News- no, it's propoganda

Alex · 08-03-2006, 11:12 PM

Radicals always exist. Everywhere and in every culture.

Mainstream support of radicalism is what waxes and wanes. As iSm pointed out, these conflicts mostly started out as nationalistic (arguments over sovereignty and geography) and have turned religious as the secular government leadership has fallen aside. I would argue this is because the nationalistic argument and the fundamental religious argument have come into alignment, but remove that alignment and the radicals will once again be on the fringe. The mainstream may not entirely condone the methods but tolerate it because the goals are the same. As soon as the mainstream and the fringe have different goals, it'll break down.

wendybeth · 08-03-2006, 11:21 PM

I wish that were true, Alex, but I don't think so. The radicals have far too much momentum to simply stop after they achieve so limited a goal, and the nationalists will be excited by the success and want to carry it further. I point to the Russian Revolution as an example- it began with a radical fringe, swelled with the populist involvement, then was taken over once again by the radicals once the primary objective had been achieved. Same goes for the French Revolution. This is one of the reasons the American Revolution stands out amongst others- we did not (although we came close) fall to the fringe element.

Another example would involve the invocation of Godwin, so I will not go there.

scaeagles · 08-04-2006, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wendybeth

Another example would involve the invocation of Godwin, so I will not go there.

Doesn't make the point any less valid.

08-03-2006, 11:12 PM	#1
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Radicals always exist. Everywhere and in every culture. Mainstream support of radicalism is what waxes and wanes. As iSm pointed out, these conflicts mostly started out as nationalistic (arguments over sovereignty and geography) and have turned religious as the secular government leadership has fallen aside. I would argue this is because the nationalistic argument and the fundamental religious argument have come into alignment, but remove that alignment and the radicals will once again be on the fringe. The mainstream may not entirely condone the methods but tolerate it because the goals are the same. As soon as the mainstream and the fringe have different goals, it'll break down.
	Submit to Quotes

08-03-2006, 11:21 PM	#2
wendybeth Nevermind Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,847	I wish that were true, Alex, but I don't think so. The radicals have far too much momentum to simply stop after they achieve so limited a goal, and the nationalists will be excited by the success and want to carry it further. I point to the Russian Revolution as an example- it began with a radical fringe, swelled with the populist involvement, then was taken over once again by the radicals once the primary objective had been achieved. Same goes for the French Revolution. This is one of the reasons the American Revolution stands out amongst others- we did not (although we came close) fall to the fringe element. Another example would involve the invocation of Godwin, so I will not go there. __________________
	Submit to Quotes