Terrorist Attack - Explosions Rock Hotels In Jordan

not to be anal but you need states to have a world war really. the war on terrorism isn't one you can win by blowing shit up and shooting people (that goes for both sides)

the problem occurs when this keeps escalating tensions between the eastern and western states which could inevitably lead to a full blown war.

Says who? Just because the two first world war involved a lot nations.. a third world war can by all means be a war between cultures, religion, ethnic backgrounds.
We have seen it before in the old Yugoslavia, neighbors killing each other, families that started to fight against each other.. This can much likely happen in a global scale.

a guy wroter a book about 15 years ago now saying instead of fighting over ideologies (ie left vs right) future wars would be fought between 9 different civilisations. the west and muslims were 2 of the civilisations mentioned....

BUt and this is just my opinion, this is not a war you can fight in a set space of land. i mean in effect it's a world war just now but not in the classical sense that we refer to world wars.

you can't go to war against something that "doesn't really exist" in the old sense.

Interesting, would you mind sharing his name? I like that kind of research.
Yes, you are right. I believe that a war that would involve for instance religion would be even worse then the two world wars we have had so far.

And this is the most scary fact. Hell, I'm not sure I want to live in "the future".

I'll have a quick look on amazon. it's in my old politics notes from last year but i cant be arsed looking them up.

it's gained a bit of prominance after 9/11 because obviously there is now this idea that it's the west vs the muslim world as opposed to the west vs the soviets or east which is basically what this guy said.

k ive had a look at google and the best ive came up with is robert frisks war of civilisations- conquest in the middle east and Jonathan Powers war of civilisations but they're not the book i'm thinking of.

the original was wrote not long after the fall of the berlin wall, talked about the 9 civilisations (not just focussing on the 2 predominant ones) and was by a guy called thomson or anderson or something like that...


i'd imagine these books are revisionist looks at the original book which could be a good or a bad thing depending on how you look at it.

strike that, reverse it.

the might power of google has worked again:

it';s called the clash of civilisations by samuel p huntington and this was pretty much the original idea of the civilisation wars overtaking ideological wars.

The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of...

Thanks mate! i will look into that...

yeah i'm going to give it a read through sometime.

just now i'm reading a book about how hitler and stalin rose to power and how they exerted control over their regimes. it's literally a textbook really but it's incredibly interesting if that sort of stuff floats your boat.

after that i'm considering getting hitler's secret book out of the uni library. this was wrote iafter mein kamf but was so out and out racist and fascist that even the nazi party leadership convinced him not to publish it cos it would just alienate people and ruin his political career. you can't get it in the shops fromw hat i'm aware but the uni library has copies you can request though i'm not sure if it's a good idea. i'd imagine it'd flag something up on a record somewhere but the head of the department said it was an interesting read just to get a real grasp of how fanatical he was even before he came into power.

It's all about knowing your enemy...

it would appear that event hough you can't get this in the bookshops, it's openy distributed electornically:

Hitler's secret book:
http://www.adolfhitler.ws/lib/books/zweites/zweites.htm

the book i'm reading just now is called dictators: stalin's russia and hitler's germany but richard overy if it's something that interests you.