Halibut   12 #13 Posted December 1, 2008 You even write like a Pakistani.  How's that - with letters and words? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Heyesey   11 #14 Posted December 1, 2008 Maybe you're right but with religion gone that eliminates one third of the cause of conflict leaving politics and skin color the other two thirds to fight about.   It only eliminates the excuse. "Religious" wars have, almost exclusively, been about power struggles and had very little to do with religion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
max   13 #15 Posted December 1, 2008 IM following you mr squirt and so is SIS  Sheffield Information Services is following Mr Squirt? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
alchresearch   214 #16 Posted December 1, 2008 The clash is mainly a manufactured thing to keep our civillisation busy. Once the Berlin wall came down and the USSR was no longer seen as a threat our governments realised that they needed an enemy and the 9/11 thing came just at the right time.  God forbid all the nations come together in peace. What would they do with all the money they spend on defence and weapons? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
metaphoria   10 #17 Posted December 1, 2008 Metaphoria calling Mr Squirt...  ...the albertross has flown the nest...  ...over. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
plekhanov   10 #18 Posted December 1, 2008 It was mis reported .It should have read Catholics and muslims unite in hatred of homosexuals. don't forget the hatred of women & free-speech. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
albertross   10 #19 Posted December 1, 2008 Sorry should have read ISI, (pakistani inteligence service)they dont use the initial letters as the abb for obvious reasons, however their web site is great for locating decent curry joints. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
albertross   10 #20 Posted December 1, 2008 you cant fool ISI with your ever changing state metamorphic bloke Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Pidgeon   10 #21 Posted December 1, 2008 My imaginary friend is bigger then yours. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
albertross   10 #22 Posted December 1, 2008 This is the americian idea,why spend money on bombs tanks and armies when you can get them(the enemy) to destroy themselves just by stirring a bit of s*** Any way uncle sam is skint, george and greensleves are planning to nick the printing plates from the fed when he leaves and set up shop in cuba, not that it will do much good ,everybody is offloading dollars Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
LordChaverly   10 #23 Posted December 1, 2008 The 'Clash of Civilizations' idea is actually extremely flawed. I've looked into this in-depth whilst at university, and when you start looking at the demographics and diversity of each 'civilization', then it becomes clear that we can't in fact speak of Western Christian, Islamic, Eastern-Oriental civilizational blocs etc. As I've said before on this forum, the current spate of violence / terrorism is targeted as much against Muslims as it is against non-Muslims - arguably Islam is at war with itself.   There is a difference between the popular conception (or rather misconception) of 'the Clash of Civilizations' idea and what Samuel P. Huntington ('The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order') actually wrote. A good example of this misconception is contained within your first paragraph, which seems to suggest that Huntington fails to acknowledge, or takes no account of, intra-civilization diversity. This is false.  I won't attempt to paraphrase what the book actually says, because in it Huntington advances a much more complex and sophisticated argument (or rather set of arguments) than most people - in particular his critics - realise or are prepared to acknowledge. It is often summarised in a derogatory way by people who have never actually read it. It is definitely worth reading at first hand. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Harleyman   12 #24 Posted December 1, 2008 This is the americian idea,why spend money on bombs tanks and armies when you can get them(the enemy) to destroy themselves just by stirring a bit of s*** Any way uncle sam is skint, george and greensleves are planning to nick the printing plates from the fed when he leaves and set up shop in cuba, not that it will do much good ,everybody is offloading dollars  Stirring up what s***? The whole problem with the US is that it has spent far too much already on bombs, tanks and armies in it's hapless role as western defender of democracy to the detriment of the American people's well being. I for one hope that under the new administration that this policy will change. It's way past time when the rich European countries start doing their share in saving the world for democracy instead of bringing their own little interests first  As far as off loading dollars the US dollar has gained value against both the Euro and the pound. Sp who is "everybody offloading dollars?' Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...