This ties in wonderfully with an article I was just reading. The quote was referring to the recent US penchant for attributing Islamist thinking to Iranian funding (rather than the Saudi's who do a lot more of it):

It made me chuckle [img]smile.gif[/img]

Azred: Does a PM count as private? [img]graemlins/angel.gif[/img] If no, can you reveal whether its slightly more sensible than the 'nuke the 100 largest Muslim cities' idea?

<font color = lightgreen>Yes. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img] </font>

<font color = lightgreen>Whoever came up with the "nuke the largest 100 Muslim cities" have to walk around with only a loincloth and a sign saying "I am stupid, pity me".
Yes, I am much more reasonable than that. Nuking cities in desert regions would send tons of radioactive dust into the stratosphere; this, of course, is not a good thing.</font>

Well thanks a lot! I just laughed so much at your reason that I had a coughing fit! [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

[ 05-31-2005, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

Not folowing my logic, in which the key to the struggle is ideology. In this case they are bnot ideologically oppossed and have clear objectives. Islamic terrorist see the US as a direct threat to their way of life, and vice vera, as with the USSR and the USA. Only with the elimintation of the powerbase of one ideology would the hypothetical conflict end. As islamic extremism does not have this clear base, and attempts to destroy it country by country would ahve the effect of strengthing support for the extremists, the USA is more likely to colapse than the extremists.

I don't believe that their will be a World conflict again in the same way, warfare has changed once again, in the same way there are no longer frequent conflict between several rival European powers. I am not saying there shall not be conflict, but I believe it will take a new shape, one which i cannot predict.

<font color = lightgreen>Yes. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img] </font>

Quote:

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: If no, can you reveal whether its slightly more sensible than the 'nuke the 100 largest Muslim cities' idea?

<font color = lightgreen>Whoever came up with the "nuke the largest 100 Muslim cities" have to walk around with only a loincloth and a sign saying "I am stupid, pity me".
Yes, I am much more reasonable than that. Nuking cities in desert regions would send tons of radioactive dust into the stratosphere; this, of course, is not a good thing.</font> </font>[/QUOTE]I got a solution!!! There is now a conventional bomb with the power of a nuclear device, not sure which type though. We could use this, then no nasty fallout :D . And we could all...ummm...wear gas masks and use an umbrella for a while, a sweep the dust up after. Yeah...that would work.

[ 05-31-2005, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: Aragorn1 ]

Given that population increase, the number of deaths likely to arise from a 'conventional' world war would have no significant impact on the world population, and would therefore be entirely ineffective at addressing the population crisis facing the world.

For a war to have a noticeable impact on the world population, you would need a monstrous nuclear/biological/whatever holocaust to wipe out a few billion people

<font color = lightgreen>You must mean those ridiculously-named MOABs. Yes, they are more powerful than the slightly older BLU-25s and have explosive capacaties in the kiloton range. Still nasty, but definitely non-radioactive.

**********

I still disagree with the assessment that terrorists will defeat a nation. That has never happened in the history of the world...well, with the exception of the Hashishim (the Assassins) toppling the Selmud (?) dynasty.
Anyway, there aren't many old terrorists, and I doubt that the middle-aged ones can continue to recruit impressionable youngsters in numbers sufficient to carry on the struggle in the years to come. After a while, no one will want to listen to anything they have to say, especially since recent developments show that some "Islamic" terrorists think it is okay to kill Muslims who ally with Westerners. They will cut themselves off from their own supporters with an attitude like that.</font>

I have to agree. Terrorism, after all, kills a very very small number of people in the grand scheme of things. The notion that it could ever bring down a government like Britain or the US is implausable IMO.

Having watched some Chechen jihadi recruiting videos though I'm thinking we're very lucky that terrorism in the Middle-East is so comparatively primitive!

Nothing breeds radical Islam as much as a lack of political expression - in country after country within the last 30 years you see clampdowns followed within a couple of years by the rapid ascent of Islamism. Give it 50 years for a modicum of political freedom to exist in the Middle-East and it will lose its momentum.

[ 06-01-2005, 04:19 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

Hasn't happened in China, when was the last time you heard about muslim fanatics attacking the part of Kashmir that China owns, or of radical Islam in China, they clamp the vise down so hard that there is NO wiggle room for them to develope their particular brand of loathing for all things non-islamic (or at the very least they are so busy trying to survive their oppression that dying in jihad is a non-issue).

Ah, well I'm a Middle-East man, can't say I've looked much at the Chinese Muslim issue. They do get treated like crap there though, and if I'm not mistaken they have their own brand of Chinese Islam which has been suitably modified by the state.

For details of Islamic extremists from China, see here for a random example.

Frontline also have a video report on the Uigher Muslim's that you can watch here.

[ 06-01-2005, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]