If by globalisation you mean the US acting as "the world's police" then I guess I can kind of agree. But if you are saying globalisation in general, I disagree.

But even then, the conflict may have been caused by the US, but can you really say that guerrilla warfare is being directly caused by globalisation?

I would say that regardless of other circumstances, the local society/culture is the main factor towards guerrilla warfare.

It's the strains that affect the cultures. The nature of this relationship is hedgemonic. This creates the friction. It's all Bismark.

what

The reason groups like ISIS and Al-Queda formed was in response to the US getting involved in their countries' shit because they wanted to secure oil.

When I'm talking about Bismark, I'm talking about realpolitik. It's all about how nations will go to war to secure their vital interests. One of the West's vital interests is resources. The resource is oil. Likewise, for the OPEC members it's pretty much the only thing they have that's making any money, so it's vitally important for them too.

Just going on a tangent here, but I think what needs to happen, and there are people pushing for this, is that we need to put as much focus on creating new types of energy as there is on obtaining oil. It would mean we wouldn't be as dependent on oil, so we wouldn't need to go to war for it. They tried to do a Manhattan project for energy a few years ago, but it got voted down in the senate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Man...y_Independence)

Just out of interest. Was there nearly as much extremism (in terms of harmful extremism using violence) in the Middle East (sorry for generalisation, I don't follow the news much or study politics) before the US invaded it for oil?

I am sorry if I am not supposed to ask questions here without actual arguments. And sorry for not knowing facts about all the conflicts, feel free to criticise my ignorance.

As a master of sarcasm, you didn't use enough of it. sorry senpai protoyo chan.
And every terrorist group has a leader, whether it be secretive or not well known but there is always someone who started it off. It doesn't just randomly appear without there being a source so there must've been someone giving his opinion and everyone being like "Yeah! You're right, dude" otherwise there wouldn't be the ISIS Terrorist group. To start a fire you first need a spark and some fuel, the rest nature does itself

Bit off topic but : My TV downstairs has the letters ISIS on the front (there's actually a manufacturer called ISIS)

If you destroy the thing that started the fire the fire still continues elsewhere, but I accept that there will be a leader figure. I just don't think they really have much importance since the whole point of having hierarchy is that when the leader is killed the next in command becomes the leader. Either they are as organised as you say and there is a line of possible leaders to replace the one you propose we assassinate or it is disorganised and the leader is more of a symbol than someone who controls the operation in which case killing him would just lead to him being seen a martyr. I don't like to argue with you Moran, but this is a discussion thread so argue I must.

Ever since the breakup of the Ottoman Empire after WW1 there's been a lot of tension. Part of this stems from one ethnic and/or religious group having dominance over many others. Iraq is a perfect example of this. There were Christians in Iraq once. Not so much anymore. You have the Shi'a and Sunni variants of Islam competing also. The main issue is the borders don't reflect the demographics. It's been suggested that Iraq should become three seperate states. One for the Shias, one for Sunnis and one for the Kurds (the Kurds were, until they created Kurdistan very recently, the largest ethnic group without a homeland). Some other people argue that instead of making a whole bunch of smaller countries, there should be two or three superstates instead.

That's how the East was run for thousands of years. These people are saying that there should be a superstate for both Shi'a and Sunni muslims. Groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda are suggesting that instead of a superstate, there should be a caliphate instead.

To sum up, there's been the instability that creates these terrorist groups since the end of WW1. This instability, along with involvement with the West over vital interests, like oil, adds fuel to the fire. If we're going to make any real change in the Middle East then we need to stop adding that fuel. One way to do that is to not go to war with ISIS. Us going to war with ISIS is exactly what ISIS wants. ISIS wants to go to war with the West because a war with ISIS worsens the conditions that allow groups like ISIS to exist and be so successful.

You're right, and in that situation maybe you can say that globalisation + their culture = guerrilla warfare. But in other cases a domestic threat has ended in guerrilla warfare.

Absolutely, yeah. For ISIS and similar wahhabist group like it though, globalisation is a factor.