Lash wrote:Odd that you and dys are acting so smug about my statement that the frigging Muslim extremists are trying to ignite a religious war.
You seem to always say they are trying to get us out of the ME, because of our evil presence there.
A religious war is for world domination.
Pick one.
first of all, it is not odd that I act smug, that is my typical posture, second I think if you dig into this "religious war" your will find that it is primarily an internal Islam war rather than an external one (which was my point re Sadat)
First, smugness is new for you from my vantage point, secondly, what you say is internal is not exclusively internal, and hell who are we kidding seems a whole hell of a lot more external.
It got on me.
Lash wrote:First, smugness is new for you from my vantage point, secondly, what you say is internal is not exclusively internal, and hell who are we kidding seems a whole hell of a lot more external.
It got on me.
Well no, from one's point of view the situation is different. The protestant/catholic wars ended up with pilgrims killing native americans who, I imagine thought, "what the fuc*k is their problem"
Yes.
I imagine they did.
A ******* long time ago.
What about today, now?
I thought it was Protestants and nuttier more extreme Protestants?
"Was" being the operative word...
They love to talk about yesteryear, and pee in their knickers when talk turn to the present.
What effect, exactly, do you hope to have with that stuff?
Shakes head and wanders away.....
Lol. Whatever.
I just often wonder what on earth you hope to achieve with your manner. You use it on a lot more folk than just me, you know.
Terrorism is something like a virus to cope with and to "coexist" for sometime and somewhere. That's a way of life for humans.
When did we first start having to live with it, I wonder?
I think the UK started accepting it when the IRA were doing their thing.
dlowan wrote:When did we first start having to live with it, I wonder?
It is hard to say when a virus began. The situation is similar.
One of the earliest descriptions of terrorism was by the Jewish-Roman historian Josephus in his Jewish War where he describes the activities of the Zealots and the sicarii (literally dagger-men, named after the daggers they'd hide under their cloaks which they'd use to murder Romans and Roman sympathizers in Judea). The Zealots were religious/nationalist fanatics who railed against Roman occupation of Judea.
The Talmud relates how the Zealots incited revolt against the Romans in Jerusalem by destroying the city's food supply. They were the prime instigators of the Jewish Revolt.
Yeah - I was thinking Scipio versus Hannibal (WAS itone of the Scipios????) - you know - the practice of razing the city and sacking it and slaughtering the inhabitants was terror - actually, that went WAY back earlier than Rome.
Anyhoo - I was thinking of the sowing of the earth with salt.
We have probably lived with it as long as we have had weapons, I suspect.
Well, razing cities and slaughtering its inhabitants was part and parcel of warfare before artificial rules were drawn declaring inhabitants off-limits.
The terrorism I'm referring to is the response of a smaller, weaker group to the occupation of what it considers it's homeland by a larger, more powerful entity through asymmetrical warfare.
