid to do so, and in the past the US was smarter and deliberately conserved instead of producing as much as possible.
That is because we are running out, and oil now is cheap.
So then it is stupid to use up all we have now, when later we will have to buy when it is expensive.
The US has almost no oil reserves at all.

We Are Trained to Judge Truth by the Power of Those Who Tell Us How to Think

The scarcity scare story of Peak Oil is broadcast by those who have used it as excuse to jack up prices.

You are not making sense.
Oil is a very sparse commodity, created only when huge swamps get covered over by oceans.
And it takes over 100 million years for aerobic bacteria to cook the decaying vegetation into oil.
There is not going to be any more when it is gone, and it won't be long now.
The Mideast has much, much more oil because there used to be a huge swamp between Africa and the Mideast, that will never happen again.

Fatcats Ate the Canaries on Miners' Lamps

There is as much hydrocarbon energy left as would be produced if everything growing on earth grew continuously burning for a thousand years. The decadent Postmoderns born in the ruling class have a fascination with the dystopian fairy tale that everything is running out, when it is their own time that is running out.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

...

You're delusional. The U.S. is the number one producer of oil in the world and a net exporter of energy. We don't need Mideast oil, and we didn't steal Iraq's when we had the chance. More ignorant America hate.

Use It or Lose It

You're unknowingly appeasing by calling the oil there "Iraq's." If it had been left up to the Arabs to develop it, that inert resource would never have been pumped out of the ground and would have had little value. Resources belong only to those who create value from what was a wasteland before superior minds investigated it.

Murdering people in the Mideast in order to take their oil, is criminal no matter how you look at it.
It does not matter if they use it or not.
I
I have been in lots of classes with Arabs, and they tend to be smarter on average.
Arabs knew all about oil

B Students, Jealous of A Students, Sponsor F Students

The only crime is letting mentally inferior ethnicities obstruct progress because of imaginary seniority rights in the lands they occupy. Multiculturalism is an insult to intelligence.

 

[ph3iron]

You don't realised this forum is for old white farts sucking off their socialist benefits.
Not a college degree in sight

Hey, I represent that remark. Although I do have a couple of degrees.

I mean a real one, not trump u.

 

[alang1216]

You don't realised this forum is for old white farts sucking off their socialist benefits.
Not a college degree in sight

Hey, I represent that remark. Although I do have a couple of degrees.

I mean a real one, not trump u.

Hey my degrees are real, and the ink is dry. I just happened to be home-schooled right through graduate school.

 

[McRocket]

Liberals are a lot more respectful to Muslims since 9/11, it's like the worse Muslims behave, the more liberals want to be their friends.

Prove it using links to unbiased, factual proof, please?

I guarantee that you cannot.

 

[ph3iron]

AOC's a socialist. All we know about Beto is that he was born in the US (probably) and he lives in Texas.

How has that benefited terrorist organizations?

No, freedom fighters are terrorists as well.
You can invoke terror for good or bad equally.
It is a tactic, not a motivation.

But the US has never been a FREE society.
The first 70 years we had slavery.
Then we switched to imperialism and colonialism, invading tribal lands, Mexico, Cuba, South America, etc.
With WWI, we expanded to global domination.

Actually the military model is communism: central planning from the top down, everyone provided everything they need, everyone contributes to the best of their ability. And it has worked for millenia.

Nonsense.
We illegally invaded or cause regime change by force in the Mideast because we want to steal resources like oil.
No Islamic country is invading anyone.
So we are the ONLY bad guys.
Between Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Egypt, we murdered more than a million innocent people, who never did anything to anyone.

A central mission of Islam is to do no harm to anyone, if possible.

You're delusional. The U.S. is the number one producer of oil in the world and a net exporter of energy. We don't need Mideast oil, and we didn't steal Iraq's when we had the chance. More ignorant America hate.

The US is not a significant producer of oil.

Here is a pie chart of the top oil producers, and the US is not even on it.
We have increased production to the point we no longer import much, that is temporary, and we will totally run out of oil very soon, like 10 years or so. In contract, countries like Saudi Arabia and Iraq each have over 10 times the amount of oil reserves.

And you are wrong. We did steal Iraq's oil, and illegally forced Iraq to let us middle off of Iraqis oil while we occupied the country.

Do your parents have any idea as to what you are doing while on the family computer?

Here are the true figures. List of countries by oil production - Wikipedia

You don't realised this forum is for old white farts sucking off their socialist benefits.
Not a college degree in sight

I have two degrees, one a Masters. What do you want to know? Maybe you can learn something instead of just attempting to spout insulting falsehoods.

Apologies, I meant the vast majority, white , SS and no college.
That may not be a falsehood.
I just go by the people who don't know the origin of liberal, snowflake and don't know the difference between a noun and an adjective
Yours in engineering?

 

[grbb]

I read history of religions. One of it is islam. I am not muslim by the way. My opinion about islam is slightly moderate. I saw a religion that used to be quite libertarian. However, it's now a force of statism and extreme conservationism.

Is that good? Well.... I kind of like their early start up. I don't like their influence now. But then again, I don't think religions are of much use now that science have been far more advance.

In one part of history, they have Caliph. That word sounds terror in our ears. They want to change countries into caliphate. They hate democracy. Proponent of "caliphate" like to bomb people out. They're like white supremacists. They bomb bomb bomb kill.

However, in ancient time, it's actually liberal. Think about it. The whole world are ruled by kings and sultan. They have a system where supreme leaders are elected. I am impressed. The problem is that the caliphs are too idealist.

Abu Bakr pretty much fired Khalid bin Wahid because he wants the people to believe that they win because of this new religion instead of Khalid's skills. Religions, in ancient time is an ideology.

Think of western civilization without democracy and capitalism? Nothing right? So yea, their religions do indeed give them an edge in war.

They won wars after wars. Their government is small. Their caliph lived modestly. Even the Christians would initially side with them against the Persians. Lower tax. Those jizya that we saw as oppressive, used to be cheaper than tax levied by Persian empire.

One day one of their Caliph, Utsman was killed. Why? Well.... Modest life, modest guard, lenient toward dissenting opinion. You know.

So, obviously killing a Caliph is politically incorrect. Even the replacement Caliph, Ali, which is also too idealistic and politically inept, was in a dilemma. In one hand, Ali always wanted to be Caliph. Some, I think the Syiah, believed that Ali was appointed as Caliph by their prophet, Muhammad himself. Those who murdered Utsman were Ali's supporters.

Would you kill your own supporters for justice to appease those who want to depose you?

Think about it for a while.

Ali have other supporters. If he killed the murderers he'll still have plenty. So Ali basically told those who disagree that they have to kow tow to Ali first. And then, Ali will dispense "justice".

Obviously, this is negotiable. When they're about to negotiate, what do you think the murderers do?

Think about it for a time.

When there is peace, you are fucked. When there is peace, Ali wouldn't need them anymore.

What would you do?

They terrorize the other side. Now there is war.

In that sense, terrorism works.

It creates war.

Now, the muslims know they won't get justice. New Zealand don't even have death penalty. Even with death penalty we're talking about 1 death penalty for 40 murders. Far from enough. It's weakness of western civilization.

So who will the muslims get mad with? The christians. Who will the christians get mad with? The muslims.

Then the terrorist will get what he wants. That is, hostility and less immigration.

Sounds like a plan. I seriously think cities should be privatized. So those who don't like to hang out with those different than them can just have their own cities and we're free from them.

 

[ph3iron]

I read history of religions. One of it is islam. I am not muslim by the way. My opinion about islam is slightly moderate. I saw a religion that used to be quite libertarian. However, it's now a force of statism and extreme conservationism.

Is that good? Well.... I kind of like their early start up. I don't like their influence now. But then again, I don't think religions are of much use now that science have been far more advance.

In one part of history, they have Caliph. That word sounds terror in our ears. They want to change countries into caliphate. They hate democracy. Proponent of "caliphate" like to bomb people out. They're like white supremacists. They bomb bomb bomb kill.

However, in ancient time, it's actually liberal. Think about it. The whole world are ruled by kings and sultan. They have a system where supreme leaders are elected. I am impressed. The problem is that the caliphs are too idealist.

Abu Bakr pretty much fired Khalid bin Wahid because he wants the people to believe that they win because of this new religion instead of Khalid's skills. Religions, in ancient time is an ideology.

Think of western civilization without democracy and capitalism? Nothing right? So yea, their religions do indeed give them an edge in war.

They won wars after wars. Their government is small. Their caliph lived modestly. Even the Christians would initially side with them against the Persians. Lower tax. Those jizya that we saw as oppressive, used to be cheaper than tax levied by Persian empire.

One day one of their Caliph, Utsman was killed. Why? Well.... Modest life, modest guard, lenient toward dissenting opinion. You know.

So, obviously killing a Caliph is politically incorrect. Even the replacement Caliph, Ali, which is also too idealistic and politically inept, was in a dilemma. In one hand, Ali always wanted to be Caliph. Some, I think the Syiah, believed that Ali was appointed as Caliph by their prophet, Muhammad himself. Those who murdered Utsman were Ali's supporters.

Would you kill your own supporters for justice to appease those who want to depose you?

Think about it for a while.

Ali have other supporters. If he killed the murderers he'll still have plenty. So Ali basically told those who disagree that they have to kow tow to Ali first. And then, Ali will dispense "justice".

Obviously, this is negotiable. When they're about to negotiate, what do you think the murderers do?

Think about it for a time.

When there is peace, you are fucked. When there is peace, Ali wouldn't need them anymore.

What would you do?

They terrorize the other side. Now there is war.

In that sense, terrorism works.

It creates war.

Now, the muslims know they won't get justice. New Zealand don't even have death penalty. Even with death penalty we're talking about 1 death penalty for 40 murders. Far from enough. It's weakness of western civilization.

So who will the muslims get mad with? The christians. Who will the christians get mad with? The muslims.

Then the terrorist will get what he wants. That is, hostility and less immigration.

Sounds like a plan. I seriously think cities should be privatized. So those who don't like to hang out with those different than them can just have their own cities and we're free from them.

The only thing that comes to mind was the turkey caliphate before WWII.. All The way through Spain, no real problem for 1000 years
Whoops, wwi turkey on the German side. Oil for the uk navy came into play.
Chaos ever since
Same with Granada
Strange, all the Muslim scientists I know seem perfectly normal

 

[BlindBoo]

No, because if they have the desired political effects they are called militant actions of the freedom fighters.

 

[grbb]

I read history of religions. One of it is islam. I am not muslim by the way. My opinion about islam is slightly moderate. I saw a religion that used to be quite libertarian. However, it's now a force of statism and extreme conservationism.

Is that good? Well.... I kind of like their early start up. I don't like their influence now. But then again, I don't think religions are of much use now that science have been far more advance.

In one part of history, they have Caliph. That word sounds terror in our ears. They want to change countries into caliphate. They hate democracy. Proponent of "caliphate" like to bomb people out. They're like white supremacists. They bomb bomb bomb kill.

However, in ancient time, it's actually liberal. Think about it. The whole world are ruled by kings and sultan. They have a system where supreme leaders are elected. I am impressed. The problem is that the caliphs are too idealist.

Abu Bakr pretty much fired Khalid bin Wahid because he wants the people to believe that they win because of this new religion instead of Khalid's skills. Religions, in ancient time is an ideology.

Think of western civilization without democracy and capitalism? Nothing right? So yea, their religions do indeed give them an edge in war.

They won wars after wars. Their government is small. Their caliph lived modestly. Even the Christians would initially side with them against the Persians. Lower tax. Those jizya that we saw as oppressive, used to be cheaper than tax levied by Persian empire.

One day one of their Caliph, Utsman was killed. Why? Well.... Modest life, modest guard, lenient toward dissenting opinion. You know.

So, obviously killing a Caliph is politically incorrect. Even the replacement Caliph, Ali, which is also too idealistic and politically inept, was in a dilemma. In one hand, Ali always wanted to be Caliph. Some, I think the Syiah, believed that Ali was appointed as Caliph by their prophet, Muhammad himself. Those who murdered Utsman were Ali's supporters.

Would you kill your own supporters for justice to appease those who want to depose you?

Think about it for a while.

Ali have other supporters. If he killed the murderers he'll still have plenty. So Ali basically told those who disagree that they have to kow tow to Ali first. And then, Ali will dispense "justice".

Obviously, this is negotiable. When they're about to negotiate, what do you think the murderers do?

Think about it for a time.

When there is peace, you are fucked. When there is peace, Ali wouldn't need them anymore.

What would you do?

They terrorize the other side. Now there is war.

In that sense, terrorism works.

It creates war.

Now, the muslims know they won't get justice. New Zealand don't even have death penalty. Even with death penalty we're talking about 1 death penalty for 40 murders. Far from enough. It's weakness of western civilization.

So who will the muslims get mad with? The christians. Who will the christians get mad with? The muslims.

Then the terrorist will get what he wants. That is, hostility and less immigration.

Sounds like a plan. I seriously think cities should be privatized. So those who don't like to hang out with those different than them can just have their own cities and we're free from them.

The only thing that comes to mind was the turkey caliphate before WWII.. All The way through Spain, no real problem for 1000 years
Whoops, wwi turkey on the German side. Oil for the uk navy came into play.
Chaos ever since
Same with Granada
Strange, all the Muslim scientists I know seem perfectly normal

You mean Otoman caliphate?

Well. This is another problem with caliphates. They're an obsolete ideology. Religions are not that effective to unite people anymore, unlike money, or capitalism, or democracy.

Under caliphates those who control the army control the country. So Otoman got plenty of obsolete troops.

At the end there are reasons why most countries adopt western ideologies.

It simply "works better"

 

[ph3iron]

I read history of religions. One of it is islam. I am not muslim by the way. My opinion about islam is slightly moderate. I saw a religion that used to be quite libertarian. However, it's now a force of statism and extreme conservationism.

Is that good? Well.... I kind of like their early start up. I don't like their influence now. But then again, I don't think religions are of much use now that science have been far more advance.

In one part of history, they have Caliph. That word sounds terror in our ears. They want to change countries into caliphate. They hate democracy. Proponent of "caliphate" like to bomb people out. They're like white supremacists. They bomb bomb bomb kill.

However, in ancient time, it's actually liberal. Think about it. The whole world are ruled by kings and sultan. They have a system where supreme leaders are elected. I am impressed. The problem is that the caliphs are too idealist.

Abu Bakr pretty much fired Khalid bin Wahid because he wants the people to believe that they win because of this new religion instead of Khalid's skills. Religions, in ancient time is an ideology.

Think of western civilization without democracy and capitalism? Nothing right? So yea, their religions do indeed give them an edge in war.

They won wars after wars. Their government is small. Their caliph lived modestly. Even the Christians would initially side with them against the Persians. Lower tax. Those jizya that we saw as oppressive, used to be cheaper than tax levied by Persian empire.

One day one of their Caliph, Utsman was killed. Why? Well.... Modest life, modest guard, lenient toward dissenting opinion. You know.

So, obviously killing a Caliph is politically incorrect. Even the replacement Caliph, Ali, which is also too idealistic and politically inept, was in a dilemma. In one hand, Ali always wanted to be Caliph. Some, I think the Syiah, believed that Ali was appointed as Caliph by their prophet, Muhammad himself. Those who murdered Utsman were Ali's supporters.

Would you kill your own supporters for justice to appease those who want to depose you?

Think about it for a while.

Ali have other supporters. If he killed the murderers he'll still have plenty. So Ali basically told those who disagree that they have to kow tow to Ali first. And then, Ali will dispense "justice".

Obviously, this is negotiable. When they're about to negotiate, what do you think the murderers do?

Think about it for a time.

When there is peace, you are fucked. When there is peace, Ali wouldn't need them anymore.

What would you do?

They terrorize the other side. Now there is war.

In that sense, terrorism works.

It creates war.

Now, the muslims know they won't get justice. New Zealand don't even have death penalty. Even with death penalty we're talking about 1 death penalty for 40 murders. Far from enough. It's weakness of western civilization.

So who will the muslims get mad with? The christians. Who will the christians get mad with? The muslims.

Then the terrorist will get what he wants. That is, hostility and less immigration.

Sounds like a plan. I seriously think cities should be privatized. So those who don't like to hang out with those different than them can just have their own cities and we're free from them.

The only thing that comes to mind was the turkey caliphate before WWII.. All The way through Spain, no real problem for 1000 years
Whoops, wwi turkey on the German side. Oil for the uk navy came into play.
Chaos ever since
Same with Granada
Strange, all the Muslim scientists I know seem perfectly normal

You mean Otoman caliphate?

Well. This is another problem with caliphates. They're an obsolete ideology. Religions are not that effective to unite people anymore, unlike money, or capitalism, or democracy.

Under caliphates those who control the army control the country. So Otoman got plenty of obsolete troops.

At the end there are reasons why most countries adopt western ideologies.

It simply "works better"

Well, WWII didn't help the caliphate. Good old peaceful western influence.
Just out of interest where did the Scandi idealologies come from?
I recommend "the history of London " doc.
I learned a lot

 

[WillMunny]

Muslim terrorism certainly works because it causes liberal traitors to crawl on their bellies before the world's most violent, purest hate ideology and they appease whatever ridiculous, crybaby demands that muslim filth like to caterwaul.

 

[grbb]

what is scandi ideology?

 

[ph3iron]

I read history of religions. One of it is islam. I am not muslim by the way. My opinion about islam is slightly moderate. I saw a religion that used to be quite libertarian. However, it's now a force of statism and extreme conservationism.

Is that good? Well.... I kind of like their early start up. I don't like their influence now. But then again, I don't think religions are of much use now that science have been far more advance.

In one part of history, they have Caliph. That word sounds terror in our ears. They want to change countries into caliphate. They hate democracy. Proponent of "caliphate" like to bomb people out. They're like white supremacists. They bomb bomb bomb kill.

However, in ancient time, it's actually liberal. Think about it. The whole world are ruled by kings and sultan. They have a system where supreme leaders are elected. I am impressed. The problem is that the caliphs are too idealist.

Abu Bakr pretty much fired Khalid bin Wahid because he wants the people to believe that they win because of this new religion instead of Khalid's skills. Religions, in ancient time is an ideology.

Think of western civilization without democracy and capitalism? Nothing right? So yea, their religions do indeed give them an edge in war.

They won wars after wars. Their government is small. Their caliph lived modestly. Even the Christians would initially side with them against the Persians. Lower tax. Those jizya that we saw as oppressive, used to be cheaper than tax levied by Persian empire.

One day one of their Caliph, Utsman was killed. Why? Well.... Modest life, modest guard, lenient toward dissenting opinion. You know.

So, obviously killing a Caliph is politically incorrect. Even the replacement Caliph, Ali, which is also too idealistic and politically inept, was in a dilemma. In one hand, Ali always wanted to be Caliph. Some, I think the Syiah, believed that Ali was appointed as Caliph by their prophet, Muhammad himself. Those who murdered Utsman were Ali's supporters.

Would you kill your own supporters for justice to appease those who want to depose you?

Think about it for a while.

Ali have other supporters. If he killed the murderers he'll still have plenty. So Ali basically told those who disagree that they have to kow tow to Ali first. And then, Ali will dispense "justice".

Obviously, this is negotiable. When they're about to negotiate, what do you think the murderers do?

Think about it for a time.

When there is peace, you are fucked. When there is peace, Ali wouldn't need them anymore.

What would you do?

They terrorize the other side. Now there is war.

In that sense, terrorism works.

It creates war.

Now, the muslims know they won't get justice. New Zealand don't even have death penalty. Even with death penalty we're talking about 1 death penalty for 40 murders. Far from enough. It's weakness of western civilization.

So who will the muslims get mad with? The christians. Who will the christians get mad with? The muslims.

Then the terrorist will get what he wants. That is, hostility and less immigration.

Sounds like a plan. I seriously think cities should be privatized. So those who don't like to hang out with those different than them can just have their own cities and we're free from them.

Liberal.
Latin, liber, free.
"For the individual and small gov"
Are we using the knees news def these days?

 

[Timmy]

I'm sitting here thinking about it, and I'm wondering, has terrorism ever actually achieved the desired effect that the terrorist intended?

Instead of causing fear, Islamic terrorist attacks usually cause people to band together like 9/11. They actually create courage, not fear. Yes, there will be more security than before, but people are still going to visit the Christmas markets in Berlin. That won't change.

Now let's look at this new guy. Does he really think Muslims are going to stop moving around the world because of his actions? It will ultimately be pointless because, in my opinion, TERRORISM IS NOT EFFECTIVE. Why people keep trying to make it work, I can't understand. Maybe it is just a narcissism thing.

United States was born out of terrorism .

North Ireland terrorism seemed to work .

 

[grbb]

liberal means free. Yap.

Liberal in US doesn't love freedom. They want higher tax. I like libertarianism more