NationStates Jolt Archive

I was talking to my Uncle today, and he feels that the next really dirty war will be between Islam and the West. He doesn't mean Islam as in the Muslim living down your street, he means the brainwashed and backward thinking Muslims living in the Middle East.

According to his logic, the War on Terror is nothing like what is coming. He thinks that all thats needed is for the Iranians or someone else aquires a WMD and what will follow will be a M.A.D. type stalemate, only the other side doesn't really care about dying, and that it could end the invincibile "well, we'll never be fighting on our home street" mental that we Westenerns have.

So, what do you think? Is a massive war between the "West" (the EU, NATO, ANZUS) and the Islamic Extremists in charge of many Middle Eastern Nations and Terrorist Organisations inevietable? And if it is, how can we (the West) possibly win it?

I personally don't think that Radical Islam and Liberal Western Values can co-exsist peacefully on the same planet, and that a larger conflict than that we've seen before is unstoppable, but I don't know how we could win, sort of Genocide, which would mean we have lost anyway.

I suggest you stop listening to uncles...

and radical Islam is not a threat especially since Iran isn’t some insane land of dynamite vests

I'd like to see a "War on Catchphrases".

Ah, no. The "Clash of civilizations" conspiracy theory is just another attempt to equate American and Israeli military action in the ME with WWII.

I suggest you stop listening to uncles...

and radical Islam is not a threat especially since Iran isn’t some insane land of dynamite vests

Its not full of them, and the majority are moderates, but the majority doesn't matter in a dictatorship. And I think it is a threat- not an actual Country, but organisations like Al Quaeda who have no respect for Human Life.

And I think we need to stop thinking in the mentality that we are untouchable, I mean, its only been 60 years since the last big war in Europe- 50 years is nothing in terms of History.

-

The oil will run out before then and nobody will care what happens to the middle east. Within 100 years the region will be back where they were in the 1st century unless they can get their act together before then. (Iran, Saudi Arabia, I'm looking at you.)

I'd like to see a "War on Catchphrases".

Your too late to stop Mr chips!!! (http://www.ukgameshows.com/atoz/programmes/c/catchphrase/mr_chips.jpg)

The oil will run out before then and nobody will care what happens to the middle east. Within 100 years the region will be back where they were in the 1st century unless they can get their act together before then. (Iran, Saudi Arabia, I'm looking at you.)

Just because we don't care what is going on there doesn't mean they'll go away. Look at Ireland, in the 60s the British didn't really want it anymore, but it was still a pretty massive thorn in their side.

Its not full of them, and the majority are moderates, but the majority doesn't matter in a dictatorship.

Iran is a dictatorship?

And I think it is a threat- not an actual Country, but organisations like Al Quaeda who have no respect for Human Life.

the key thing is terrorism is a way for the weak to hurt the strong

And I think we need to stop thinking in the mentality that we are untouchable, I mean, its only been 60 years since the last big war in Europe- 50 years is nothing in terms of History.

the last 3 world wars where caused by political instability luckily right now the world is very stable (and considering it took nearly 100 years for world war one to kick off from its causes we can afford to take it easy)

I suggest you stop listening to uncles...

and radical Islam is not a threat especially since Iran isn’t some insane land of dynamite vests

They certainly seem to be teaching others that dynamite vests are useful.

To tack on; Genocide accomplished by the west would mean that we do win. As Stalin once said:"No people, no problem".

Just because we don't care what is going on there doesn't mean they'll go away. Look at Ireland, in the 60s the British didn't really want it anymore, but it was still a pretty massive thorn in their side.

Of course it wont go away. But it wont matter since there will be no reason the West will have to interfere in the region anymore (there is Israel, but I don't want to get into that).

They certainly seem to be teaching others that dynamite vests are useful.

a few brainwashed kids is nothing to fear

To tack on; Genocide accomplished by the west would mean that we do win. As Stalin once said:"No people, no problem".

no that would mean we lose since things like liberty are what the west is

I really do think it may be inevitable before somebody of Power in the Middle East, regrettably, will be insane enough to unleash some sort of WMD on another Nation (possibly the Israeli's will become the victim considering they're other than the most hated within the Middle East but also in the prime location to fall victim, geographicly speaking).

If it were to become reality (and that's a big IF), I really don't think the Middle East would stand a chance considering the facts that the combined Nuclear Power of the Western/Other Nations (which would be highly likely they would join together if the Mid-East came out and used the WMD/Nukes first) is substantially much greater than the WMDs/Nukes of the combined Middle East.

I think the next large war has nothing to do with Iran aquiring WMDs. The US and Iran have been unfriendly to say the least lately, and the US attacking Iran is an extremly likely event in the future. Now think on this- Russia and China are backing Iran, they've both been supplying them with defence weapons. This means that if the US attacks Iran, Russia and China attack US, in responce Britain and other Western European countries go in with the US, attacking Russia and China. Bam, we got another World War on our hands, except this time with nukes. Another event that could spark a large war or world war is if North Korea attacked Japan, because at the end of
WW2 Japan agreed not to form an army above a certain size if the US agreed to defend them/help them in the event of them being attacked, then basically the same division of power above stated happens except with N. Korea in on it.

Nah, not going to happen.

The thing you have to realise about al-Qaeda is that the top brass don't actually want to die, I mean, can you imagine Osama bin Laden or whatshisface, the glasses dork, actually donning a dynamite vest and blowing themselves up? No, of course not, they'd much rather stay alive and reap the benefits of other people killing themselves and others.

And as for Iran, Iran isn't run by crazy religious whackos, it's run by politicians. Politicians do things to increase their own power, rattling the USA's cage and making a reputation for your nation as strong and defiant gets you more power, starting a nuclear war gets you dead, and gets your nation transformed into a sheet of irradiated glass.

So in short, there's nothing to worry about.

a few brainwashed kids is nothing to fear

Just to clarify, do you think we should just ignore the problem? And I hate to get into the hypothetical realm, but what will happen when a "brainwashed kid" releases a deadly virus in downtown Paris? Or when one of his comrades flies an airplane into the Sears Tower? Or are you saying its irrational to fear terrorism?

Well, the king of Saudi Arabia just warned the middle east is about to boil over.

Thousands of Hezbollah Protesters Target Lebanese Government - This is happening right now with the protesters chanting "death to America" and "death to Israel.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1756&e=1&u=/061208/480/azmy10312081916

Then you have this "Students Cry Out for Freedom in Large Demonstration at Tehran University" going on in Iran. Yes, Iran is a dictortatorship. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,235062,00.html?sPage=fnc.world/mideast

Then Iraq comes up with this "Iraqi President Calls Iraq Study Group Report 'Dangerous'"
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1756&e=1&u=/061208/480/azmy10312081916

Oh, and don't forget what is going on in Palestine.

Yes, your uncle is probably correct. :(

I think you have seriously miscalulated the motivations of the so called rogue states. The USSR in its quest to spread its ideology never risked a direct war with the USA. North Korea has not entered into war with South Korea since the end of the Korean war. China has never invaded Taiwan to reestablish one China.

Iran understands what WMD can do. It has suffered the second highest casualities from WMD after Japan. Consequently Iran has strongly condemned WMD, especially chemical weapons. The current supreme leader gave an unconditional condemnation of terrorist attacks shortly after September 11th. In 2004 he allowed stem cell research and therapeutic cloning. Which I believe would make Iran more progessive than the USA with regards to that area of science.

These 'rogue states' are figments created to focus the attention of the public of the USA on external illusory aggressors and away from the incompetancies of their own governments. This goes for many other states in the West.

I do not believe Iran is a threat to world peace in the slightest. Conversely the USA is. Indeed the US and its allies have compromised Iran's sovereignty thrice in the last 70 years.

I was talking to my Uncle today, and he feels that the next really dirty war will be between Islam and the West. He doesn't mean Islam as in the Muslim living down your street, he means the brainwashed and backward thinking Muslims living in the Middle East.

According to his logic, the War on Terror is nothing like what is coming. He thinks that all thats needed is for the Iranians or someone else aquires a WMD and what will follow will be a M.A.D. type stalemate, only the other side doesn't really care about dying, and that it could end the invincibile "well, we'll never be fighting on our home street" mental that we Westenerns have.

So, what do you think? Is a massive war between the "West" (the EU, NATO, ANZUS) and the Islamic Extremists in charge of many Middle Eastern Nations and Terrorist Organisations inevietable? And if it is, how can we (the West) possibly win it?

I personally don't think that Radical Islam and Liberal Western Values can co-exsist peacefully on the same planet, and that a larger conflict than that we've seen before is unstoppable, but I don't know how we could win, sort of Genocide, which would mean we have lost anyway.Of what Middle Eastern Nations are Islamic Extremists in charge of? Saudi Arabia and maybe Iran. Who else?

are you saying its irrational to fear terrorism?

yes

I think you have seriously miscalulated the motivations of the so called rogue states. The USSR in its quest to spread its ideology never risked a direct war with the USA. North Korea has not entered into war with South Korea since the end of the Korean war. China has never invaded Taiwan to reestablish one China.

Iran understands what WMD can do. It has suffered the second highest casualities from WMD after Japan. Consequently Iran has strongly condemned WMD, especially chemical weapons. The current supreme leader gave an unconditional condemnation of terrorist attacks shortly after September 11th. In 2004 he allowed stem cell research and therapeutic cloning. Which I believe would make Iran more progessive than the USA with regards to that area of science.

These 'rogue states' are figments created to focus the attention of the public of the USA on external illusory aggressors and away from the incompetancies of their own governments. This goes for many other states in the West.

I do not believe Iran is a threat to world peace in the slightest. Conversely the USA is. Indeed the US and its allies have compromised Iran's sovereignty thrice in the last 70 years.Yep.

*snip*

I read an interesting artcle sometime ago that provides some insight as to why Iran does what it does.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5377914.stm

Your all completely wrong. The next big war will be between Earth and Alpha Centuria.
Long live the Centurians!

yes

And Churchill had an irrational fear of Nazism, and Roosevelt was way too paranoid about the Soviets.

I think the West is in (as it always is for a few years) a period of total denial, and I'm concerned what'll happen to kick us out of it. I think America realised it for awhile after 9/11, but got bogged down in somewhere that wasn't threatening us (Iraq....) and botched up clearing up somewhere that was (Afghanistan).

I think the next large war has nothing to do with Iran aquiring WMDs. The US and Iran have been unfriendly to say the least lately, and the US attacking Iran is an extremly likely event in the future. Now think on this- Russia and China are backing Iran, they've both been supplying them with defence weapons. This means that if the US attacks Iran, Russia and China attack US, in responce Britain and other Western European countries go in with the US, attacking Russia and China. Bam, we got another World War on our hands, except this time with nukes. Another event that could spark a large war or world war is if North Korea attacked Japan, because at the end of
WW2 Japan agreed not to form an army above a certain size if the US agreed to defend them/help them in the event of them being attacked, then basically the same division of power above stated happens except with N. Korea in on it.You misunderstand the nature of war in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. The USSR and China have never directly engaged in war. Nor will they. Trade is too important China and the US, and Russia and the US have no reason to attack each other. However if the US did attack Iran then it is highly unlikely that Russia or China would directly attack the USA. China has had nuclear weapons since 64 and did not attack the US with these nor supply Iran with them in the Iran-Iraq war of 1983. Infact China sold weapons to both parties.

It is also likely that Abe Shinzo, Premier of Japan, will have the consitituion (written by American idealists) changed to allow Japan a dejure army, not just a defacto one. Have you ever looked at just precisely what Japan's 'police force' consists of? Besides, Kim won't really attack Japan. He likes Japanese Sushi too much.

I really do think it may be inevitable before somebody of Power in the Middle East, regrettably, will be insane enough to unleash some sort of WMD on another Nation (possibly the Israeli's will become the victim considering they're other than the most hated within the Middle East but also in the prime location to fall victim, geographicly speaking).


Well, doing so will basically cause death the Palestinians, Jorden, Lebanon and Syria.... fallout and stuff like that

If a General War occurs, it will be conflict between the US and its Pacific rim allies against the PRC.

Ah, no. The "Clash of civilizations" conspiracy theory is just another attempt to equate American and Israeli military action in the ME with WWII.

And Churchill had an irrational fear of Nazism, and Roosevelt was way too paranoid about the Soviets.

Yup.

yes

Thats a bit silly isnt it?. I'm going to assume you think that because you have the typical European attitude of dealing with terroism as local incidents to be handled by police instead of the American approach as handling it as a "war." While I don't think fear should control our lives (see the response to 9/11 in the US Patriot act as just an example), I don't think the threat of international terrorism should be taken lightly. But neither do I think it gives the government the right to use it as an excuse to invade peoples privacy, and infringe their rights. A middle ground exists, but unfortunately our current government is unwilling, or unable to find it.

If a General War occurs, it will be conflict between the US and its Pacific rim allies against the PRC.

No, China and the US are too linked economically, meaning the War is impossible. That's part of the problem with the M.E., they aren't dependant on the West for money, and we aren't dependant on us for manufacturing.

The next war will be between my mouth and this slice of pizza before me.
I win, obviously.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5377914.stm

this article needs it's own thread :)

And Churchill had an irrational fear of Nazism, and Roosevelt was way too paranoid about the Soviets.

your now comparing terrorism to immensely powerful states which it is not

I think the West is in (as it always is for a few years) a period of total denial, and I'm concerned what'll happen to kick us out of it. I think America realised it for awhile after 9/11, but got bogged down in somewhere that wasn't threatening us (Iraq....) and botched up clearing up somewhere that was (Afghanistan).

Britain has had terrorism for decades now yet people have just gone about there lives as usual have we lost? No, has terrorism lost because of are position? yes

No, China and the US are too linked economically, meaning the War is impossible. That's part of the problem with the M.E., they aren't dependant on the West for money, and we aren't dependant on us for manufacturing.

Look at the economic linkages of Great Britain, France and Germany in 1914. You'll discover something amazing.

And Churchill had an irrational fear of Nazism, and Roosevelt was way too paranoid about the Soviets.

You have those mixed up pal. It was Roosevelt who was paranoid about the Nazi's (enough to give the Soviets eastern Europe to stop them), while Churchill was the one that worried about what Soviet Hegemony would mean for the eastern, and parts of central Europe. (he made the famous "Iron Curtain" speech)

Yup.

Nope. Right now the actions aren't anywhere near the same, but I have a feeling they will escalate.

And, the US involvement with Israel is totally justified, but thats an other discussion...

I fear would could have one if not two big wars on our hand in Africa. Both Chad and the Central African Republic have rebel groups in their countries supported by the Janjaweed, and thus Sudan. Both nations are getting very angry.

Meanwhile, right next door to Sudan, we have a growing conflict in the Horn of Africa. In the last few days, reports have suggested the Islamic Courts that control much of Somalia have entered into direct battle with Ethiopian forces. This raises fears that they could go to war and, furthermore, Eritria would join on the side of the Islamic courts. Lets not forget at the same time some of the other factions in Somalia, like Puntland, would be drawn into this war too.

All in all, Africa seems like a powderkeg right now.

I don't think the threat of international terrorism should be taken lightly.

how many people has terrorism killed again?

Britain has had terrorism for decades now yet people have just gone about there lives as usual have we lost? No, has terrorism lost because of are position? yes

The IRA were saints in comparison. They gave warnings when going after Civillians and never did anything as large as 9/11.

You have those mixed up pal. It was Roosevelt who was paranoid about the Nazi's (enough to give the Soviets eastern Europe to stop them), while Churchill was the one that worried about what Soviet Hegemony would mean for the eastern, and parts of central Europe. (he made the famous "Iron Curtain" speech)

Actually, it can be applied either way- Churchill was one of the only British Politicans to talk about the threat of German Exspansion.

Look at the economic linkages of Great Britain, France and Germany in 1914. You'll discover something amazing.

You'll also discover that they had no nuclear weapons or computer technology, making it a completely different situation.

how many people has terrorism killed again?

How can you say at least one death is acceptable again?

You'll also discover that they had no nuclear weapons or computer technology, making it a completely different situation.

There's a very convincing theory that states will only use nuclear weapons as a last resort, and even then, only if they believe they can prevent retaliation. The PRC does not have enough nukes to achieve classical deterrence, and most of the nukes they have are either on primitive long range system, or are short range, tactical types.

I read an interesting artcle sometime ago that provides some insight as to why Iran does what it does.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5377914.stm
Oooh, that was quite interesting. I'd known that President Ahmadinejad has sent a couple of open letters to the US, but I'd no heard of the one mentioned in that article before. It would certainly explain why the Council of Guardians clamped down on the more liberal factions within Iran, not allowing many to stand as candidates in the 2004 elections.

The IRA were saints in comparison. They gave warnings when going after Civillians and never did anything as large as 9/11.

that was what 6 years ago it was 11,000 people and due to airport security now will never happen again so get over it

Actually, it can be applied either way- Churchill was one of the only British Politicans to talk about the threat of German Exspansion.

actually German expansion was never a threat to Britain or France we chose to go to war (albeit rather justifiably)

Oooh, that was quite interesting. I'd known that President Ahmadinejad has sent a couple of open letters to the US, but I'd no heard of the one mentioned in that article before. It would certainly explain why the Council of Guardians clamped down on the more liberal factions within Iran, not allowing many to stand as candidates in the 2004 elections.

Imagine if WW3 does start.... People will look at that letter with an envious "What if?" gaze. :(

How can you say at least one death is acceptable again?

because for a much more dangerous thing like street gangs the best way to solve it is to educate not running around with a hammer terrorism is much the same

And one death is acceptable compared to right losses/the deaths of thousands of innocents

actually German expansion was never a threat to Britain or France we chose to go to war (albeit rather justifiably)

Now, I wouldn't be sure of that either...

how many people has terrorism killed again?

Nice cop out. You know its pretty much impossible to come up with a number for an international death toll from "terrorism." But 3000 people were killed in one day on 9/11 (I loathe to use that example, but it fits).

My statement from earlier still stands though. There is a difference in the way that Americans and Europeans view terrorism. In Europe, where the governments have had to deal with various terrorist groups (Baeder Meinhoff, IRA, Action Directe, etc.) throughout the last half of the 20th century. So you have this attitude that Terrorism is just criminal, and should be treated as such. But instead of kidnappings, trashcan bombs, and assasinations, we are now dealing with large international organizations that are looking to aquire weapons of mass destruction. A new approach is needed in dealing with such entities, but that does not mean that the way the US is conducting its "war on terror" is necessarily correct.

In the end, I think the way that you and I view terrorism is different boils down to cultural differences. So arguing with you whether its rational or not to fear terrorism is pointless.

Well, doing so will basically cause death the Palestinians, Jorden, Lebanon and Syria.... fallout and stuff like that

I know and on the other hand the extemists have already proven that they do not care about sactificing their own people. Why do you think they encourage their own children to strap bombs on to go blow other people up. Why do you think they encourage the insurgenies to go into Iraq (They are the reason the Iraqi's death toll is so high, from dieing by the hands of their own people in the long run) The extremists don't mind sacrificing their own to murder or attempt to murder mass #s of civilians.

because for a much more dangerous thing like street gangs the best way to solve it is to educate not running around with a hammer terrorism is much the same

How do you suppose we educate the people letting off bombs at the Coalition Forces or blowing up buildings in Israel?

But, I think it's pretty clear that the US either has the ability to eliminate the bulk of the PRC nuclear arsenal in a coordinated counter-force strike, or to knock down the surviving missiles of their arsenal with the Missile Interceptors in California and Alaska. Once the US military achieved that, I suspect we'd see an old style blockade-and-bomb campaign waged by an ANZUS-Japan-Taiwan force. Eventually we'd be able to starve the PRC of oil, and force them to the table.

I doubt that it would happen, but if something happens in the Taiwan Straits, I wouldn't be surprised.

I doubt that it would happen, but if something happens in the Taiwan Straits, I wouldn't be surprised.

World War Three will not be started over Taiwan. The American Government will always support Democracy and Capitalism overseas... Until that support would require America to be endangered herself.

" Is a big war coming ? "

I don´t think so, but I´m sure the Americans can´t hardly wait for it to happen.

In fact, they might cause it.

World War Three will not be started over Taiwan. The American Government will always support Democracy and Capitalism overseas... Until that support would require America to be endangered herself.

Someone once said that in 1916 and 1941...

" Is a big war coming ? "

I don´t think so, but I´m sure the Americans can´t hardly wait for it to happen.

In fact, they might cause it.

And you, good sir, don't understand international politics worth a damn.

No, China and the US are too linked economically, meaning the War is impossible. That's part of the problem with the M.E., they aren't dependant on the West for money, and we aren't dependant on us for manufacturing.

Why do you capitalize war? It would be better to just say "meaning a war is not possible." And China and the US could easily go to war, but I doubt it. China is just too dependant on the world for stuff like...food, oil, and capital, and a big ugly war with America would probably be the best way to cut themselves away from those supply chains. The only way I could see China going to war with the US is if they had some super secret deal with the Russians. But anyone who knows history knows that the Chinese and the Russians don't exactly trust each other.

I think the next massive "War" will be caused by Tunisia's annexation of Malta and Sicily. Or when the US takes another trip to Stupid Town and invades Iran and/or Syria.

Someone once said that in 1916 and 1941...

Well, its fair to say America wasn't genuinely putting the Homeland in danger in WW1 and was the only big nation not to be in risk of foreign invasion on its home soil in WW2, so the person would be right.

A country that really was a risk- Britain: had it lost some crucial battles, London would have Swatzikas drapped all over it.

we are now dealing with large international organizations that are looking to aquire weapons of mass destruction.

give me lets say 5 examples

In the end, I think the way that you and I view terrorism is different boils down to cultural differences. So arguing with you whether its rational or not to fear terrorism is pointless.

indeed I would go for the one with the most experience with terrorism if I where you

How do you suppose we educate the people letting off bombs at the Coalition Forces or blowing up buildings in Israel?

we educate the population lift them out of poverty and such maybe we could also pay more attention to public opinion in the middle east

Why do you capitalize war?

Grammar Nazi...

Or when the US takes another trip to Stupid Town and invades Iran and/or Syria.

Which is kinda what we're talking about here.

Well, its fair to say America wasn't genuinely putting the Homeland in danger in WW1

Thats actually why we went to war. Never heard of the Zimmerman telegram?

and was the only big nation not to be in risk of foreign invasion on its home soil in WW2, so the person would be right.


This is nitpicking, but the Japanese did occupy part of the Aleutian islands during WW2.

The USA need wars.
They see the world as one big OK Corral and they feel like God told them it´s their mission to " free " the world from " the bad guys "...:p

Well, its fair to say America wasn't genuinely putting the Homeland in danger in WW1 and was the only big nation not to be in risk of foreign invasion on its home soil in WW2, so the person would be right.
That's right, in reality there was very little threat to the Contiguous United States, but, there was a perception of direct threat from Germany and Japan, and a perception that if they became sufficiently strong, they could attack the US directly before 1950.

indeed I would go for the one with the most experience with terrorism if I where you

Again, the type of terrorism is new so no one has any real experience with it.


we educate the population lift them out of poverty and such maybe we could also pay more attention to public opinion in the middle east

But, how do we lift out of poverty when they hate our very presence?

The USA need wars.
They see the world as one big OK Corral and they feel like God told them it´s their mission to " free " the world from " the bad guys "...:p

Uh, huh.

No.

There is only one thing the US needs, and that is international trade, and that is only interrupted by wars.

Grammar Nazi...

Hey, I wasn't pointing it because it was grammatically incorrect, but because it was chessy. There's a difference.

Which is kinda what we're talking about here.

Kinda, but not quite. You seem to be thinking more along the lines of "People in the Middle-East are crazy and they'll do something insane and cause America to attack them." I'm thinking more along the lines of "America will become paranoid once again and invade a country, or two, because they think they might be up to something sneaky."

Kinda, but not quite. You seem to be thinking more along the lines of "People in the Middle-East are crazy and they'll do something insane and cause America to attack them." I'm thinking more along the lines of "America will become paranoid once again and invade a country, or two, because they think they might be up to something sneaky."

I'm thinking it could be a mix of the two.

give me lets say 5 examples

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1423188,00.html
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060502-110459-4728r.htm
http://www.nautilus.org/archives/fora/Special-Policy-Forum/47_Albright.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1657901.stm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-05-23-us-wmd_x.htm

Happy?
indeed I would go for the one with the most experience with terrorism if I where you

Dealing with people who will gladly fly airplanes into buildings is different than some Germans driving around kidnapping business executives. To say otherwise is lunacy.

we educate the population lift them out of poverty and such maybe we could also pay more attention to public opinion in the middle east

Hey! We agree on something!

The next war will be between my mouth and this slice of pizza before me.
I win, obviously.

LOL

Nice cop out. You know its pretty much impossible to come up with a number for an international death toll from "terrorism." But 3000 people were killed in one day on 9/11 (I loathe to use that example, but it fits).

My statement from earlier still stands though. There is a difference in the way that Americans and Europeans view terrorism. In Europe, where the governments have had to deal with various terrorist groups (Baeder Meinhoff, IRA, Action Directe, etc.) throughout the last half of the 20th century. So you have this attitude that Terrorism is just criminal, and should be treated as such. But instead of kidnappings, trashcan bombs, and assasinations, we are now dealing with large international organizations that are looking to aquire weapons of mass destruction. A new approach is needed in dealing with such entities, but that does not mean that the way the US is conducting its "war on terror" is necessarily correct.

In the end, I think the way that you and I view terrorism is different boils down to cultural differences. So arguing with you whether its rational or not to fear terrorism is pointless.

Nope. Terrorism is just crime. Imagining huge global conspiracies is just paranoia and irrelevent (indeed, even distracting) to the actual prevention on the ground.

(I love multiquote)

I think the next massive "War" will be caused by Tunisia's annexation of Malta and Sicily.

:eek: never heard of that one

A country that really was a risk- Britain: had it lost some crucial battles, London would have Swatzikas drapped all over it.

no Britain could of stopped at anytime without losing a single colony

Again, the type of terrorism is new so no one has any real experience with it.

what’s so new about this apart from the fact that now Europe isn't full of colonial powers?

But, how do we lift out of poverty

education and money towards development would be a good idea

when they hate our very presence?

simple why would we have to be there?

I don't think the next Great War will have too much to do with radical Islamists. I, nor anyone else can truly predict how it's going to happen but I have a feeling it will have a lot to do with Russia, Iran, and the USA. That means China too, but only in the way that the United States became involved with World War II.

I was talking to my Uncle today, and he feels that the next really dirty war will be between Islam and the West. He doesn't mean Islam as in the Muslim living down your street, he means the brainwashed and backward thinking Muslims living in the Middle East.

According to his logic, the War on Terror is nothing like what is coming. He thinks that all thats needed is for the Iranians or someone else aquires a WMD and what will follow will be a M.A.D. type stalemate, only the other side doesn't really care about dying, and that it could end the invincibile "well, we'll never be fighting on our home street" mental that we Westenerns have.

So, what do you think? Is a massive war between the "West" (the EU, NATO, ANZUS) and the Islamic Extremists in charge of many Middle Eastern Nations and Terrorist Organisations inevietable? And if it is, how can we (the West) possibly win it?

I personally don't think that Radical Islam and Liberal Western Values can co-exsist peacefully on the same planet, and that a larger conflict than that we've seen before is unstoppable, but I don't know how we could win, sort of Genocide, which would mean we have lost anyway.

heart of the problem is that you and many others can't picture your government as in the wrong and equally to blame.

"brainwashed and backward thinking Muslims"-is it not possible that the Americans a brainwashed and backwards Christians?

"we'll never be fighting on our home street" mental that we Westenerns have."
True- Americans and Brits have no living memory of occupation which explains their rush to have a war. Don't include continental Europeans as "we Westerners" Continental Europeans know only to well what a brutal military occupation is about-hence their sympathy for Palestinians, they know what it's about, Americans have no clue.

"I personally don't think that Radical Islam and Liberal Western Values can co-exsist peacefully on the same planet"
Radical Islam is the byproduct of the US/Israeli war on Palestinians, Muslims see it as religious war. If by western values you mean discrimination, apartheid and ignoring the Geneva Convention your right, their values appear to be superior.

Nope. Terrorism is just crime. Imagining huge global conspiracies is just paranoia and irrelevent (indeed, even distracting) to the actual prevention on the ground.

Am I going to have to repeat myself again? Cultural differences are why you view terrorism as local crime, and I view it as an international problem.

simple why would we have to be there?

To help out the majority that don't want dictatorships, unless you think that they don't matter if its going to put us at risk at all.

"I personally don't think that Radical Islam and Liberal Western Values can co-exsist peacefully on the same planet"
Radical Islam is the byproduct of the US/Israeli war on Palestinians, Muslims see it as religious war. If by western values you mean discrimination, apartheid and ignoring the Geneva Convention your right, their values appear to be superior.

Not true (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi). Many radical Islamist movements trace their roots to long before the creation of the state of Israel.

"I personally don't think that Radical Islam and Liberal Western Values can co-exsist peacefully on the same planet"
Radical Islam is the byproduct of the US/Israeli war on Palestinians, Muslims see it as religious war. If by western values you mean discrimination, apartheid and ignoring the Geneva Convention your right, their values appear to be superior.

You're confusing causes with symptoms, the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is a symptom of a greater undercurrent of trouble in the Middle East, the source of which can be traced back to 1918.

Is there any wonder that Muslims from other parts of the world are good and decent people? Why Muslims in Southeast and South Asia turn out to be alright? It's got everything to do with the division of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War, Attaturk's abolition of the Caliphate, and the resulting identity problems.

The muslims are going to fly their flying carpets into the US and INVADE!

Pretending that muslims dont care about dying - especially shiites - is simply fantasy.

A nuclear-armed Iran wouldn't be at all different from the nuclear armed USSR or Pakistan. Shiite Islam does not tolerate the kind of suicidal, death-of-civilians war that sunni terrorists wage.

The ranting often heard among people about the "12th imam" that Ahmedinejad is supposedly conspiring to commit suicide to bring about, or however the story goes, pales in comparison to the story of the 'second coming' that christianists hope to bring about by supporting israel against the arabs.

The muslims are going to fly their flying carpets into the US and INVADE!


It's true! Build the anti-carpet cannons!

Iran is a dictatorship?





the last 3 world wars

....3?
Am I missing something?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1423188,00.html
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060502-110459-4728r.htm
http://www.nautilus.org/archives/fora/Special-Policy-Forum/47_Albright.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1657901.stm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-05-23-us-wmd_x.htm

Happy?

hmm all from Al Qaeda and either biological or Nuclear research I'm terrified :rolleyes: (specially since they are from 5 different news sources makes you think eh?)


Dealing with people who will gladly fly airplanes into buildings is different than some Germans driving around kidnapping business executives. To say otherwise is lunacy.

I was thinking of the IRA's forced suicide bombers myself

Not true (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi). Many radical Islamist movements trace their roots to long before the creation of the state of Israel.
Wahabbism isn't a politically motivated movement though. Groups like Hezbollah shouldn't be described as a religiously radical group as much as it should be described as a radically nationalist group.

It's true! Build the anti-carpet cannons!

Meh, the Patriot missles will work just fine.

....3?
Am I missing something?

cold war fought by proxy (yes I'm just doing it to be hip:p )

To help out the majority that don't want dictatorships, unless you think that they don't matter if its going to put us at risk at all.

since when was it our business to dictate domestic policy in sovereign nations?

Nah, not going to happen.

The thing you have to realise about al-Qaeda is that the top brass don't actually want to die, I mean, can you imagine Osama bin Laden or whatshisface, the glasses dork, actually donning a dynamite vest and blowing themselves up? No, of course not, they'd much rather stay alive and reap the benefits of other people killing themselves and others.

And as for Iran, Iran isn't run by crazy religious whackos, it's run by politicians. Politicians do things to increase their own power, rattling the USA's cage and making a reputation for your nation as strong and defiant gets you more power, starting a nuclear war gets you dead, and gets your nation transformed into a sheet of irradiated glass.

So in short, there's nothing to worry about.

Iran is run by crazy religious whacko politicians but their not stupid. They will do nothing to put themsleves in danger. Also many Americans do not realize that America/Britain inderictly led to khomeini being put into power. If you dont believe me look up Mohammed Mossadegh.

May have already been said:

The Great War is already upon us:

We must all take sides and choose our battles/battlegrounds in......


The War Against Christmas

Who will win? Who will triumph? The christmasians or the anti-christmasians? All I know is that many more threads about 'the war on christmas' will perish in this war than will perish in any conflict between Isalmic radicals and the 'West.'

....3?
Am I missing something?

Some people count the Cold War as WW3.

Wahabbism isn't a politically motivated movement though. Groups like Hezbollah shouldn't be described as a religiously radical group as much as it should be described as a radically nationalist group.

I never said it was political. Socialist Pyrates said that the emergence of radical Islamist movements was a result of Muslims viewing US support of Israel as a religious war. I was merely attempting to correct him.

Iran might be an ally instead of an enemy if it wasnt for the evil overthrow of mossadegh.

hmm all from Al Qaeda and either biological or Nuclear research I'm terrified :rolleyes: (specially since they are from 5 different news sources makes you think eh?)

Now I think you're just trying to downplay things. I guess if it was Chemical weapons you would have a changed attitude? But since its such trivial matters such as Biological and Nuclear weapons theres nothing to be worried about, eh? :rolleyes:

And I'm going to remind you, this argument is pointless since our views of terrorism are due to cultural differences that aren't likely to be changed in a debate on a forum.

I was thinking of the IRA's forced suicide bombers myself

Being forced to do something, and gladly doing it are quite different.

I never said it was political. Socialist Pyrates said that the emergence of radical Islamist movements was a result of Muslims viewing US support of Israel as a religious war. I was merely attempting to correct him.
Fair enough. The comment just made me want to remind people that nowadays there's two kinds of extremism in the Middle East - religiously motivated and politically motivated. I find myself being more sympathetic to the politically motivated ones.

I suggest you stop listening to uncles...

and radical Islam is not a threat especially since Iran isn’t some insane land of dynamite vests

How is radical Islam not a threat, are you blind? Have you never even looked at the middle east?

Fair enough. The comment just made me want to remind people that nowadays there's two kinds of extremism in the Middle East - religiously motivated and politically motivated. I find myself being more sympathetic to the politically motivated ones.

Most all of it is politically motivated. But religion makes for a better rallying cry than politics.

Fair enough. The comment just made me want to remind people that nowadays there's two kinds of extremism in the Middle East - religiously motivated and politically motivated. I find myself being more sympathetic to the politically motivated ones.

I somewhat agree with you. Theres a disturbing ammount of ignorance in the United States about the state of things in the Middle East. All the people I've talked to (and almost everyone you hear on the loathsome news) cannot distinquish between political and religious motivations. It drives me nuts!

And I'm going to remind you, this argument is pointless since our views of terrorism are due to cultural differences that aren't likely to be changed in a debate on a forum.

unfortunately what your suggesting will likely lead to tension between the U.S and everyone else for years to come

Being forced to do something, and gladly doing it are quite different.

thus terrorists a rather more kind no?

How is radical Islam not a threat, are you blind? Have you never even looked at the middle east?

looked at and visited generally keep themselves to themselves (the polar opposite to Americans in experience) never had any trouble there apart from annoying salesmen but that pales in comparison to Indian amputations

since when was it our business to dictate domestic policy in sovereign nations?

1947

looked at and visited generally keep themselves to themselves (the polar opposite to Americans in experience) never had any trouble there apart from annoying salesmen but that pales in comparison to Indian amputations

Have you ever been to Saudi Arabia, Iran etc.. Have you ever watched the news? Currently, 99% of all terrorism is in the middle east. As well as 70% of all conflict in the middle east. No other religion has such a massive number of people who are sworn enemies of the west and want to see the destruction of it. Even many of the governments feel that way. If that isn't a threat, nothing is.

Have you ever been to Saudi Arabia, Iran etc..

Have you?

Have you ever watched the news?

Have you?

Currently, 99% of all terrorism is in the middle east. As well as 70% of all conflict in the middle east.

Fictional, uninformed statistics in a sentence that makes no sense....

since when was it our business to dictate domestic policy in sovereign nations?

Because it is our duty to help out fellow humans on this Earth. It's nothing todo with Nations, its todo with right and wrong.

unfortunately what your suggesting will likely lead to tension between the U.S and everyone else for years to come

So what you're saying is, that because the culture is different that will lead to tension? Excuse me, but look at all of human history. Thats what everything comes down to in the end.

You seem to think that the European approach is right, and the American is wrong. While I say both are wrong, and an ideal solution exists somewhere between the two.

thus terrorists a rather more kind no?
What are you asking? I'm very tired right now and need sleep, could you please clairfy this for me?

I was talking to my Uncle today, and he feels that the next really dirty war will be between Islam and the West. He doesn't mean Islam as in the Muslim living down your street, he means the brainwashed and backward thinking Muslims living in the Middle East.


And, by the West, he means the brainwashed and backward thinking politicians that hold so much sway in the current Western political climate?

1947

I think the communist takeover in Poland was pretty inevitable and its fall was certaintly nothing to do with intervention

Currently, 99% of all terrorism is in the middle east. As well as 70% of all conflict in the middle east.

source?

Because it is our duty to help out fellow humans on this Earth. It's nothing todo with Nations, its todo with right and wrong.

We'll help them, by God. If we have to kill every one of them to do it...

source?

It's not accurate but a fair assesment. You can pretend away that Islam has no more or less terrorism then anything else, yet that doesn't make it false. All statistics show that Islam is the vast vast majority of terrorism and impart from africa, pretty much all conflict is coming from the middle east.

Because it is our duty to help out fellow humans on this Earth. It's nothing todo with Nations, its todo with right and wrong.

so we are the saviours of this Earth and anyone who does things differently is wrong?

You seem to think that the European approach is right, and the American is wrong. While I say both are wrong, and an ideal solution exists somewhere between the two.

the clear idea is to increase things like airport security (which has already been done) with a generous sprinkle of foreign aid

What are you asking? I'm very tired right now and need sleep, could you please clairfy this for me?

its a rhetorical question forcing suicide bombing is allot worse than voluntary suicide bombing

It's not accurate but a fair assesment. You can pretend away that Islam has no more or less terrorism then anything else, yet that doesn't make it false. All statistics show that Islam is the vast vast majority of terrorism and impart from africa, pretty much all conflict is coming from the middle east.

Why apart from Africa? What about the Balkans? What about the internal conflicts in China? Are we ignoring all the conflicts in South America?

Are we just ignoring ALL the areas of conflict that suggest your numbers were fictitious?

By the way - you might not have been around for it - judging by your low post count, but we had a debate on terrorism earlier this year that presented a wealth of evidence to suggest that 'Islamic' terrorism is far from being an overwhelming majority.

All statistics show that Islam is the vast vast majority of terrorism and impart from africa, pretty much all conflict is coming from the middle east.

bollocks and bollocks (Chechnya, tensions on the Sino-Russian border, Korea, South America, central America, India-Pakistan, Sri lanka and Ireland come to mind)

Because it is our duty to help out fellow humans on this Earth. It's nothing todo with Nations, its todo with right and wrong.

So, by your statement, the European nations should invade the US so you can bring the people here your vision of what's right and wrong? If you try that, champ, the partisan warfare that'll erupt will make Iraq and Vietnam look like a school-yard scuffle (with the exception of the BosWash Transit, who'll welcome you with open arms).

In response to the OP, yes, another big war is coming, and it will be in the United States. Either China, Russia, and Europe will have had it with our "ignorant and backward ways," and be pissed out overseas militarism, and outright blow us to Hell, or there'll be another civil war. And when that happens, the world better steer clear, as it'll be the first one where all sides are armed with Nukes.

bollocks and bollocks (Chechnya, tensions on the Sino-Russian border, Korea, South America, central America, India-Pakistan, Sri lanka and Ireland come to mind)

So there are a few other countries, doesn't stop Islam from being the biggest. Oh and india-pakistan is a conflict largely to do with Islam.

Why apart from Africa? What about the Balkans? What about the internal conflicts in China? Are we ignoring all the conflicts in South America?

Are we just ignoring ALL the areas of conflict that suggest your numbers were fictitious?

By the way - you might not have been around for it - judging by your low post count, but we had a debate on terrorism earlier this year that presented a wealth of evidence to suggest that 'Islamic' terrorism is far from being an overwhelming majority.

THe others are very small compared to the middle east. Thats why I said most not all.

I would like to see a source which shows that Islamic terrorism is not the majority.

So there are a few other countries, doesn't stop Islam from being the biggest. Oh and india-pakistan is a conflict largely to do with Islam.

More to do with Hinduism, surely?

More to do with Hinduism, surely?

If it was just Hinduism, there would be no conflict.

THe others are very small compared to the middle east. Thats why I said most not all.

I would like to see a source which shows that Islamic terrorism is not the majority.

The Irish 'terrorism' has a much longer history than any of the current crop, and owes nothing to Islam.

And, you must realise 'the Middle East' is nonsensical in this context - what we are basically discussing is actually very few Middle-Easterners... largely wealthy Saudis, and Afghans/Iranians/Iraqis resisting occupations.

I would like to see a source that shows Islamic terrorism IS the majority - certainly, in some causative fashion. By which I mean - is the IRA fighting a war of terror on the mainland because they are Christians? Or - is there another reason - like resisting imperialism?

I'd like to see a source that shows where Islam is the ONLY motivator of terror.

the clear idea is to increase things like airport security (which has already been done) with a generous sprinkle of foreign aid

But what if they dont use airplanes in the future? You cant just cover one insecurity while leaving multiple others open.

its a rhetorical question forcing suicide bombing is allot worse than voluntary suicide bombing

You're not hearing me. This isnt a question of morals, its a question of idealology. What I'm trying to say is that you're dealing with people who will gladly go to their deaths just to kill others. This is clearly very different from the various terrorist groups operating in Europe during the 20th century.

If it was just Hinduism, there would be no conflict.

I didn't say 'just' Hinduism... but compare the relative populations, and the relative creeds of the two aggressors. It is certainly 'more' about Hinduism, no?

I was talking to my Uncle today, and he feels that the next really dirty war will be between Islam and the West. He doesn't mean Islam as in the Muslim living down your street, he means the brainwashed and backward thinking Muslims living in the Middle East.

According to his logic, the War on Terror is nothing like what is coming. He thinks that all thats needed is for the Iranians or someone else aquires a WMD and what will follow will be a M.A.D. type stalemate, only the other side doesn't really care about dying, and that it could end the invincibile "well, we'll never be fighting on our home street" mental that we Westenerns have.

So, what do you think? Is a massive war between the "West" (the EU, NATO, ANZUS) and the Islamic Extremists in charge of many Middle Eastern Nations and Terrorist Organisations inevietable? And if it is, how can we (the West) possibly win it?

I personally don't think that Radical Islam and Liberal Western Values can co-exsist peacefully on the same planet, and that a larger conflict than that we've seen before is unstoppable, but I don't know how we could win, sort of Genocide, which would mean we have lost anyway.

I think he's watching too much Glenn Beck.....

But what if they dont use airplanes in the future? You cant just cover one insecurity while leaving multiple others open.

what else can you do?

You're not hearing me. This isnt a question of morals, its a question of idealology. What I'm trying to say is that you're dealing with people who will gladly go to their deaths just to kill others. This is clearly very different from the various terrorist groups operating in Europe during the 20th century.

terrorists aren’t out to kill you and you seem to forget that terrorism even a modern version if there is such a thing doesn't always involve suicide bombing

Also its nice how you ignore Europe’s imperial experience

what else can you do?

Oh, I dont know... Cooperate with other nations, and use international agencies to prosecute terrorists, work closely with other countries to make sure they don't harbour terrorists, work on foreign relations to make allies and friends in hostile regions, clamp down on global arms trade, etc. etc.

terrorists aren’t out to kill you and you seem to forget that terrorism even a modern version if there is such a thing doesn't always involve suicide bombing

So they're not trying to kill people? They sure fooled me then! And you are still missing the point. Its not about it always being a suicide bomber, its dealing with people who have such a strong idealology that they will gladly sacrifice their lives just to do as much damage as possible. Surely you can differentiate between someone who will willingly sacrifice himself for a cause, and someone who wont?

Also its nice how you ignore Europe’s imperial experience

This is completely irrelevant and you know it. I think the British routinely using massacres to put down rebellions in India is a bit different than current European policy towards terrorism, no?

I think he's watching too much Glenn Beck.....

That's not a bad thing

That's not a bad thing

Yes it is. Glenn Beck is crazy born again alcoholic who his on his own personal crusade against Islam. Everything he says is rubbish.

Have you ever been to Saudi Arabia, Iran etc.. Have you ever watched the news? Currently, 99% of all terrorism is in the middle east. As well as 70% of all conflict in the middle east. No other religion has such a massive number of people who are sworn enemies of the west and want to see the destruction of it. Even many of the governments feel that way. If that isn't a threat, nothing is.

I have been to Iran. Every year of my life. I have never met anyone pro-terrorist or anti-west. But they do exist and do you know why? Not because of Islam. Becaus the US destroyed Irans democracy because of a paranoid fear of a government which was too democratic for them (allowed the communist party to run and did not persecute them). I suggest you look up the real reasons for terrorism before believing the terrorist leaders on the news

War is good. It reduces the overpopulation of the planet. And since intelligent folks are more likely to survive, that's also good for the evolution of mankind. Look what improvements WW2 triggered in Europe.

I have been to Iran. Every year of my life. I have never met anyone pro-terrorist or anti-west. But they do exist and do you know why? Not because of Islam. Becaus the US destroyed Irans democracy because of a paranoid fear of a government which was too democratic for them (allowed the communist party to run and did not persecute them). I suggest you look up the real reasons for terrorism before believing the terrorist leaders on the newsYep.

Yep.

And alot of good that'd done them...

Yes it is. Glenn Beck is crazy born again alcoholic who his on his own personal crusade against Islam. Everything he says is rubbish.

Wow, that's harsh (and untrue). What, do you have some personal vendetta against the man?