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: What will happen when European fright over Islamic fundamentalism reaches critical mass?
Scorpene    7/16/2005 1:14:24 PM
If I could mainly get some replies from Europeans on this one, it would be icing on the cake. By all indicators, Islamic power in Europe, particularly the Continent, is on the rise. France and Germany and the Netherlands all have been in the news due to various disturbances and acts of terrorism and murder. I used to say that if I was a Russian defense planner I would be going nuts-- but I would rather be a Russian defense planner than someone who was charged with figuring out how to keep Europe from a religious and social upheaval the likes of which haven't been seen since the Middle Ages between Islam and the West. My perception of Europe is that at some point in the future, if things continue to worsen (and it appears they will) the Europeans may just decide to do what must be done to fix things, even if that means some serious bloodshed. Forced deportations, preventative internment, or numerous nonsociable calls by GSG-9 and GIGN or similar. Or, perhaps even worse. Now, I am NOT judging the Europeans. The U.S. has no situation like this-- our Mexican border problem is tame by comparison in my opinion, as Mexicans and all have generally assimilated acceptably; I am not trying to say what Europe should or should not do. I am asking what Europe will do, if indeed the situation continues to escalate. No moral judgements or talking down here. Just the facts. Europe is in for a rough ride, and I don't envy them. Period.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT
NeroDelGetto    RE:Accuracy reply to appleciderus - An alternative Strategy   8/4/2005 7:20:31 PM
Europeans have repeated their mistakes more times than history is able to count, appeasement is common in european tradition, they used it against the nazis, the used it against the commnuist and now they're using it against islamic terrorist. It didn't work for them before, why do they think it will work now? Muslims in europe will decry any terrorist attack against any european nation, but once they're back out of the public eye inside their mosques they'll just preach violence and praise any type of attack again. It's not the muslims that openly support the death of europeans you have to worry about, its the two-faced ones that are overlooked. The native french population already reached its saturation point about 15 years ago, it has hardly grown since then, over 10 percent of its population is muslim and that continues to increase rapidly, eventually france will become the first islamic western european nation. That could always change, but with all the cheap deals the french are making with islamic middle eastern nations, not to mention the french are so oblivious they didn't even notice the german army that conquered their country.
 
Quote    Reply

Pseudonym    RE:An alternative Strategy - reply to Pseudonym   8/4/2005 8:00:02 PM
"There must be a way of reducing energy dependence on the Middle East - if all the leading industrial countries put their minds to it I'm sure they would come up with something in a time frame of less than 25 years." Yes, if we were willing to enter into a massive self induced economic depression, we could certainly do it in less time. Then again, seeing as how the hydrogen fuel cell manufacturing base is not yet even started being built, not to mention still a decade away from reaching the right miniturization level, it could quite possible take 40 or more years if these use some type of advanced machinery to build, or possibly some exotic metal alloys that we must first start mining. So on and so forth. There is alot more to doing something than snapping your fingers while laying down a trillion dollar tip for the waiter. BTW, who is going to force everyone to use an oil free alternative method of travel that costs them ten times as much to purchase and run? I think we have no logical choice but to push ahead on the scientific front and let people go hydrogen as fast as they can afford it.
 
Quote    Reply

appleciderus    More accuracy   8/4/2005 8:51:12 PM
What you said was: “….***”He [BUSH] was content to allow Pakistan which sporned ( spawned?) the Taliban and Al Qaeda movements to develop the nuclear bomb and continues to enjoy close relations with Saudi Arabia!!”*** Here are the definitions of the words you chose to use as defined by Webster’s “Content: 1. happy enough with what one has or is; not desiring something more or different: satisfied. 2. willing: used in the British House of Lords as an affirmative vote.” “Allow: 1. to permit, let, as, ‘we weren’t allowed to go’. 2. to let have, as, ‘she allowed herself no sweets’. 3. to let in, as, ‘dogs are not allowed’.” 4. to admit ( a claim or the like): acknowledge as true or valid. 5. to provide or keep ( a certain amount or extra quantity) so as to have enough; as, ‘allow an inch for shrinkage’. 6. to think, give as one’s opinion. You said that Bush was singularly responsible (allowed) for Pakistan acquiring nuclear capability, and he was happy (content) with that result. Perhaps that’s not what you meant, but that is what you said. If only life were that simple, Iran would not now be on the cusp of nuclear acquisition. Every serious nation understands that the delicate world economy could be impacted to the point of near “Depression” with an interruption of Saudi oil. If intelligence is to be believed, the Saudi Family is on the brink of civil or fratricidal war, with branches of the Saudi Royal family split between a pragmatic pro-western group and a fundamentalist islamic branch that funds madras schools in Pakistan, and terror worldwide. You confuse the Bush Administration support of the pro-western faction as support of all Saudis. There is an alternative to reliance on oil and the resulting instability, and threats to the world economy OPEC causes. It is nuclear energy. Until conservation and environmentalist groups cease to be funded and supported by OPEC, it will not happen. Remember this: all muslims believe there is only one god and one religion, and there will not be peace in the world until everyone is a true believer. Those muslims who do not pick up a gun or tie a bomb to their body still support jihad with passive acceptance and refusal to "out" those in their community who are active terrorists.
 
Quote    Reply

eon    RE:Alternative Energy   8/4/2005 9:20:36 PM
Right now, motor fuel accounts for about half of the U.S. use of imported oil. The other half is used to generate about 15% of our electricity, with coal generating 65%, nuclear 12%, and the rest a mixed bag of hydroelectric, wind, solar, and geothermal. To move away from the use of petroleum as motor fuel will require new technology, either hydrogen or other fuel cells or more advanced electrical propulsion. (Present-day and near-term battery technology is both too weak and a toxic disposal risk.) If we choose the electric route, the best option is nuclear power. (I can hear the environmentalists screaming, grabbing their pitchforks, and lighting their torches even now.) Hydrogen is expensive (unless we go to fractional distillation from water), so it may be a while before it is a viable option. Distillation of motor fuel from lignite (soft coal) is an option that hasn't been explored in this country, largely I suspect due to the general infatuation with ethanol technology. (Thank you, Archer Daniels Midland, Inc.) Whatever we end up doing, the one thing that >won't< happen is "public transportation" aka "mass transit". It is a European concept that does not work well here, due to the greater size of U.S. cities, and frankly the greater size of the U.S., period. (This is why we have subsidies for Amtrak, BART, etc., and they >still< end up losing money.) The answer is to (A) convert our power-production grid to non-polluting energy sources that have sufficient amperage to tolerate long transmission distances without excessive line-loss (nuclear does, and solar doesn't- that's scientific fact, the deep-ecos be d***ed), and (B) convert our highway transport system (i.e., private vehicles) to non-petroleum fuels or other power sources (never mind Jane Fonda and her veggie-oil tour bus.) At which point, we tell the OPEC countries to go pound sand. Although I think at least some of them may already see the handwriting on the wall. One OPEC minister is reputed to have said, in 1980, quote, "My grandfather rode a camel. My father drove a Rolls-Royce. I drive a Mercedes. My son drives a Ferrari. I fear my grandson...will ride a camel."
 
Quote    Reply

taylorjohn21    Response from JT, re accuracy, alternatives to oil strategic considerations   8/5/2005 5:29:08 AM
An immediate step to reduce pressure on the world’s oil supply would be to make US cars as energy efficient as European ones. Another measure could be making more use of renewable sources such as wind/solar power etc. The above measures wouldn’t actually eliminate dependency on Middle Eastern oil but would certainly minimize its effects somewhat. Regarding actual alternatives to oil (such as hydrogen cells, distillation of motor fuel from lignite, etc) my scientific knowledge isn’t extensive enough to be able to judge this. My ‘feeling’ though is that the world’s leading scientists must be able to come up with economically viable alternative to motor fuel imported from the Middle East. (It would be nice to have contributions from people with extensive knowledge on this area). To respond Appleciderus point ‘If intelligence is to be believed, the Saudi Family is on the brink of civil or fratricidal war, with branches of the Saudi Royal family split between a pragmatic pro-western group and a fundamentalist islamic branch that funds madras schools in Pakistan, and terror worldwide.’ If this is correct, then Saudi Arabia appears to me to be a disaster waiting to happen – and any aid/support which the US gives to Saudi Arabia must inevitably also help those branches in the Royal family who are intent on pursuing their own extreme version of Islam. (Funds from Saudi Arabia were used to set up Hamas in the Gaza-strip and West-Bank which has carried out countless suicide attacks in Israel). To return to Pakistan – its security agencies supported both the Taliban and Al-Kaeda. Can you explain the logic in not doing more to limit that country’s access to nuclear weapons! Regarding Europe and this new form of terrorism I am inclined to agree that Europe is not capable (doesn't have the will) of defending itself against this new threat. All in all, a very depressing outlook!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Quote    Reply

eon    RE:Response to JT from eon, re alternatives to oil    8/5/2005 7:52:52 AM
My knowledge isn't at the expert level, call me a reasonably informed layman. Hydrogen fuel cells have been around since the 1950s, mainly due to the old U.S. space program (remember when we actually had one?). The LH2 cell decomposes hydrogen electrolytically, resulting in thermal release, yielding electric power via thermocouple reaction. (There are other methods, but this is the one Apollo took to the Moon and back.) The principle advantage of the LH2 cell is that, if you can get cheap hydrogen, it's very efficient. The principle disadvantage is the hydrogen- it's not only expensive (at present), it's a cryogenic, with a boiling point (liquid to gas) of 21 Kelvin. Entirely new kinds of insulation will be needed to allow its use in motor vehicles. And in event of a wreck, an LH2 tank is a significantly greater explosion danger than a gasoline tank, although this can be alleviated by use of foamed-alloy matrix structuring (i.e. the inside of the tank is like a very big sponge with numerous small interstices, and the LH2 is held under its own vapor pressure). Let's just say the devil is in the details, and more engineering work needs to be done. As for lignite distillation, low-octane (60-70) gasoline can be "cooked" from lignite (an intemediate step between peat and soft coal) by partial combustion (in a system not unlike a pressure cooker), followed by fractional distillation. During WWII, Germany made considerable use of such lignite-based fuels in secondary operations (civilian, etc.) to free up higher-octane fuels for military ops. And at least some of the lignite-based fuel was used to power the V-1 "buzz bombs" that were fired at London. (In fact, one of the V-1's big "selling points" with the German High Command was that, unlike the V-2, it could be run on cheap, low-octane fuel instead of needing liquid oxygen, which was anything >but< cheap.) The main problem with using such fuels today is that they >are< low-octane (American "regular" gasoline, like I use in my minivan, is nominally 87 octane, although 80-82 would be closer to accurate). The answer might be either (A) increased use of Diesel engines (which are perfectly happy running on kerosene, which is about 55-60 octane on average) and/or (B) the introduction of civilian versions of military-type multi-fuel engines similar to those in the HUMMV or HEMTT. I do not consider turbine engines a realistic option near-term, as they are still expensive and relatively maintenance-intensive. A more realistic possibilty might be some form of closed-cycle motor (Stirling or Rankine-cycle), possibly fueled by (again) LH2, or else lignite-based petrofuel. Ethanol, in spite of the hype, is a non-starter. Cornell U and Caltech just finished with a study which says, basically, that ethanol-blended fuels are a useless technology for passenger vehicles, since (A) they require more energy per liter to produce than they generate, and (B) their higher burning temperature causes excessive wear to engines, especially modern, small-bore, high-RPM types. Twelve other colleges, including MIT, Yale, and Michigan Tech, hissed and booed this report, basically on the grounds that they find ethanol to be a good thing. Please note that all these schools conducted their research on ethanol under grants supplied by the Archer Daniels Midland Co., a major recipient of federal funds for- ethanol production and research. The Department of Energy accordingly handed the job to the Battelle Memorial Institute in Columbus, OH, to decide the issue of whether or not ethanol funding should continue. Battelle accordingly dusted off the study they did in 1978 at the behest of the Carter Administration- in which they said basically what Cornell and Caltech just got >done< saying. (Interestingly enough, the Battelle report observed that ethanol-blend fuels are less likely to damge older, i.e. pre-1960s era vehicles, because their lower-compression motors had lower overall operating temperatures, and were built of less advanced, but heavier materials, compared to modern, "high-tech" vehicles.) About the only place Battelle could find for ethanol-blend fuels was in (surprise) jet engines, which can tolerate higher temperatures and require lower octane ratings (Jet-A, which replaced JP-4, is about 55-60 octane). Assuming the low pressure/high altitude boiloff problem can be solved, ethanol blended fuels may have a future in commercial aviation. But until a practical gas-turbine engine for automobiles is perfected, ethanol fuels will remain a minor factor in energy independence. (Does anyone know if they've tried running electric powewr generators on ethanol, instead of distillate fuel? This would seem to be another logical place for such fuels.) Hope this explanation helps. Cheers. eon
 
Quote    Reply

jastayme3    RE:What will happen when European fright over Islamic fundamentalism reaches critical mass?   8/6/2005 5:58:18 AM
Thirty Years War, War of the Spanish Succession, Spanish Armada, etc). In -------------------------- actually the war of the spanish succession was a power struggle fought over=the spanish succession. more precisly fear of french attempt to use a power vaccum in spain cost by difficulties over the succession.
 
Quote    Reply

jastayme3    RE:What will happen when European fright over Islamic fundamentalism reaches critical mass?   8/6/2005 6:03:49 AM
(like those Bible-thumping "Red State" Americans, FI). What they don't seem to grasp is that they are, once again, dealing with an ------------------------------- who do know the cause of the war of the spanish succession
 
Quote    Reply

appleciderus    Accuracy again   8/6/2005 3:26:21 PM
***” An immediate step to reduce pressure on the world’s oil supply would be to make US cars as energy efficient as European ones.”*** I know of no technical superiority Europe possesses in auto technology, especially fuel consumption. There are “Euro-trash” snobs that think European technology is superior, but the truth is European manufacturers must modify their US models to conform to unrealistic US emission standards. Europeans have to “dumb down” their models in order to meet US air quality standards they do not have to meet in Europe. If your complaint is that European automobiles are more efficient in MPG, or have more responsive drivability qualities, then go argue with a conservationist and/or environmentalist. ***” My ‘feeling’ though is that the world’s leading scientists must be able to come up with economically viable alternative to motor fuel imported from the Middle East….”*** My feeling is that the world’s leading scientists must be able to come up with an economically viable cure for cancer, but alas, neither of us can make this happen just because we “want” it to be so. ***” To respond Appleciderus point ‘If intelligence is to be believed, the Saudi Family is on the brink of civil or fratricidal war, with branches of the Saudi Royal family split between a pragmatic pro-western group and a fundamentalist islamic branch that funds madras schools in Pakistan, and terror worldwide.’ If this is correct, then Saudi Arabia appears to me to be a disaster waiting to happen – and any aid/support which the US gives to Saudi Arabia must inevitably also help those branches in the Royal family who are intent on pursuing their own extreme version of Islam. (Funds from Saudi Arabia were used to set up Hamas in the Gaza-strip and West-Bank which has carried out countless suicide attacks in Israel).”*** The US gives no financial aid to Saudi Arabia. Oil revenue is divided amongst the Royal Family, thus funding both pro-western and terrorist factions. US support is military and political to the “supposed” pro-western government in order to protect the flow of oil and the fragile world economy. If you find this disagreeable, go find a conservationist and/or environmentalist and demand an end to foolish government regulation that drives up the consumption of foreign oil. The less oil revenue the Saudis have, the less dollars for Pakistani madras schools. (Terror dollars in Gaza and West Bank Palestine originate for the most part as follows: Palestinian terrorists are funded by the European Union, others by Iran, either directly or through Syria) ***” Can you explain the logic in not doing more to limit that country’s [Pakistan] access to nuclear weapons!”*** I must admit I have no explanation for the Clinton Administration providing China with nuclear technology and not perceiving China transferring the technology to Pakistan. Some believe it is related to campaign funds.
 
Quote    Reply

sanman    RE:Accuracy again   8/6/2005 4:11:29 PM
appleciderus wrote: ***” Can you explain the logic in not doing more to limit that country’s [Pakistan] access to nuclear weapons!”*** I must admit I have no explanation for the Clinton Administration providing China with nuclear technology and not perceiving China transferring the technology to Pakistan. Some believe it is related to campaign funds. ---------- Gentlemen, don't forget the infamous Pressler Amendment (originally known as the Reagan-Bush Amendment) which basically took away Congressional oversight on Pakistan's nuclear weapons progress, and handed it over to the exclusive domain of the President in certifying whether or not Pakistan had nuclear weapons. The purpose of this transfer of oversight was obvious -- it was so that the President of the United States could go on pretending that the Pakistan was a non-nuclear country in order to preserve the special close cooperation between the US and Pakistan. Had the oversight remained in the hands of Congress, then the debate would have been much more public and Pakistan wouldn't have been able to progress as far as it did with the US turning a blind eye. And we can now see what the result is, when such short-sighted gimmickry is resorted to. Hopefully such folly will not be repeated in the future.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics