Ok all I need for an extremist religious movement is a good plot. So lets say Bourbon. The Bourbanites believe that only 7 year old 51% corn mash Kentucky bourbon is true bourbon. The recipe was given to Daniel Boone by an angel that led him to a golden tablet err barrel marked with the recipe in a language the angel had to interpret for him. All other drinkers and makers of lesser whiskeys must be abolished from the world to insure this most holy of beverages remains untainted by such heretical brews such as Crown Royal. Yeah it sounds nuts to you but I know a lot of alcoholics I could convince of this if I could keep them drunk long enough. I think I am charismatic enough.

I also think charisma is what makes individuals truly dangerous. The ability for one person to make something extremely disturbing seem normal. One person standing up and telling enormous amounts of people what to think and do, and they do it without question. This goes beyond religion or culture or any of that and that is what is really scary. I think Bush for one overstepped the limits of his charisma.

Putin has not yet done so but I do think as far as the issue of him becoming a dictator, it won't happen he will pass the reigns on to someone who will carry his agenda instead of taking Russia backwards politically. Iran will be dangerous as long as it remains a theocracy for all the reasons already given in other posts about the dangers of religion and government. Also the idea of any government whos highest powers rest in groups that maintain total secrecy is always a dangerous thing. China is basically ruled by a small group, dozens if not less, of powerful men. It is really an oligarchy in my opinion and not a communist state at all. A few make all the important decisions and even if China does become more democratic and free market oriented (I believe it is going that way) this small elite will always remain at the top, and I doubt anyone would get elected to any serious level of power without being in the Communist Party of China in the next 100 years. Still I think China is more interested in continuing its economic reform and stabilizing increasing the quality of its peoples lives than it is in world domination these days. Kimmy poo from N Korea is just insane however. He is likely to push the big red button at any time but I hope he is not insane enough to believe China will not steamroll him into the next century if he turns on them in any way. As far as Hugo Chavez is concerned, as soon as the world gets off its oil addiction he will be his own countries concern again. Most of what he has done has been social reform for his own country and a lot of political smoke and mirrors to maintain his power there. He is pushing hard at becoming a true socialized state and in the long run that could be good for his country or horrible for it. It seems to me he is trying to become significant in the world arena and is doing a decent job at it. Whether his plan will work or not really depends on what happens after he and his charisma die. My bet is that the country will slip back into chaos, especially if we can hurry up and get off our dependency on foreign energy, but perhaps the infrastructure improvements he has made there will be enough to keep the country focused on its future.

Either way our best solution to Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia (thats a scary country too big an army and lots of power struggles but they hate Al'Queda and sell lots of oil so no one talks about them) and Venezuela is hydrogen energy and the types of nuclear power we can now produce cleanly. The US can supply its own energy. We do not need to depend on other countries to do this. Why don't we?

P.S. Apologies for the huge wall of text.

I don't believe we'll be able to get (completely) off foreign fuels for quite awhile. It'll help if we could get around the private interests that have been holding back human progress for the last century.

The American Industrial Revolution brought into play massive corporations that spaned continents and technological advancement at unheard of rates.

These massive corporations had the power, and motive, to hold back certain advancements until they could no longer profit from the obsolete technology.

Case in point, the EV1 electric car. The car was only built because of a government mandate, GM made a great deal of effort to make people not want to buy it, they used obsolete batteries to shorten its range (batteries developed atleast a year before its discontinuation would give it 300 highway miles to a charge), and the claimed high costs of construction were the result of not mass-producing the car (they only built 4 a day, and could easily build 100). Texaco bought the company that built the super batteries and (attempted) to prevent the owner from going to the world with the new battery, he got it out before they knew what was happening. The man who killed the bill that kept the EV1 on the road was involved with the Hydrogen Fuel-Cell research, a conflict of interest if I ever saw one.

Ultimately Bush killed the electric car when he gave 1.2 billion to Hydrogen Fuel-Cell research, a greatly inferior technology to electric vehicles.

This is just an example ofcourse. Anyone who purposely holds back human development because of their own greed tops my list, and Bush is among them.

We need Jack Ryan for president

Intresting how people point out all the crimes that have been carried out in the name of Islam, but do not forget Slavery was commited in the name of Christianity taking Africians and using them for slave labour, i recall it is a story about Abraham(might not be him im not a bible scholar after all) having three sons, and he was nakid and putting on clean clothes, the three sons walked in to tell him something, and one of the sons laughed, as punishment Abraham said to the son laughing you will serve your brothers for the rest of time and your sons will serve their sons ect. Christians used this passage from Genesis i think, and said Slavery was moral because black people must be desended from the one son... No religion is perfect, and you cannot judge Islam because of the actions of a few.
People associate Islam with terrorisum so much, because the news portrays them like this, they never mention all the Christian, and Jewish Terrorists who believe me are out there.

KKK are terrorists, at its hieght in the 1920s 5 million Americans were in it..
Jewish Terrorists try to blow up the third most Holiest site in Islam, a mosque which resides in Jerusalem all the time.

Here is a map of terrorist incidents in 2001 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Terrorincidents2001atlas.jpg

Notice how many incidents happen in Columbia, im sure that must of been by Islamic Terrorists...

Also here have a looksie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

yes and no (about the inferior technology part). it's less efficient than an electric car, yes. but the hydrogen fuel can be created at home using solar cells, whereas electric cars are really only as clean as the source of their electricity, most of which is still fossil-based. if we were to switch to renewable energy, electric cars as they are would certainly be better.




ah ha, hard to miss a fellow nerd when you see one. if you think things are bad at UCLA, imagine how it is at UCSD. this's got to be one of the most conservative public universities around. when i was a freshmen there was this "Brother Jeb" guy that they let come on campus and basically hate-preach at everyone. it only really bothered me for the few kids who were there seeking answers to profound questions. me and a bunch of my (mostly Jewish, incidentally) friends would get together and curmugeon the guy as much as we could; i even sponteneously organized a gay kiss-in right in front of him.



you know, the new testament is supposed to supercede the old in Christianity, at least if you look at it in the light of its historical divergence from Judaism. it would seem Deuteronomy should be a much more significant book in Judaism, and that might lead one to think that Jews would be a much more violent group. but for the much larger span of their history, they've been very peaceful. if biblical history is to be believe, they were a very violent group the last time they had political power (Juda and ancient Israel), and since WW2 and modern Israel, the pattern seems to have returned. if nothing else, this should at least suggest that religion is not a decisive factor in determing violent behavior.



actually, the word "fascism" is a link to Mussolini. Hitler coined his variation Nazism (which is an abbreviation of Nationalsozialist, whereas fascism comes from the Italian word fascio, the literal meaning of which is bundle).



i think you're paraphrasing Mein Kampf (without realizing it?) - i know ideas like that were expressed, if not by Hitler himself, then by one of his chronies. you energize people with every cultural tool at your disposal (poverty, sexual repression, national inferiority complexes, invented and reinvented histories), then you give them a place to focus their frustration and desperation, and motivate them more with your facade than your ideas, and you bombard them with so much volume and intensity any reasoning they might have that'd stand in your way is overwhelmed - that's fascism at its core. and Hitler even managed to do it with very little use of religion. what do we have today? different words and symbols, but the same behavior to be seen everywhere, in our own midst as much as anywhere else.

Yeah, "Islamofacism" is just a favorite term of Michael Savage (whom I sadly listen to for the comedy factor), Limbaugh and other right-wing radio hosts, who just want to inject the Hitler factor somewhere without understanding where Islamic terrorism actually comes from...



I actually didnt finish my thought from earlier (knew I forgot something...). Assuming that the US is not a democracy, is dirt poor, and is subjected to under as much political and social repression as some of the regimes in the Middle East; let's also assume that the US is a third-rate power and has been involved recently in devastating wars with more powerful Muslim Canada and Mexico. is it possible that people like Bob Jones III and Pat Robertson would not only advocate violence through support of an ultrahawkish foreign policy, but form Christian versions of Hezbollah and Hamas as well?

Also check out this quote from Matthew 5:19 -



The main contention of the New Testament was not the old laws themselves, which were handed down from Moses directly from God's mouth, but those who administered the laws. These people, drunk with power, emphasized "Man above God" by focusing on enforcing those laws to their own benefit rather than realizing that the laws where initially there to help people better serve God. Or so my roommates say; therefore the inerrancy of the Old Testament in their eyes still stands, they just read the New Testament a lot more.

Yes, the late Jerry Falwell was one of those so-called "Christians". BeliefNet/NBC did a poll, and they found that about 85% of Christians in the US believe that persons of other religions can go to heaven if they perform good deeds, including 96% of Catholics, 90% of non-evangelicals, and 68% of conservative evangelicals.

But that still leaves the other 15%, who I assume took the literal meaning of John 3:16 -

Taking the literal truth into account, all persons of all other religions are going to rot in hell. Not only that, but that vast 85% majority of Christians who are tolerant of other religions are guilty of perverting the Word of God and will rot in hell as well and are no better than the heathens

So some elements of the Bible (and almost certainly the Koran) are really appalling by todays standards. The good thing is that the vast majority of Christians (and probably a less vast majority of Muslims) have come to accept that it is a set of analogies rather than some literal truth. Unfortunately there will always be the fundamentalists. If you try to quash their extremist rhetoric, they will get louder and possibly more violent. The best any country can do is to keep fundamentalists from becoming violent rather than just intolerant by keeping them unrepressed and "fat and happy". Clearly Saudi Arabia and many other Middle-Eastern countries have failed at this task.

Chavez just shut down one of the only two television and radio stations that dares protest against him. What next?

Already done, they have been replaced by a Pro-Castro and Chavez state funded station.

I'm in awe. looks like people do know the most dangerous, even though i just threw some out there.


Bush will be gone soon, But ppl , please watch Putin. he's trouble

Hugo Chávez from Venezuela, Why is this man so scary when us in Europe have never heard such as a fart from him,

Someone tell me, im ignorant to my scary guys.

I'm promoting Putin, he's a nasty man. maybe even no 1

Like they said in

"The Thing"

"watch Putin, watch him close"

OK it was Clark, but it still applies.

Marcus

This is crap

History shows that the western Crusades slaughtered everyone when taking Jerusalem in
1099 and murdered all non Christians.

When Saladin took back Jerusalem in 1187 this Muslim allowed the holy land to have any faith, even Christians could pray there.
Who are the "barbarians"?
The true Muslims that allow belief in other faiths? or Christians and Jews?
why are these religions still only allowed?

Curious, We can still have two faiths in the "Holy Land", why not three.

Hmm, time to put an end to this argument.

Human nature. Basically, no matter how much you try and level the playing field, someone will always break the rules for their own gain.

As for Religion, Mulsims are not more or less dangerous than any other monotheistic religion that believes in one god and killing or converting the heretic. Pretty daft if you ask me, considering all the major monotheistic religions are pretty similar at the root; which is being nice to people and not ripping them off. A fundamentalist Mulsim with a firework up his/her backside is as bad as a fundmental Christian with a firework up his/her kazoo as well - both have an axe to grind and find religion a convenient excuse.

Some religions aren't too bad. The good old Church of England for example, it's more about tea mornings and cricket than religion. Still, I don't think any religion is free from hipocracy. Lets face it, for someone who preaches self discipline, even Buddah has let himself go a bit and had an attack of the munchies. Who ate all the pies? Er, that will be buddah, look at him smiling over there, he's so fat he can't stand up

Basically, you can't tar everyone with the same brush, but if you get that tarry brush and stuff it into a hornets nest, well, the result is some kind of bizzare mixed metaphor involving misapplied tar and a few stings  

Be excellent to everybody, and party on dude....except that is sooo nineties.

We had a fella over here called Winston Churchill who said "Democracy is a terrible form of Government, but it's the best we've come up with yet"

Most dangerous person on a planet?

Anyone ignorant enough to open their mouth or act without thinking.

I guess that's why seeking enlightenment is so hard, I mean, you need a hell of a lot of time to thing everything through to it's eventual conclusion, and when there's the washing up to be done, the lawn to be mowed and a soccer (I mean football, but I'm guessing the majority of posters on here are those great people from the US) match to be watched.

As long as you don't send Bob Geldof and the idiot Bono from U2 round to preach to me about poverty whilst they're busy taking someone to court who sold their sunglasses on ebay or something so trivial...

Yeah, that's it....Do gooder pop stars. Definately the most deluded and evil people on the planet!

I don't have intent of being obstinate but I find that your logic fleeting and pandering at best. While the Marjory of the statements you have made I find that I can agree on. Your mind has become nomadic on the subject of monotheistic religion is in no way to be considered a paragon. There are only three major monotheistic religions in the world today: Jewish faith, Christianity, and the Muslim Faith. There is less violence in Christianity than is in the Muslim faith. By nature the Muslims are to be are to pacifist but there will always be factions that will have a more radical approach. But t orient ones statement in such a way that one can easily misconstrue that you believe that Christians have splenetic nature and of that of the radical Muslim faith.
I find this perceived patent of yours inherently dangerous to other Christians and Muslims alike. It to be true that one may argue that that the crimes that have been committed by in the name of the Christian faith are to be just as obstreperous as the Muslim Radicals. Yes the crimes are many and one may spawn the repeated fact of the Crusades, but I wish to remind that person that this tragic event was concocted by a mendacious leader for his own gain. The melee to result from this corrupted power was a result from the people’s ignorance.
It is a sad fact today that many who don't have a religion believes him to be a Christian and thus calls himself so. Which ossifies ones belief that Christian mien are hypocritical. But for those who are Christians such as me this ideology and even this thought line has made it increasingly difficult to not be ostracizing from the public for my beliefs and values. I mean by no way to seem unforgiving but this my opinion. It was must likely that I had misconstrued and had over analyzed your original statement intent. If I was wrong please forgive me and do not look upon me as a miscreant by no means did I mean disrespect to you. As I am sure I you meant no disrespect to me


P.S. Yes I understand the words that I use this is the first time I used Microsoft word so the spell check opened portal to my vocabulary fun is it not? Finally my reading the of books at night has paid of <.

P.S.S. I just wrote in letter from mixed in with a post form I made a mistake whoops