Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Terrorism Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: The inevitable war
appleciderus    8/28/2003 9:06:24 AM
Posters who remember my thoughts on terrorism and islam know that I believe a desperate and deadly conflict is being waged between islam and other cultures, a conflict often misrepresented as being between islam and The West. I believe that the destruction of islam as it is known today is the only acceptable solution to islams dedication to violence and jihad. I acknowledge that a victory by islam is possible and that our grand children may be denied the basic rights non-islamic cultures experience today. This could happen ala the “Edmond Burke” concept discussed on SP over the last few months. In my opinion, the “War on Terrorism”, as being waged now, will spell defeat for islamic terrorism. Establishing a stable, prosperous nation in Iraq will be the death knells for aggressive despotic Islamic regimes that support and sponsor terrorism. In spite of spurious claims of: “ war for corporate profits”, “war for oil”, “successful guerilla warfare”, and biased media reporting, terrorist regimes realize they are losing the war in Iraq. Various factions, no friends to each other, are sending terrorists to Iraq in an attempt to outlast American public opinion. I don’t believe the terrorists have the resources to maintain present operations until the next US Presidential campaign at the rate they are being killed off. If so, then these Islamic terrorist regimes and the terrorist groups they support must “ratchet up” the level of violence to have any chance of survival. If my analysis is correct (I expect all the “hate America” folks here will waste no time in screaming it’s all Haliburton’s fault) then I would like to initiate a discussion of what next? How could the present situation escalate to what I believe would be the conflict that would destroy either islamic culture or non-islamic cultures? Some thoughts: * Iran will attempt to complete its procurement of North Korea’s nuclear capability before the NK regime collapses. Will NK be caught shipping proscribed materials openly? Will the US interdict such shipments by force, precipitating additional desperate action by the North Koreans and perhaps China? Would Iran seize that opportunity to attack Saudi Arabia and cripple the world economy? Would Iran invade Iraq hoping to inflict significant casualties to American troops by use of a nuclear device? * Will the next Pakistan-India crisis (there will be another crisis) escalate into a shooting war? Will tactical defeats suffered by either side force the underdog to resort to nuclear weaponry? In such a conflict would China come to the aid of its Islamic trading partner, or would China use the opportunity to seize more territory along the India border? Would India react to a Chinese “second front” with the use of nuclear weapons? * If a successful revolution took place in Iran, would Hamas and other Iranian funded terrorist groups fear for their continued ability to operate without Iranian funding? Would they launch a final desperate attack on Israel from Lebanon with coordinated terrorist attacks from the West Bank and Gaza? How would Israel react? Would Egypt and Syria be drawn into such a conflict by the possibility of an Israeli defeat? What would the US do if unable to force all participants to “stand down”? * If Iran, in an attempt to forestall a revolution by igniting a Mid East war, provided islamic terrorists with a dirty nuclear device to be exploded in Israel, would Israel be obligated to respond in kind? These are some of the possibilities that have occurred to me. I’m sure the deep thinkers here have additional thoughts. I believe, after much thought, that an “islam vs. The World” conflict is taking place now. I believe that North Korea is not the threat to world peace that islam is. Yes, the “Beloved Leader” may take a “what the hell, I’m screwed anyway” attitude and decide to nuke SK or Japan. I doubt the NK military, with an eye to the future, would carry out such an order. I believe nuclear arms in the hands the Iranian regime must be prevented at all costs. ilamic terrorists will have no hesitancy employing nuclear devices of even the most primitive nature as long as it assures their admittance to paradise. I believe that at some future date, nuclear weapon technology will be available “off the shelf”. If islamic terrorism is not eradicated before then, all other cultures are doomed. Comments?
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
SGTObvious    What do you mean by -now- Appleciderus?   8/28/2003 9:51:46 AM
Fine post, but I take issue with "now". When has Islam NOT been at war with Jews, Christians, Hindus, Zoroastrians, etc on its borders? Fighting over Spain alone spanned seven centuries. Drive your history prof crazy- suggest that in context of the ongoing struggle for Spain, The Crusades might be regarded as nothing more than a Western Counterattack to open up a second front.
Quote    Reply

appleciderus    RE:What do you mean by -now- Appleciderus?   8/28/2003 1:39:08 PM
I used the word “now” twice. Let me elaborate on both. “In my opinion, the “War on Terrorism”, as being waged now,….” I mean the present armed conflicts in both Afghanistan and Iraq, the political leverage being asserted against Syria and Iran, the pursuit of clandestine funding, etc, all since the September 11th attack on the US. “I believe, after much thought, that an “islam vs. The World” conflict is taking place now.” I agree with you that this is not a contemporary situation, but a millennium old struggle. My point was in argument with those that would believe, or have us believe, that invading Iraq was about oil, or profits, or that islamic terrorism is not global in scope, its purpose being the complete defeat of all “infidels”. Oh, BTW, all my History Professors are pushing up daiseys, for a long time already.
Quote    Reply

appleciderus    RE:The inevitable war   8/29/2003 3:39:54 PM
Interesting news article on the home page regarding one of the scenarios I presented.
Quote    Reply

American Kafir    RE:The inevitable war   8/29/2003 5:30:08 PM
When Bush made the comment that the American war on terrorism will take 50 years, I laughed. Not because I disbelieved him, quite the opposite actually. 50 years = potentially 12 different Presidential administrations and 24 different Congresses. The odds of a Democrat being put in charge of making security decisions for the USA during that time are at least credible, which, barring any unlikely radical shift in the priorities and politics of the DNC, we will either see the US suddenly defeated and humiliated or at least struggling through periods of inactivity and ineptitude such as the Clinton and Carter eras that will significantly add years to the fight. But, there is the prospect that the average American voter will choose having security over paying the extra taxes to take care of people who survive a nuclear or biological attack on an American city, so when the rubber meets the road no one in their right mind will vote for a Democrat while terrorists still draw breath. You are right about an inevitable war. Terrorism isn't going to go away by itself. It must be guided to the grave kicking and screaming.
Quote    Reply

Rosecroix    RE:The inevitable war   9/2/2003 7:24:31 AM
Not debating your free interpretation of the situation, i do have a few opinions on your analysis of scenarios: Iraq: For sure you are correct when you say that only a stable nation with a content population will give Iraq to the large majority of peacewanting moslems. But I don't think you are correct when you say the terrorists won't last until the next election. The price on the head of an american soldier is roughly $20 000. With one dead per day, thats not very much even if ten times that number is paid in other operational costs. Compared to american costs, i'd even suggest that if they increase their activities an economic victory will be possible. Even if we for a moment pretend economics had nothing to do with the reasons for the war and thus motivation of the occupation, the costs could be too high in the long run. I agree though that /all/ kinds of terrorism must be eliminated before nuclear weapons is openly traded with (the technology is more or less already on the shelf). /R
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:The inevitable war   9/2/2003 8:51:39 AM
I think the present fracas is the dying spasms of Islam as an all conquering force. There will of course still be moslems, but religious importance to political life - no. I consider the islamic argumentation similar to the communists in the 1970ies and 80ies. Very much the deaththroes of a religion. The difference is that the communist in the end were realists, whereas the moslems are not. This will mean a number of conflicts as the Iraq. North Korea is different again - I think they are desperately looking for a way out - I hope they find a peaceful one.
Quote    Reply