The future campaigns of the Muslim nations

[Arsalan]

WAs just having a look at this map of Europe.

I think to really plug home the advantage in the next world war . The collective national muslim armies - assuming they come from turkey and arabia and other muslim majority asian countries, and other mercernaries - should march north and conquer russia and then down taking control of Belarus, Poland, and Ukraine, romania and Hungry would be aite too. The central asian republics would have a major role to play against Russia. Aftrer establishing control of those territories and its resources , we would be in for a long battle with whats left of the romans.

What do u guys think.




http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42370000/gif/_42370274_eu_religion2_416.gif

[EbuZerr]

East and mid-europe is taken easily by Turks... Then the direction goes to Austria and Rome, but this time it will be harder as it did in the past... Arab brothers will have to send armies from mediterenian and Cebel-i Tarık agan to Italy france and Spain.. Sure that Turks will help... Russia will be the other forse to fight with Turks as in the past... Mid Asian caucasian Turks and Turkey's Turks will attack Russia from south and east this time..... But actually this war is not predictable for a long time... Defense of Feth war not important but unpredictable, because we must have firstly Nukes to make a balance.. We have to forse them to convansional war.. Convansional war will be our insaallah... :D

[Arsalan]

East and mid-europe is taken easily by Turks... Then the direction goes to Austria and Rome, but this time it will be harder as it did in the past... Arab brothers will have to send armies from mediterenian and Cebel-i Tarık agan to Italy france and Spain.. Sure that Turks will help... Russia will be the other forse to fight with Turks as in the past... Mid Asian caucasian Turks and Turkey's Turks will attack Russia from south and east this time..... But actually this war is not predictable for a long time... Defense of Feth war not important but unpredictable, because we must have firstly Nukes to make a balance.. We have to forse them to convansional war.. Convansional war will be our insaallah... :D

Yeh, i suppose the muslim nations will have to be prepared for potential massive losses . But we shouldnt forget the in WW1 and WW2 western nations experienced great losses, but in the end objectives were achieved.

We defo need islamic countries to get a nuclear deterrance so the muslims nations can concentrate on a conventional war. AQ Khan and his friends were great to this end ( pakistani scientists) and tried to spread the nuclear knowledge and technogloy around.

WHat we gotta do now, is change the current corrupted muslim armies and munafiqeen armies to correct guidance.

[ummagummaz]

The first step one needs is a Joint Command and Control structure. Unlike NATO, the Islamic countries have no such structure and with so many diverse languages, cultures, fighting quality / experience, and most important, equipment, difficult to implement.

Re equipment, most Islamic countries depend on the USA for their defence needs. Turkey assembles F-16's under licence, Pakistan's JF-17's program is still in it's infancy and dependent on Chinese support, Egypt, Saudi, Gulf all use Western equipment and as for the rest..:lailah:

Fighting any war requires logistics and ample access to spare parts. With no indegenious industry, this is going to be a serious issue and in this case, the supplier holds all the cards, the American refusal to supply Pakistan with spares in '65 being a case in point.

Now, about your comments about reconquering Europe, let's look at attempts to..ahem...liberate Al-Andalus!

I presume this attack will come from Morocco? It will have to be a sea launched operation, which will require heavy use of air / naval power. Morocco's Air Force strike capapbility consists of ageing F1's and F5 fighters. They have no BVR capability and are getting very long in the tooth. The Navy does not have any carrier capability, and I doubt if it has the wherewithal to launch a large sea borne operation.

Spain's Air Force / Navy has modern F-18's, AV-8's (Carrier based) and is rapidly inducting the Typhoon. All BVR capable. It's army is very well equiped.

The coast in southern Spain, though sandy, is very heavily populated. Even if the troops secure a beachead, they will have to fight a very bloody urban form of warfare...like the US is facing in Iraq. The tanks will be especially vulnerable.

Inland it is very rocky and hilly, ideal for guerilla (ironically a Spanish word) warfare. Just ask the British in Helmand what that is like!

And I don't think you can assume that other Muslim nations will send troops. Even if they do, moving troops by sea will involve running the gauntlet of submarines in the Med.

You can forget the nuclear option as there is no conventional option to speak of.

[pixi]

Wait! I thought the previous spread of Islam was done by entirely peaceful means. Have I been misinformed? Has there been an addendum to the original rules of engagement?

[ummagummaz]

Wait! I thought the previous spread of Islam was done by entirely peaceful means. Have I been misinformed? Has there been an addendum to the original rules of engagement?

You can discuss that issue on that relevant thread.

This thread is basically disussing strategy and I want input as to how this Utopian ideal is going to be achieved considering all the issues I have highligted.

[pixi]

I'm new here and need to be guided to the "appropriate thread".

I do not believe that Sir Thomas More put much warfare into his vision of Utopia. On the contrary.

[ummagummaz]

I'm new here and need to be guided to the "appropriate thread".

I do not believe that Sir Thomas More put much warfare into his vision of Utopia. On the contrary.

I was being ironic!!!;)

[Seven.sins]

peaceful muslims huh? ........ you're asking for it......time to soil our hands with the blood of some dictators and jihadis

[ummagummaz]

peaceful muslims huh? ........ you're asking for it......time to soil our hands with the blood of some dictators and jihadis

Sigh, we have our Jihadi clowns, they have theirs!!:rolleyes:

[TRANSWARP]

peaceful muslims huh? ........ you're asking for it......time to soil our hands with the blood of some dictators and jihadis


The days of being timid are over, what you beleive is what you get.

[Seven.sins]

Sigh, we have our Jihadi clowns, they have theirs!!:rolleyes:



yeh........so i suppose u shoudnt try to take over other other nations in the first place :).....

[THHuxley]

WAs just having a look at this map of Europe.

I think to really plug home the advantage in the next world war . The collective national muslim armies - assuming they come from turkey and arabia and other muslim majority asian countries, and other mercernaries - should march north and conquer russia and then down taking control of Belarus, Poland, and Ukraine, romania and Hungry would be aite too. The central asian republics would have a major role to play against Russia. Aftrer establishing control of those territories and its resources , we would be in for a long battle with whats left of the romans.

What do u guys think.
I think that since Turkey is part of NATO, you're going to hafta kill a whole lot of Turks first.

But you guys are good at that. Killing other Muslims, I mean.

[Seven.sins]

The days of being timid are over, what you beleive is what you get.


okay, you believe in Islam, what do you get out of it ?

[ummagummaz]

yeh........so i suppose u shoudnt try to take over other other nations in the first place :).....

That is what I am trying to get through. You just can't expect others to wilt before you, whether it be for religous reasons or on doctored intelligence about WMD's!!

The unrealistic scenario painted by the two gents is that the battle will be a cake walk with a 'united' Muslim army conquering all before it.

It would be nice if someone could present other battle situations. That is what is really wanted...

[THHuxley]

That is what I am trying to get through. You just can't expect others to wilt before you, whether it be for religous reasons or on doctored intelligence about WMD's!!

The unrealistic scenario painted by the two gents is that the battle will be a cake walk with a 'united' Muslim army conquering all before it.

It would be nice if someone could present other battle situations. That is what is really wanted...
How about this one. It is adapted from Orson Scott Card's sequel to the Ender's Game novels, the "Shadow Novels."

The previous world powers have exhausted themselves militarily and economically in wars of Imperial conquest in Asia lead by China and India. The United States has retreated into isolationism, and the European Union (under the aegis of the UN) has found itself impotent to stop the bloodbath.

After centuries of internecine strife, the Muslim Ummah recognizes its opportunity and is finally able to reunite under a single charismatic and popular Caliph who turns out to not be Arab, but from the most populous Muslim nation on the planet; Indonesia.

Initial Muslim advances are stunning and comprehensive. It becomes clear to the rest of the world that it has no equal in manpower and resources. Resistance is futile.

As Muslim Hegemony begins to establish itself, the Arab members of the Caliph's inner circle begin to plot an internal coupe, bristling at the rejuvenated Islamic Empire being led by a non-Arab. The Caliph flees in fear of his life to a self imposed exile in Jakarta, while the South Asian Muslims withdraw from the Arab alliance in support of the Caliph. The Iranians turn their attention to the absorption first of the Shi’a territory in what was formerly Iraq, thus beginning hostilities with the Arab alliance. The Indonesians (along with the Pakistani-Afghan-Bangladesh Alliance) turn their attention to an amphibious operation on the Arabian peninsula.

After three years of stalemate costing some 1.7 million Muslim lives, the Iranians accidentally allow several of their nuclear warheads to be commandeered by a radical Mahdist Army, led by the former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In the attempt to hasten the return of the Mahdi, he takes a radical gamble and approves the nuking of both Mecca and Medina in the mistaken assumption that they would actually be miraculously protected from destruction by Allah, and thus prove to the rest of the planet the truth of Islam.

Within weeks of the destruction of Islam’s holiest sites, the Muslim Ummah disintegrates again into its traditional status of independent emirates divided along geographic, ethnic and sectarian lines.

China emerges as the winner.

[ummagummaz]

China is going to win, first economically and then militarily. It's armed forces are still in a period of transition, adapting to new strategic concepts in equipment and warfare.

China and India will never be allies. There is a long history of mistrust between the two since the 1962 war and China's commitment to Pakistan, both financially and militarily.

Additionally, India sees China as it's greatest rival and in this it is supported by the US and a resurgent Russia, who see India as a bulwark against the red menace. The Chinese PM may have said the right things in Delhi recently, signed a few business agreements etc but the main purpose of his visit was to consolidate issues with Pakistan.

Gwadar comes online soon and the Chinese Navy will have a warm water port to 'visit' shortly and lead time for Chinese goods wil be cut drastically as they will have an outlet in the Arabian Sea. No wonder Indian naval strategists and Pakistani businessmen are worried!!

It is hard to imagine a Caliph from Indonesia but stranger things ahve happened.

The main factors here are cooperation. No self respecting Turk is ever going to serve under Arab command considering the unpleasantness during the days of TE Lawrence. If anything, they will feel they should command considering they have the most modern and tested armed forces!!

Then there is Shia Iran. Most radical Sunni's consider the annhialation of these heretics dearer to their heart than killing the kuffar.

And what about the Maghreb nations?

Just one big logistical nigthmare..

[Enigma Dreamer]

WAs just having a look at this map of Europe.

I think to really plug home the advantage in the next world war . The collective national muslim armies - assuming they come from turkey and arabia and other muslim majority asian countries, and other mercernaries - should march north and conquer russia and then down taking control of Belarus, Poland, and Ukraine, romania and Hungry would be aite too. The central asian republics would have a major role to play against Russia. Aftrer establishing control of those territories and its resources , we would be in for a long battle with whats left of the romans.

What do u guys think.




http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42370000/gif/_42370274_eu_religion2_416.gif

I think we should start with smaller countries like Romania, Hungary, e.t.c.- they just gonna talk very few days, I am sure, inshaaAllah. Then, we can move ahead to Russia. And then, rest of western Europe, e.t.c. They are very small countries too. It won't take us long. You need not fight w/them all. I am sure, most will surrender after we conquer Russia, e.t.c. In Africa, the I.C.U. is already in place, we can start with Ethiopia, we already did in 1977, then, move westwards to Kenya (it will be easy as there are many Muslims here), Uganda, e.t.c. Senegal can begin on the west African countries like Nigeria, e.t.c.-already 1/2 Muslims, we can move ahead towards the South. I think and I am sure it is achieveable, inshaaAllah.

[Enigma Dreamer]

WAs just having a look at this map of Europe.

I think to really plug home the advantage in the next world war . The collective national muslim armies - assuming they come from turkey and arabia and other muslim majority asian countries, and other mercernaries - should march north and conquer russia and then down taking control of Belarus, Poland, and Ukraine, romania and Hungry would be aite too. The central asian republics would have a major role to play against Russia. Aftrer establishing control of those territories and its resources , we would be in for a long battle with whats left of the romans.

What do u guys think.




http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42370000/gif/_42370274_eu_religion2_416.gif

I think we should start with smaller countries like Romania, Hungary, e.t.c.- they just gonna talk very few days, I am sure, inshaaAllah. Then, we can move ahead to Russia. And then, rest of western Europe, e.t.c. They are very small countries too. It won't take us long. You need not fight w/them all. I am sure, most will surrender after we conquer Russia, e.t.c. In Africa, the I.C.U. is already in place, we can start with Ethiopia, we already did in 1977, then, move westwards to Kenya (it will be easy as there are many Muslims here), Uganda, e.t.c. Senegal can begin on the west African countries like Nigeria, e.t.c.-already 1/2 Muslims, we can move ahead towards the South. Egypt, Sudan, Tunisia, Mauritania, Morocco, Algeria, e.t.c. all on board and I am sure it is achieveable, inshaaAllah. We can head towards the Atlantic. And Australia, Newzealnd.

[pixi]

And your reasons for wanting to fight all these battles are...?

[pixi]

We can head towards the Atlantic. And Australia, Newzealnd.


What did I miss? The part about building a navy? I'd worry about NATO submarines were I you.

[.: Rashid :.]

i very very very much doubt things will ever be this cut and dried...

it will happen, but tings will be very different to how they are now...and it wont be a case of "we'll move this way and that way, march east, conquer west" whatever...

This is just my movie-like guess at things :p : Khilafah is established...NATO sees it as a threat and declares war. NATO invades, takes mass losses and gets stuck in deep...counterattack and counter-invasions/raids and you get a big messs with a lot of casualties

And the Muslim ummah comes out victorious :mujahida:

-Rashid

[pixi]

You want want to check history before you get too involved in that marching to Russia stuff. You need a VERY long supply line.

[.: Rashid :.]

You want want to check history before you get too involved in that marching to Russia stuff. You need a VERY long supply line.

who said wars will involve supply lines in the future?

Who says wars will even involve human soldiers :mujahida: <<< robot mujahid :p

-Rashid

[pixi]

The OP said it, didn't he?

[.: Rashid :.]

The OP said it, didn't he?

ok...so...whass your point?

:mujahida:

-Rashid

[THHuxley]

I think we should start with smaller countries like Romania, Hungary, e.t.c.-
The problem is that these nations are already under the NATO nuclear umbrella. An attack against them will be considered (by formal treaty) an attack against the entire NATO Alliance. Therfore, they cannot be conquered piecemeal, as the combined Armies of Western and Central Europe (to include the Republic of Turkey) are committed to thier defense.

they just gonna talk very few days, I am sure, inshaaAllah.
A very few days for what? For the leveling of major Muslim population centers as a response to an attack on the most formidable set of militaries the globe has ever seen?

[THHuxley]

Khilafah is established...NATO sees it as a threat and declares war. NATO invades, takes mass losses and gets stuck in deep...counterattack and counter-invasions/raids and you get a big messs with a lot of casualties

And the Muslim ummah comes out victorious
NATO is by treaty a defensive umbrella. There is no language in the treaty that allows for unprovoked offensive operations, and no requirement by any NATO nation to participate in such an attack by another member. So NATO cannot preemptively “declare war.”

NATO can only respond to an attack on member nations, so the likelihood of them "getting stuck in deep" is very small.

They will instead defend Europe using standoff weapons like cruise missiles and strategic bombing. Any successful Muslim salient that threatened a major European population center would likely be met with tactical nuclear munitions fired by 155mm and 8 inch howitzers, with deeper targets taken out by cruise missiles fired from air, sea and submarine. Remember, NATO contains three nuclear powers (US, UK and France), none of which have foresworn a first strike capability. Pakistan (at this point) possesses no tactical nuclear capability and no delivery medium for its handful of unreliable strategic weapons, and Iran no military nukes at all.

Of course, all of this would first require (as you point out) the reestablishment of the Caliphate, and we all know that the single most common cause of death across history for the Caliphs has always been assassination by other Muslims. A Caliphate would be unlikely to survive the first three weeks of actual warfare before it splintered from within.

And then, its every Muslim for himself. Just like through most of history.

[Ibn Sina]

Huxley doe us all a favor and buy this shirt :D


http://store.northshoreshirts.com/anwoonepeatt.html

[THHuxley]

Huxley doe us all a favor and buy this shirt :D

http://store.northshoreshirts.com/anwoonepeatt.html
I already own one. :D

[Z-Blade]

What do u guys think.


I think it's best to leave the strategising to the Mahdi eh?! (Unless if he's not around, in which case we are screwed (unless we got Plan B?!))

[.: Rashid :.]

Huxley doe us all a favor and buy this shirt :D


http://store.northshoreshirts.com/anwoonepeatt.html

:rotfl:

yeah...was gonna say summin about him talking a lot of *crap

especially the bit about "formiddable" blah blah...you lot like catchphrases and slogans, don't you?

Shame you havent had a real *wasit-ma-jig since Winston Churchill

*aura-something... :scratch:

-Rashid

[Ibn Sina]

I say after we have one giant Islamic State we smash Israel and re-conquer Eastern Europe and then head for Russia to lay seige to Moscow. After we take Russia well have all the nukes we need and continue our march towards the rest of Western Europe and fight that fight with the Rum.

[THHuxley]

yeah...was gonna say summin about him talking a lot of *crap

especially the bit about "formiddable" blah blah...you lot like catchphrases and slogans, don't you?

Shame you havent had a real *wasit-ma-jig since Winston Churchill

*aura-something...

-Rashid
Ignoring that much of that made no sense whatsoever, I can only point out that you apparently have no actual response to the substantive points I raised.They were certainly filled with more than mere "slogans and catchphrases."

Since I am actually somebody with direct experience within NATO, within the Turkish Army, and who has participated in Corps Level planning and wargaming regarding the Middle East (and especially Iran) you might learn a thing or two by reading my posts.

They don't have to make you happy, they only have to make you think.

[THHuxley]

I say after we have one giant Islamic State we smash Israel and re-conquer Eastern Europe and then head for Russia to lay seige to Moscow. After we take Russia well have all the nukes we need and continue our march towards the rest of Western Europe and fight that fight with the Rum.
Having nukes and knowing how to actually get them to go off are two different things. Ask India, Pakistan and North Korea.

But you didn't know that did you?

I could hand you a nuke a today, and you would not be able to make it explode.

[.: Rashid :.]

Ignoring that much of that made no sense whatsoever, I can only point out that you apparently have no actual response to the substantive points I raised.They were certainly filled with more than mere "slogans and catchphrases."

Since I am actually somebody with direct experience within NATO, within the Turkish Army, and who has participated in Corps Level planning and wargaming regarding the Middle East (and especially Iran) you might learn a thing or two by reading my posts.

They don't have to make you happy, they only have to make you think.

Get you :rolleyes:

Oik you should talk with T...you'd have a lot to chat about :p

Having nukes and knowing how to actually get them to go off are two different things. Ask India, Pakistan and North Korea.

But you didn't know that did you?

I could hand you a nuke a today, and you would not be able to make it explode.

Couldn't say the same for me :D

-Rashid

[Seven.sins]

another grand plan to spread Islam by the sword :rolleyes:


how long before the Islamic army turns on each other ? maybe we should have a poll on it

:) they are all dumasses :)

[Seven.sins]

another grand plan to spread Islam by the sword :rolleyes:


how long before the Islamic army turns on each other ? maybe we should have a poll on it

:) they are all dumasses :)


could not add anymore before for some reason ...heres the rest :

Russia will literally spank you if you go Eastern Europe
The Central Asian countries will back Russia
Pakistan will be busy with India
The Arab countries will be busy fighting Iran over leadership
The African muslim countries : too busy killing each other
Indonesia/Malaysia ....they dont matter
China will stop you if you go East

Then you also have to deal with NATO, European Union, and United States.... have fun :)

[.: Rashid :.]

...have fun :)

We will :hidban:

-Rashid

[Seven.sins]

We will :hidban:

-Rashid


ok Mr. funny black dancing condom/banana .......... :hidban: :hidban:

before you start....might be wise to get a real army first ;)

[.: Rashid :.]

ok Mr. funny black dancing condom/banana .......... :hidban: :hidban:

before you start....might be wise to get a real army first ;)

Might be ;)

Then again, might not ;)

:rolleyes:

-Rashid

[Mechanic]

This is a joke thread right ?

If it is its very funny:D


If its serious its even funnier:D :D :D

[Mechanic]

But please dont be put off by me.

Go ahead start the invasion, it will make great tv.

You will get as far as Russia, before Russia takes its gloves off and nukes every muslim city and then drops a can of sunshine on Mecca and Medina for good measure.

[Arsalan]

Interesting responses, esp the heavy dependence of the west on causing mass casualty events and holocost. :rolleyes: Says alot really.. about he mentality of the Christian Secular Facist™

[Genghis Cohn]

Hardly "the secular fascist mindset", actually. There's a long tradition of western/European military technology, strategy and tactics being intended to increase cohesion and identity and being exterminatory in purpose. It goes right back to the early days of Greece and Persia when the divisions- psychological, philosophical, political- between "east and west" "Europe and Asia" were first formed. Compare say the fate of Xenophon's Ten Thousand upcountry in Persia and the Persian armies trapped in Gerece after Xerxes abandoned them. The Greeks smashed their way through a thousand miles of hostile territory to the sea. The Persians broke up and were killed in detail.
It may be because Europe was the end of the chain of migrations from the steppes of Asia so the inhabitants and the invaders had nowhere to go but had to fight for the same territory, but where the Asian mode of warfare was largely based on loot, tribute and slavery European warfare aimed at the extermination of their opponents.

[Arsalan]

Hardly "the secular fascist mindset", actually. There's a long tradition of western/European military technology, strategy and tactics being intended to increase cohesion and identity and being exterminatory in purpose. It goes right back to the early days of Greece and Persia when the divisions- psychological, philosophical, political- between "east and west" "Europe and Asia" were first formed. Compare say the fate of Xenophon's Ten Thousand upcountry in Persia and the Persian armies trapped in Gerece after Xerxes abandoned them. The Greeks smashed their way through a thousand miles of hostile territory to the sea. The Persians broke up and were killed in detail.
It may be because Europe was the end of the chain of migrations from the steppes of Asia so the inhabitants and the invaders had nowhere to go but had to fight for the same territory, but where the Asian mode of warfare was largely based on loot, tribute and slavery European warfare aimed at the extermination of their opponents.

That attitude you alledge.. would therefore explain the minimal collateral damage sufferd by UK (<65000 ) and US ( <20,000 ) in WW2 , whereas Germany suffered 1.8 Million Collaterial damage as a direct result of the "allied bombing campaign" ( not including Hitlers alledged killing of his own ppl). Who were the real facists then?

Anyway "Extermination of their opponents" in recent times has included indiscrimnately terrorising civillian populations into submission through mass rape, murder, and maiming. Would you agree the legacey continues..

[Genghis Cohn]

That attitude you alledge.. would therefore explain the minimal collateral damage sufferd by UK (<65000 ) and US ( <20,000 ) in WW2 , whereas Germany suffered 1.8 Million Collaterial damage as a direct result of the "allied bombing campaign" ( not including Hitlers alledged killing of his own ppl). Who were the real facists then? germany is every bit as much part of Europe as the Uk. A much better explanation is the distance from germany and Jaspan and German and Japanese bases to mainland America and the fact that for some time the only way Britain could attack Germany was via bombers. there was also the mistaken belief that Germany was a state geared for total war so tat every civilian death in Germany would affect war production and the fact that the RAF's bombers were so inaccurate that they were doing well if they hit something a slarge as a city. You omitted the murder of millions of Polish and Soviet civilians by German armed forces and paramilitary organisations and their activities in other countries.


Anyway "Extermination of their opponents" in recent times has included indiscrimnately terrorising civillian populations into submission through mass rape, murder, and maiming. Would you agree the legacey continues..
Mass rape and maiming have long been side-effects of warfare and there's a lot of debate as to where murder stops and warfare begins. Actually, in their current campaigns US and other western forces are comparatively moderate. It would, for example, be perfectly easy to establish peace in Iraq or Afghanistan by mass murder- the indiscriminate infliction of casualties ten times as great as they do now. To their credit they don't follow those policies and arrest and charge soldiers who do commit crimes such as rape or unathorised torture. To their discredit they don't set out to avoid civilian casualties almost completely, because that would require the use of many more infantrymen and the acceptance of a higher casualty rate. They are in the position of armies equipped and trained for war a l'outrance fighting a low-technology, low death-rate war.

[THHuxley]

Interesting responses, esp the heavy dependence of the west on causing mass casualty events and holocost. Says alot really.. about he mentality of the Christian Secular Facist™
Actually, (and I take no pleasure in saying this) that is and always has been the way of western warfare. Going back to the ancient Greeks, Europeans have always proven completely unforgiving in warfare, usually to the great peril of nations that have miscalculated Europe’s equally traditional slow response to aggression.

There are very good reasons why no external invader has ever been able to maintain a conquest on European soil, while Europeans have colonized (in many places permanently) so much of the rest of the globe. Some of it has to do with the accidents of geography that allowed Europeans to develop dominance in the areas of technology and economics (read Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel for the details). But as important a part is that when pushed to the point of feeling genuinely at risk, the European way of warfare is total.

It is no coincidence that the United States is the only nation in history to have actually used nuclear weapons against an enemy. But that is really only marginally different from WWII's carpet bombings of enemy cities in Europe, or fire bombing in Japan. The current "restraint" shown in low level conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan is only possible because the threat is a distant one, and not perceived to be on the doorstep of Europe. And Islamic terrorist attacks like 9/11 or the London and Madrid train bombings, while horrible, are largely considered only as threatening as any natural disaster. But opinions would quickly change were a Muslim army (of any serious capability) to attack across the Bosporus.

This unfortunate truth is something that previous attackers have regularly underestimated, and it appears that the Muslim warmongers in this thread are repeating that history. In the same way that Muslims complain that "Orientalists" do not really understand them, the non-Western world has always suffered from a pernicious "Occidentalism" that has served them poorly. Especially in those instances where a presumed "spiritual" or "moral superiority" has led to overconfidence in the inability of the "soft and decadent West" to defend itself. The West has confounded that supercilious perspective every single time. Even when it looked (at first) that there was no chance to do so.

So yes, pay very close attention to "the heavy dependence of the west on causing mass casualty events and holocost [sic]." Because in the event of a Muslim invasion of Europe, that is what you will most certainly face. So it should play a very big part of your calculus prior to invading.

Needless to say, it is disconcerting that the Muslim world depends do heavily on magical thinking rather than sober analysis when making military decisions. This is certainly worse among the Shi'a than the Sunni, given their ecstatic hope for the imminent return of the Mahdi, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s apparent desire to hasten his "return." Few ideas are more frightening than nuclear weapons in the hands of a man (Ahmadinejad) who is actually looking forward to Armageddon with such great apparent pleasure

But even among the Sunni, the trumping of pragmatic concerns by irrational and mystical emotion can be no better demonstrated than in places like Iraq where American casualties are a tiny fraction of the deaths caused by Muslim on Muslim violence. Any reasonable people with a serious political agenda would have held back on pursuing their internal sectarian pogroms until the US believed things were stable enough to get out and remove our troops. Instead, the Muslims in Iraq have proven to hate each other more than they hate the American invaders. And so they are consuming themselves rather than actually doing the things that would allow the Americans (who are desperately anxious to leave as soon as possible) to get out of there and go home.

This is the reason why no Westerner on this board takes seriously for a second the actual possibility of a combined Muslim army under the control of a reborn Caliphate to be a threat to Europe. You guys are not, as an Ummah, capable of the serious calculus of modern war.

You will continue, as you have ever since the day Muhammad died, to be primarily concerned with killing other Muslims, especially your best and your brightest. You will murder your own Caliphs rather than live in peace and prosperity. You will slaughter the grandchildren of your own prophet rather than compromise your personal power and interest. It is the zeitgeist of 7th Century Arabia that informs everything about the way Muslims think and behave. Your own tribes are too fractious to ever hang together long enough to again be a world economic, political, scientific and technical power. And these, after all, are the prerequisites of war.

There is not, and will never be an "Ummah." Your own culture will not allow it.

This is the reason that to a large extent people in the west are afraid of Islam, but we do not FEAR Islam. Islam is considered much the same way any natural disaster is considered: Earthquakes, hurricanes and tornados for example. We are certainly afraid of them but we do not FEAR them. The experience of an earthquake is terrifying, and the consequences can be severe, but we continue to move to California because we do not FEAR them. Instead we accept them as just one more risk in a world full of risks. We also continue to build homes on the Gulf Coast and live in trailer parks in Indiana.

In this same way, we take seriously radical Islam’s ability to generate frothing “martyrs” who will kill, destroy and obstruct. We are certainly afraid of the next atrocity that will kill our wives, our brothers and our children. But we do not fear Islam as a challenge to our culture, or values, or way of life. We do not fear Islam as a threat to our freedom, or our political institutions, or our economy. These are all things that Islam is impotent to change.

And we certainly do not fear the rise of a Muslim Caliphate. You guys had your chance there and blew it.

The future belongs to others.

[.: Rashid :.]

...

Very well written :up:

Not that I agree at all. I think you're talkin a fair amount of **** but its well written **** :p

I couldn't do justice with an answer...I'll leave it to Salman or Arsalan :up:

-Rashid

[Arsalan]

What da wox thats an essay man.

I read it, and would love to reply to every point, as i disagree with many.

Just one point ill make now. Since you reject religious doctrines and scriptures as divine, that would make the foundations of my response redundant, and therefore futile from your point of view. Islamic prophecies indicate that there will be major battles between the Islamic world and the People of Ar-Rum till the end of times. As to the exact timing of the significantly big battle - this is unclear. It could be another 100 years for all we know, or it could be another 10 years.

[.: Rashid :.]

What da wox thats an essay man.

I read it, and would love to reply to every point, as i disagree with many.

Just one point ill make now. Since you reject religious doctrines and scriptures as divine, that would make the foundations of my response redundant, and therefore futile from your point of view. Islamic prophecies indicate that there will be major battles between the Islamic world and the People of Ar-Rum till the end of times. As to the exact timing of the significantly big battle - this is unclear.

lol innit :p wish i could jus copy paste it an claim it as my own :D (unfortunately...not actually doin history this year and english essays are always about shakespeare n shizzle :rolleyes: )

It could be another 100 years for all we know, or it could be another 10 years.

Could be another 1000 :mujahida:

-Rashid

[THHuxley]

Just one point ill make now. Since you reject religious doctrines and scriptures as divine, that would the foundations of my response redundant, and therefore futile from your point of view. Islamic prophecies indicate that there will be major battles between the Islamic world and the People of Ar-Rum till the end of times. As to the exact timing of the significantly big battle - this is unclear. It could be another 100 years for all we know, or it could be another 10 years.
And that speaks directly to my comments regarding Muslim "magical thinking." And also to its danger.

Even if Islam is completely untrue, there are still Muslims who believe that such a battle is inevitable and worse, are actually looking forward to it as a "good thing." So they have an incentive (even if a false one) to bring such a battle about even if it is completely unnecessary.

It would not only be very sad for Muslims if you guys started a world war and, oops, no "end times" occurred as a result. It would also be a horrendous and unforgivable disaster for all of humanity. But it would still be your fault. If you imagine Muslims have a "public relations problem" now, let me clue you in. You ain't seen nothing yet. Beliefs like you have presented here pretty much make the word "Islamophobia" meaningless. A fear is not a phobia is it is justified by reality.

You have given us all a good reason to believe that western fear of Muslims is justified; i.e. because it is an article of your faith that there will be "major battles between the Islamic world and the People of Ar-Rum till the end of times."

This is also why Ahmadinejad (for example) is such a dangerous character, and why a nuclear Iran is a more frightening idea than a nuclear France, or a nuclear North Korea. He is of the (often expressed) belief that the Mahdi's return is imminent, that it will involve a world war between Islam and the west, and he is anxious to see it take place.

This is not a uniquely Muslim problem. There are also radical Zionist Christians who also look forward to Armageddon as a “good thing.” They’ve only been waiting for it about 700 years longer than you have. They have expected it (according to their own prophecies) as imminent since immediately after the death of Jesus.

And they’ve been wrong for 2000 years.

When the US first invaded Iraq, it was easy to find in these forums Muslims crowing about how the Americans were going to be slaughtered by the tens of thousands in a short and victorious Muslim campaign. Their perspective was that this would happen at the intervention of Allah. And yet here we are three years later, American deaths are still less than 3,000, and Iraqi Muslims have instead turned their attention to slaughtering each other rather than the occupying army. The "magical thinking" that occurred at the commencement of the war has not quite panned out as expected.

This is also the risk you face by imagining that anything likely to occur in your lifetime will be a fulfillment of these "Islamic prophecies." How many times already have Muslims, someplace, somewhere, announced the appearance of the Mahdi and followed some guy to their deaths?

What makes you imagine that a Muslim incited world war would end any differently?

The fact that you cannot tell if the "big battle" will be in 10 years, or 100, or 10,000 should be your first clue that "prophecy" is iffy stuff, even for believers.

[Ibn Sina]

I'm gonna be knocking on Huxley's door when the Imam Mahdi is done with his business and be like "I told ya so!" :D

[THHuxley]

I'm gonna be knocking on Huxley's door when the Imam Mahdi is done with his business and be like "I told ya so!" :D
You keep thinking that if it makes you feel better.

In the meantime, while you are waiting for the mahdi, did you have anything substantive to contribute?

[Seven.sins]

Actually, (and I take no pleasure in saying this) that is and always has been the way of western warfare. Going back to the ancient Greeks, Europeans have always proven completely unforgiving in warfare, usually to the great peril of nations that have miscalculated Europe’s equally traditional slow response to aggression.

There are very good reasons why no external invader has ever been able to maintain a conquest on European soil, while Europeans have colonized (in many places permanently) so much of the rest of the globe. Some of it has to do with the accidents of geography that allowed Europeans to develop dominance in the areas of technology and economics (read Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel for the details). But as important a part is that when pushed to the point of feeling genuinely at risk, the European way of warfare is total.

It is no coincidence that the United States is the only nation in history to have actually used nuclear weapons against an enemy. But that is really only marginally different from WWII's carpet bombings of enemy cities in Europe, or fire bombing in Japan. The current "restraint" shown in low level conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan is only possible because the threat is a distant one, and not perceived to be on the doorstep of Europe. And Islamic terrorist attacks like 9/11 or the London and Madrid train bombings, while horrible, are largely considered only as threatening as any natural disaster. But opinions would quickly change were a Muslim army (of any serious capability) to attack across the Bosporus.

This unfortunate truth is something that previous attackers have regularly underestimated, and it appears that the Muslim warmongers in this thread are repeating that history. In the same way that Muslims complain that "Orientalists" do not really understand them, the non-Western world has always suffered from a pernicious "Occidentalism" that has served them poorly. Especially in those instances where a presumed "spiritual" or "moral superiority" has led to overconfidence in the inability of the "soft and decadent West" to defend itself. The West has confounded that supercilious perspective every single time. Even when it looked (at first) that there was no chance to do so.

So yes, pay very close attention to "the heavy dependence of the west on causing mass casualty events and holocost [sic]." Because in the event of a Muslim invasion of Europe, that is what you will most certainly face. So it should play a very big part of your calculus prior to invading.

Needless to say, it is disconcerting that the Muslim world depends do heavily on magical thinking rather than sober analysis when making military decisions. This is certainly worse among the Shi'a than the Sunni, given their ecstatic hope for the imminent return of the Mahdi, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s apparent desire to hasten his "return." Few ideas are more frightening than nuclear weapons in the hands of a man (Ahmadinejad) who is actually looking forward to Armageddon with such great apparent pleasure

But even among the Sunni, the trumping of pragmatic concerns by irrational and mystical emotion can be no better demonstrated than in places like Iraq where American casualties are a tiny fraction of the deaths caused by Muslim on Muslim violence. Any reasonable people with a serious political agenda would have held back on pursuing their internal sectarian pogroms until the US believed things were stable enough to get out and remove our troops. Instead, the Muslims in Iraq have proven to hate each other more than they hate the American invaders. And so they are consuming themselves rather than actually doing the things that would allow the Americans (who are desperately anxious to leave as soon as possible) to get out of there and go home.

This is the reason why no Westerner on this board takes seriously for a second the actual possibility of a combined Muslim army under the control of a reborn Caliphate to be a threat to Europe. You guys are not, as an Ummah, capable of the serious calculus of modern war.

You will continue, as you have ever since the day Muhammad died, to be primarily concerned with killing other Muslims, especially your best and your brightest. You will murder your own Caliphs rather than live in peace and prosperity. You will slaughter the grandchildren of your own prophet rather than compromise your personal power and interest. It is the zeitgeist of 7th Century Arabia that informs everything about the way Muslims think and behave. Your own tribes are too fractious to ever hang together long enough to again be a world economic, political, scientific and technical power. And these, after all, are the prerequisites of war.

There is not, and will never be an "Ummah." Your own culture will not allow it.

This is the reason that to a large extent people in the west are afraid of Islam, but we do not FEAR Islam. Islam is considered much the same way any natural disaster is considered: Earthquakes, hurricanes and tornados for example. We are certainly afraid of them but we do not FEAR them. The experience of an earthquake is terrifying, and the consequences can be severe, but we continue to move to California because we do not FEAR them. Instead we accept them as just one more risk in a world full of risks. We also continue to build homes on the Gulf Coast and live in trailer parks in Indiana.

In this same way, we take seriously radical Islam’s ability to generate frothing “martyrs” who will kill, destroy and obstruct. We are certainly afraid of the next atrocity that will kill our wives, our brothers and our children. But we do not fear Islam as a challenge to our culture, or values, or way of life. We do not fear Islam as a threat to our freedom, or our political institutions, or our economy. These are all things that Islam is impotent to change.

And we certainly do not fear the rise of a Muslim Caliphate. You guys had your chance there and blew it.

The future belongs to others.



:D Good post, although I do not agree with some parts . Was gonna rep you for that but I think I cant do that till my reps get positive...bit of a nightmare, the political situations in those countries :(

[Z-Blade]

The future belongs to others.

On the contrary, The Future is for Islam (http://www.geocities.com/muslimapocalyptic/future_is_for_islam.htm)