What's next?, next war Romanians could be part of

Talk about fear, contras... you should see some of the things in France: they had very tight security measures, large patrols (in average 7 people) and, in general, a feeling of "being watched". That's how things were in Paris exactly two years ago (from my own account) and how they are now (two independent sources)!
Many people live in fear in the Western world, as I see it!

Of course, you remember the last riots in France, when police was not capable to mantain order for many days? In many suburbies, inhabited by maghrebians and black africans, police has no control, and they dont enter there. (I know from one friend in France).

Paris was always a place suit for riots, since centuries ago. The very today center of Paris (Champs Elisee) was demolished in 19th century and rebuilt due to often riots. Large boulevards in the center which exists today were built so large in order to prevent rising baricades by the rioters and on each corner of those large boulevards baracks were built for the army, to garison troops who can intervene very fast in case of public unrest.

In the 1950's in Paris were large riots of algerians who lived in Paris, ended with a number of dead men, some numbers due to police brutality.

I suposse there were some riots in 1968 in Paris, but Im not so sure.

As 21 inf says, Paris was scene of many riots, like these in XIXth century: 1830, 1848, 1871...

Indeed, Paris is and was a center of civil unrest; I might mention that I didn't visit the "bad neighbourhood", as didn't my friends either...
Anyway. the general feeling was "we look at you", or "you're being watched", you understand...
I wonder how's London - I read somewhere that an average person circulating in London is filmed / photographed around 50 times in a couple of hours!

They use "the end of ideologies" and "the end of history" with the same meaning. The idea is that humanity has found the best possible answer to all the social problems in liberalist "democracy", and any progress could be only quantitative, not qualitative. I completely disagree that Salafist ideology could be reduced to "kill the infidels".

Communism, fascism, nazism, maoism, are ideologies. Their age is over. Next wars will be about nationalism, religion, wealth, resources. These are not ideologies. Anyone could look to find an ideology, but I'm doubt this new one would galvanize the masses.
Salafism is not an ideology, maybe, with indulgence, a doctrine. Ideas based only on religion are not ideologies, like you cannot talk about Christian ideology.
Che Guevara fought in the name of a ideology, Osama bin Laden fight in the name of his God. He is not an ideologist, only a man full of hatred and with his own conception about his God asked.

Sincerely, I don't understand what you mean. Please tell what is your peculiar understanding of the term "ideology". I just use the meaning from an English language dictionary.

This post has been edited by Amicus_Plato on January 15, 2011 09:28 pm

Maybe later you will give me the abstract definition of the word "history" and ask to explain what means "the end of history".

I like that you felt provoked, incitement brings creativity. I told already what I mean by "the end of history" (though my meaning is not peculiar at all in the context I used it). All the definitions are ABSTRACT (I use capital letters not shouting, but for emphasis) , but they help us to communicate unequivocally in order to understand each other.

Do you think past wars were about ideology and just ideology, you think there were no big interests, no grand strategies for wealth, resources, national power? Wars for that are only now starting after the age of ideologies is allegedly over?

You say that today there's no ideology galvanizing the masses. But what's the ideology behind (or riding with) globalization? It's (neo)liberalism. Why do you leave it out of your list of ideologies?

Islamism is actually its main ideological enemy/competitor after the rest you mentioned failed. In fact many see common traits between nazism, communism and islamism. While on the other side islamists want nothing to do with globalization and want it driven out of their part of the world which they want to re-order on basis of their own doctrines.

No, but justification for this wars (many of them), between 1789 and 1991, was ideological. Before 1789, wars were fought for other reasons, none of them ideological. After 1991 and in future, the same.

I don't see any war in the name of globalisation, or a war for oposition to globalisation. And globalisation is not an ideology, is a fact. It happens, you can or cannot agree to globalisation, it happens.

And islamism is not a ideology, is a religion. I'll answer to Amicus Plato, too, to see what is the difference.

Reasons for wars have remained roughly the same for thousands of years. It's all about power, interests and security. Justifications vary.

I didn't say globalization is an ideology, I said (neo)liberalism is and it is driving globalization. This is like the third time I mention (neo)liberalism as an alive and kicking ideology and you completely ignore it. You're all focused on communism and fascism. Why?

Islam is a religion, islamism is an ideology.

Look, Imperialist, for example, the wars against France immediatelly after 1789 were wars against one ideology, against the revolutionary currents such those who overthroned French monarchy. The same, wars waged by comunists in 1918-1920 were ideological wars, to spread "the revolution all over the world".
About neoliberalism, I don't ignore it, but you cannot find one war to spread neoliberalism to other countries. This is not a aggresive ideology, the age of ideologies, the agressive ones, is over. That is why I said is over.
And no, Imperialist, Islamism is not a ideology, whatever you said. Islamism is the way to practice Islam, is just a religion. And a religion is not a ideology. For example, you cannot talk about Christian ideology, is a nonsense. Or to say that Christianity is a religion, and Christianism is a ideology (look how sounds). Or Buddhism.
Let me put some diferencies, and with this I think I answer to Amicus Plato, too.
Religion and ideology are antithetical. Religion is not a "sistem of ideas" (like ideology), it is a matter of faith who transcedents, many times, reason. Religion may give birth to ideas, but ideas never give birth to a religion. A religion is based about the God's will, and the way that his followers interpret it. You cannot change or contrdict God's will. But ideologies are sum of ideas, you can change it, like Lenin or Stalin change their ideology.
Democracy is not a ideology, is a governace sistem, based by tools like elections and human rights.