Go to The Fine Art Of Subjective Fence Building
- Add a comment
- Go to Could We Be At The Threshold Of World War III?
It is hard to imagine a flashpoint where all Muslims begin a jihad, nor do
I even begin to entertain the thought. However, I have no problem foreseeing an escalation over the years of terrorist activities and, if regimes and current policies and politics aren't somehow altered in many areas of the Muslim world, a more unified Muslim agenda. Even if that is curtailed, and let's hope that it is -- more from internal restraint than by outside sanctions and force, there is definitely more than a chance that an extemist regime will someday employ nuclear weapons. And in this scenario, Dennison, nobody wins, except that maybe a limited exchange will show the world just how important non-proliteration really is and do everything to circumvent another such episode. And you are right; these events may not come to pass in my lifetime, but I'd rather they didn't come to pass at all.
posted by
saul_relative
on February 8, 2006 at 9:59 AM
| link to this | reply
Well, Saul....
If you're not wrong then you'll likely be dead before any of what you foresee actually transpires. Not all Muslims wish to bring the entire world to Islam...and not all Muslims regard violence as the answer to their problems. Some wealthy Muslims, as a matter of fact, rather enjoy the peace and stability that protects their money. As long as those Muslims exist, I doubt that we'll see an armed, unified Muslim front capable of waging a protracted war of attrition with the west or even responding after the initial nuclear exchange.
Time will tell but I'm certainly not living in fear. If I were living in Tehran, I'd be more afraid that my government might be tempted to do something really asinine.
DM
posted by
Dennison..Mann
on February 8, 2006 at 5:02 AM
| link to this | reply
That is a fair assessment, Dennison. And I agree to a certain extent. But
the only thing saving the West now is the fact that Islamic nations are so factional and that they are basically disorganized and without extensive weapons of mass destruction systems. With the current spread of extreme Islam and its being taught in more and more schools, the idea of jihad to protect the existing -- and further extend -- the ummah (community) of Islam is becoming secondary only to a Muslim's subservience to Allah. This could take decades or centuries; Islam can be a patient religion. But the scattered brushfires of a beginning worldwide offensive may be in its first stages already. I just hope that I'm wrong.
posted by
saul_relative
on February 7, 2006 at 11:10 PM
| link to this | reply
One Significant Difference...
Islam does not possess the military might to gain and hold territory. We might witness the planet's first nuclear exchange between Muslim capitals and western capitals but Islam cannot sustain that exchange. What's more, they'd risk mass suicide by inviting such an exchange since the west would respond with overwhelming firepower beyond any Muslim's best militant dream.
What's more, Islam doesn't have a manifest destiny for world domination outside of winning converts. Any attempt to forcibly spread Islam across the globe would result in more resistance. That resistance would pose an unsolvable problem for Islam and immediately quell any attempt at world domination.
DM
posted by
Dennison..Mann
on February 7, 2006 at 5:59 PM
| link to this | reply
This is true, M.P.O. However, divergencies can become unified if the cause
is deemed worthwhile. Look at the Soviet Union and the United States alliance during WWII. It can happen, and with religious fervor as a unifying theme, it can be far more dangerous. Given the right circumstances, Islamic Leagues and mutual defense pacts can coalesce where once there was none. Even as unorganized as the Arab/Islamic world is at present, it is nothing for nations to come together, especially with today's communications systems. With enough popular momentum, they may do just that.
posted by
saul_relative
on February 6, 2006 at 12:44 PM
| link to this | reply
But, my point was...
the "Muslim World" is neither organized nor (necessarily) unified in it's goals.
Therefore, it is not simply "The Christian West" vs. "The Muslim World" ... multiple shades of gray exist.
You can fool too many of the people too much of the time.
posted by
Mademoiselle
on February 6, 2006 at 11:47 AM
| link to this | reply
This is already a quasi-disorganized type of world war, M.P.O. It
requires thinking about the subject in a different way. At the moment, we have the Christian West against the Muslim world. Liken the unrest and the terrorist incidents to, say, the small patches of resistance in the American colonies before the organization of the Continental Army. Let's just hope that the colonies in this case (Muslim nations) don't form an organized army.
posted by
saul_relative
on February 6, 2006 at 11:40 AM
| link to this | reply
I'm really hoping for a foul tip on this one, MountainClimber.
posted by
saul_relative
on February 6, 2006 at 11:36 AM
| link to this | reply
To have another "World War" ...
would require multiple military powers working cohesively (ala Germany, Italy & Japan).
What you describe sounds more like "World Chaos".
Failing to prepare
Is preparing to fail.
posted by
Mademoiselle
on February 6, 2006 at 11:29 AM
| link to this | reply
Saul Relative, While Americans watched a less than super
Super Bowl, there was growing this unrest you mentioned. One wonders how close we are to World War III, and as you know Three strikes and we are out!
posted by
MountainClimber57
on February 6, 2006 at 11:20 AM
| link to this | reply