Is the War on Terror World War III

E

exile

Guest
What does this question have to do with religion? MAYBE nothing. I just thought it was a good question. NATO is a conglomerate of nations and the majority terrorists come from a conglomerate of Muslim nations so does that make the "War on Terror" WWIII? What makes a World War a World War?
 
What does this question have to do with religion? MAYBE nothing. I just thought it was a good question. NATO is a conglomerate of nations and the majority terrorists come from a conglomerate of Muslim nations so does that make the "War on Terror" WWIII? What makes a World War a World War?

Just my off hand reaction... A World War is just that... You had nations fighting over wide geographic areas...like eastern europe..western europe, northern africa..the pacific theatre...etc.

We haven't really seen anything like that since the end of WWII involving millions of soldiers and staggering death tolls... we're talking in the millions.

Yes ... there is chaos in various parts of the world and more international cooperation is needed to address these areas but it's nothing like a major world war in my view.

Most religions have prophecies about wars and rumors of wars and an era of peace and stability where "the swords can be beaten into ploughshares"..and that's good! We need a more optimistic approach to the future of humanity rather than a negative pessimism.

:)
 
read this:

As of 7 October 2010, the 9th Anniversary of the US invasion of Afghanistan , the human cost of the Afghan War has been estimated as about 4.9 million violent deaths or non-violent avoidable deaths from Occupier-imposed deprivation. A detailed and documented Afghan War Human Cost Fact Sheet has been prepared to assist humane public discussion of the ongoing, US Alliance-imposed Afghan Holocaust and Afghan Genocide that has now reached the dimensions of the WW2 Jewish Holocaust (5-6 million dead, 1 in 6 dying from deprivation).-9th Anniversary of US Invasion of Afghanistan: 4.9 Million Afghans Dead

I can't get an exact number of the death toll in Afghanistan. The last estimate I heard was the the 5000 people died on 911 but the war has cost 3 million lives. Is this or is this not an Afghan hallocaust?
 
All wars even restricted ones are costly and at some costs many lives but over alll the recent confluicts are minor compared to the World Wars of the last century in my view...

Read this:

World Becoming Less Violent: Despite Global Conflict, Statistics Show Violence In Steady Decline

It's just that we take a more limited or general view depending...

and see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_the_War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)

According to these figures it's more in the tens of thousands rather than millions.
 
I don't think a WWIII is likely. Terrorism is not capable of conquering distant non-Muslim countries with modern high-tech armies, air power, and navies.

The struggle in the Middle East involved such high tech armies backed by Western Europe and mainly America. The victims of European Jewish invasion in Palestine, lacked the military potential to fight a real war. The Arab nations of 1947 were backward. Their armies were foot soldiers with small arms, camel and horse cavalry, very few tanks, and were easily crushed by the European Israelis whose education and technological supremacy backed by the vast power of America, made a war between armies impossible.

The only tool the repeatedly defeated Palestinians, Syrians, Jordanians, Egypt, and Lebanon had to attack the aggression was a guerrilla warfare that we call Terrorism.

Need I remind Americans, that Washington, Ethan Allen, George Rogers Clark, and American Revolutionaries fit the definition of terrorists if that word had been known 200 years ago.

Irish revolts and guerrilla attacks (IRA) were called Terrorists by the UK.

Spanish rebels using guerrilla warfare against Napoleon were terrorists. BTW Guerrilla Warfare came from the Spaniards meaning "Little War, warfare."

Freedom fighters against Ghaddafi in Libya who had the modern army were using guerrilla tactics (i.e. terrorists.)

Freedom fighters against Bashir Al Assad in Syria's modern Soviet Army use small arms and guerrilla tactics (Terrorists) because they have no tanks, planes, serious artillery, or ballistic missiles.

Chechnians oppressed by the Soviet and Russian huge military, have had to use Guerrilla Tactics (terrorism) against the Russians. They have no other choice than surrender.

Chinese peasants used guerrilla warfare against the Japanese Invasion of 1931-1945. They were terrorists by our modern definition.

The Muslim Nations are trying to recover from a century of European Colonialism. They cannot take on the modern high-tech armies of the USA, Israel, France, Britain, Spain, and Italy. That is not a formula for WWIII. It is how an unfair battle between powerful modern armies against simple citizen resistance fighters.

A War on Terror by the world superpowers, will not defeat the Arabs or other Muslims. It will just piss them off even more. Western victory can only be achieved by total genocide of Muslims. We don't want that.

I think the best way to fight terrorism is to remove the cause. The Cause is Western interference and military occupation of Muslim nations and backing of European Israeli High tech army.

We should remove all western military forces from the entire Middle East, and cease aid or excuses for Israeli atrocities. There would be no more reason to attack distant non-Muslim nations. I did not send European and North African Jews to invade Palestine. I feel no obligation to interfere.

Amergin
 
read this: 4.9 million terrorist deaths in Afghan War

is that true?
What was the pre-war population of Afghan?

Who is left alive in Afghan?

What is the population now?

Is this or is this not an Afghan hallocaust?

The Nazi Military did not fight Jews.

The aggressors neglected the military rules of civility & chivalry of yore.

The Jews were not given a fighting chance.

It was a secret operation to steal Jews rights to liberty and freedom ---criminal social-engineering cloaked by a conceited facist military agenda.
 
What does this question have to do with religion? MAYBE nothing. I just thought it was a good question. NATO is a conglomerate of nations and the majority terrorists come from a conglomerate of Muslim nations so does that make the "War on Terror" WWIII? What makes a World War a World War?


Once some close friend of albert einstine asked him " What do you think about third world war"??

Albert replied "WWII will never happen because before declairing it world war, there will be no world"


Wel.. in last 2500 years more than 5000 wars has happened in the name of religion, peace,democracy and justic. All credit goes to West world and Eslamic world. Hats off to the understanding of these two worlds. Japan tried this once and paid for this. Unfortunately these two will learn when there will be non to see.
 
Read the article exile posted closely... based on estimates, some of which are very, very questionable. The only really reliable census data comes from the UN--which is a "bogus source" according to the article. The estimates do not track with the Afghan government figures (again, a prejudiced source according to the article), which counts about 3,500 killes in 2011 and the vast majority of them killed by the insurgents.

The war (like all wars) is bad. However, the average loss of life and number od refugees since 1978 just has not gone up precipitously. A Holocaust it is not in terms of numbers or a percentage.
 
Amergin said:
The struggle in the Middle East involved such high tech armies backed by Western Europe and mainly America.
where's bob_x when we need him? honestly, amergin, your anti-israeli bias really is unencumbered by history. the americans didn't really start supporting the israelis until after 1967; most of what they had in 1948 had been bought army surplus and smuggled in via places like south america. haven't you heard of the british blockade? of "bevingrad"? the british were not remotely keen on jewish refugees heading to palestine. try reading something other than chomsky, why don't you?

The victims of European Jewish invasion in Palestine, lacked the military potential to fight a real war. The Arab nations of 1947 were backward. Their armies were foot soldiers with small arms, camel and horse cavalry, very few tanks, and were easily crushed by the European Israelis whose education and technological supremacy backed by the vast power of America, made a war between armies impossible.
i can't even begin to make a connection between this tendentious nonsense and the actual military facts. there was a UN arms embargo and most arab arms had to come through britain. strategically, it's quite simple. the arab armies mostly had extended supply lines and were expecting an easy victory against people for whom they had contempt. the israelis simply refused to budge; their backs were to the sea and there was no option to surrender or fall back. they were not prepared to go meekly into a second genocide in ten years. as for the continuous canard of "european jewish invasion" - there was already a significant jewish presence in the 1930s (which "caused" anti-jewish pogroms, might i add) and at least half the eventual israeli population came not only from europe but from north africa and the middle east. ever heard of the "farhud", amergin? my family's from iraq and kurdistan. perhaps you think my israeli cousins are "european invaders"? perhaps you'd like to explain to them why they should have ignored the visit from the mukhabarat (secret police) on friday night explaining that they had one hour to leave - after 2,500 years? get your head out of the propaganda.

The only tool the repeatedly defeated Palestinians, Syrians, Jordanians, Egypt, and Lebanon had to attack the aggression was a guerrilla warfare that we call Terrorism.
oh, really? what about PEACE NEGOTIATIONS? what about agreeing to the partition plan of 1947? they could have done that, i think. what about integrating the palestinian refugees into their populations instead of keeping their "brothers" (hah!) in refugee camps for 60 years? perhaps you think that the east prussian refugees should all be sitting in refugee camps in germany waiting to return to poland? perhaps you think that all the turkish armenians should be doing the same? and the greek cypriots from northern cyprus? and the pakistani refugees from the 1948 partition? and the indian refugees from the 1948 partition? it only seems to be the palestinians that thought they could turn the clock back and get back by terror what they lost in battle. everyone else has been able to recognise a lost cause when they see one.

i simply cannot understand the lack of proportion of people like you.

bananabrain
 
I think the war dubbed 'war on terror' is war on the religion of Islam. Yes, there are extremists in the Arab that have hurt Muslims and non-Muslims alike. However, the war is on Islam. A world-wide crusade like Muslims have not seen! In the past, it used to be Christendom as the main enemy. Today, the Christendom has managed to unite with non-Christians as well in their crusade against Islam. One only has to look at the media to understand. The fight is about lands and material riches (like oil), but at the same time this fight is used to attack Islam. There is an invention that terror is islamic. A non-Muslim could commit acts of violence and his terror will not be titled with his religious beliefs. But, if it were a Muslim, then yes his acts of violence would be called "islamic."

Prophecy foretold about this. It is said that non-Muslims will gather to attack Muslims like hungry attack a table of food. And sure, we are seeing this...
 
Its more like rich vs. poor not Muslim vs. whomever. I think there is an awareness that nomadic culture is being driven out and replaced by technology, and this has all been accelerated by the appearance of fossil fuel powered engines. The people who benefit are the 'Ruling' class, and the people who don't are the 'Lower' class or 'Middle' class. Engines make it possible for a few people to harvest many hectares of land at a time, and this gives people lots of time to engage in other occupations than mere survival. It has made people harder to rule. The ruling class no longer has groveling slaves who are distracted from politics by toil. Instead they have to deal with a middle class that makes demands, and they have to invent distractions for them. The rulers devise various plots and arguments to keep people busy and distracted, and these include terrorism as well as propaganda about false external threats.
 
i can't even begin to make a connection between this tendentious nonsense and the actual military facts. there was a UN arms embargo and most arab arms had to come through britain. strategically, it's quite simple. the arab armies mostly had extended supply lines and were expecting an easy victory against people for whom they had contempt. the israelis simply refused to budge; their backs were to the sea and there was no option to surrender or fall back. they were not prepared to go meekly into a second genocide in ten years. as for the continuous canard of "european jewish invasion" - there was already a significant jewish presence in the 1930s (which "caused" anti-jewish pogroms, might i add) and at least half the eventual israeli population came not only from europe but from north africa and the middle east. ever heard of the "farhud", amergin? my family's from iraq and kurdistan. perhaps you think my israeli cousins are "european invaders"? perhaps you'd like to explain to them why they should have ignored the visit from the mukhabarat (secret police) on friday night explaining that they had one hour to leave - after 2,500 years? get your head out of the propaganda.


oh, really? what about PEACE NEGOTIATIONS? what about agreeing to the partition plan of 1947? they could have done that, i think. what about integrating the palestinian refugees into their populations instead of keeping their "brothers" (hah!) in refugee camps for 60 years? perhaps you think that the east prussian refugees should all be sitting in refugee camps in germany waiting to return to poland? perhaps you think that all the turkish armenians should be doing the same? and the greek cypriots from northern cyprus? and the pakistani refugees from the 1948 partition? and the indian refugees from the 1948 partition? it only seems to be the palestinians that thought they could turn the clock back and get back by terror what they lost in battle. everyone else has been able to recognise a lost cause when they see one.

i simply cannot understand the lack of proportion of people like you.

bananabrain

I have a perspective of extensive tours to the Middle East. I have the advantage of hearing both sides of the conflict. You Americans have been deprived of hearing the Palestinian, Arab, or Muslim sides of the issue. Your one sided propaganda, from largely pro-Zionist newspapers and TV barely mention when Israel bombs schools, civilian neighbourhoods, hospitals, and seaports in Gaza. Americans ignore the raids into Palestinian Palestine, the illegal Israeli settlements on traditional Palestinian lands, the bull dozing of Palestinian homes to make room for Jews. You are given only one side of this horrible tragedy. That makes you hampered in seeking justice.

I favour a One State Solution, in The Jordan Rift Democratic Republic. It can be divided into semi-autonomous states of Israel, Palestine, and Gaza and perhaps Golan. Its constitution could make it secular with equal rights for Jews, Muslims, Christian, and Non-Theists. Like Lebanon, the President could be Muslim, the Prime Minister Jewish, the Secretary of State Christian, and Secretary of Education and Science to an Atheist (Jewish or Arab.)

But that is fair, and both opposing sides want to destroy the other. Mike Mitchell worked hard to bring Catholics and Proddies to the table in Northern Ireland where I once served in the British Army in the Falls Road border separating Catholic and Proddy areas. It was sad. Catholics and Proddies all looked like my cousins. I was also in peace forces sent to enforce the Sinai border region and I was hated by both opponents.

Israelis and Palestinians are both polyglot groups. Neither is pure Semitic, not even the Jews. Palestinians and Jews who did not leave with the diaspora are as polyethnic as any on Earth. Put genetics aside. Like America, Israel-Palestine is a vast polyglot country like Austro-Hungarian Empire.

I admire the Jewish people for their superior intelligence and gift of scientific research. If America were smart, they would encourage Israel to be resettled in New Jersey. America would benefit, and Palestine would still be an ugly dust bowl mixed with lava rocks. Jersey has rich farmland, and an established Jewish American community. Having been to Palestine and New Jersey, I would pick Jersey in a snap. I am Scottish and part Irish with no ethnic affinities the Palestiians and Israelis. If Romney wins, he would approve giving half of New Jersey to form a new Country of Israel. I know that I as a non-Jew and non-Palestinian would rather live in New Jersey.

Amergin
 
Amergin said:
I have a perspective of extensive tours to the Middle East.
well, perhaps, but you don't have the perspective of a historian, nor (i suspect) are you old enough to comment on the social aspects of the post WWII refugee situation or to do a compare-and-contrast of forced population movements in, say, the last century which might force you to challenge what appear to me to be tremendously lazy generalisations which could be lifted straight from the "palestine solidarity" moron-fest. i have lived in the middle east and my time was not spent on tel aviv beach.

I have the advantage of hearing both sides of the conflict.
what makes you think i don't? i've been involved in interfaith dialogue and world music for nearly 20 years and know a large number of middle-easterners, jews, muslims, israelis, palestinians, arabs, turks, iranians, kurds, you name it.

You Americans have been deprived of hearing the Palestinian, Arab, or Muslim sides of the issue.
and here's lazy assumption #2, that nobody with my views could possibly be british, let alone a lifelong londoner living and working in a city with 20 times as many muslims as jews, that had to endure two terms of ken livingstone, let alone lazy assumption #3:

Your one sided propaganda, from largely pro-Zionist newspapers and TV
these would include the bbc, the guardian, the independent, haaretz, al-jazeera, asharq al-awsat, numerous respected middle-eastern blogs and of course the endless campaigns by tiresome preening actors, and cynical corrupt, dictator-sucking goons like the galloway mob and the rest of the "red-green alliance". i've watched fox news once - and turned it off within two minutes when all my suspicions were confirmed.

barely mention when Israel bombs schools, civilian neighbourhoods, hospitals, and seaports in Gaza. Americans ignore the raids into Palestinian Palestine, the illegal Israeli settlements on traditional Palestinian lands, the bull dozing of Palestinian homes to make room for Jews. You are given only one side of this horrible tragedy.
here in the UK you hear about little else - yet 17,000 people have been killed in syria...where are the marches, amergin? where are the boycotts? where are the calls for sanctions and divestment? where are the demonstrations outside syrian-owned businesses and properties? nobody cares, because everyone knows that Jews Make News. i am in regular contact with dear friends of mine who live in damascus (a palestinian family who do not share your views, although they are 1948 refugees who would be entitled to them, but are too smart to be that stupid) and let me tell you that situation is far more serious than the situation in gaza, which is now largely the result of the willingness of the hamas regime to use its own people as hostages to their unreality.

I favour a One State Solution, in The Jordan Rift Democratic Republic. It can be divided into semi-autonomous states of Israel, Palestine, and Gaza and perhaps Golan.
in the long-term, i agree that a federation will probably be the best solution. in the meantime, for immediate benefits i suggest the ray hanania plan is the most workable and notable for its inclusion of the issue of the jewish refugees from iraq, iran, egypt, syria, lebanon and elsewhere, whose assets were confiscated by the states of which they were citizens, as well as that of the palestinian refugees. i'm sure you'd wish to be properly even-handed.

Its constitution could make it secular with equal rights for Jews, Muslims, Christian, and Non-Theists. Like Lebanon, the President could be Muslim, the Prime Minister Jewish, the Secretary of State Christian, and Secretary of Education and Science to an Atheist (Jewish or Arab.)
seriously, you're giving lebanon as a good example? you must be mad. this is nothing but tribalism writ large; that's not a liberal democracy, it's the eurovision song contest scoring. israel is *already* run like that, by people who are voted for because of who they are, not what they stand for - and look what a mess its political system is in.

But that is fair, and both opposing sides want to destroy the other.
i'm sorry, but that is quite simply untrue. i dare say you objected to "operation cast lead". but the fact is, if you know anything about the military situation you will know that the idf could have levelled the place and killed everyone and everything. instead, less than 1500 casualties - TEN TIMES less than the syrian number which "isn't even a civil war", apparently. are you seriously suggesting that if that had been hamas's army and jews in gaza, the situation would have been the same? "kill the jews" is WRITTEN INTO THEIR CONSTITUTION - and israel WITHDREW from gaza in the first place, supposedly in exchange for a reduction in hostilities - are you suggesting that thousands of rockets fired over what is now an international border should simply be ignored? are you familiar with the work of col richard kemp, by the way? if you have a professional military background, i'd be interested in what you think of his conclusions about the behaviour of the idf.

Mike Mitchell worked hard to bring Catholics and Proddies to the table in Northern Ireland where I once served in the British Army in the Falls Road border separating Catholic and Proddy areas. It was sad. Catholics and Proddies all looked like my cousins. I was also in peace forces sent to enforce the Sinai border region and I was hated by both opponents.
i have family connections in northern ireland and the republic and the highest respect for the professionalism of the british army, but i'm afraid i cannot say the same for many of the un "peace missions", mostly because they clearly don't work. i would be interested in your opinions of the work of gen rupert smith, which is a mordant critique of the effectiveness of multinational peacekeeping, based on his experience of having been in charge in 1992 during srebrenica, as well as the work of the eminent israeli military historian martin van creveld, which i'm sure you've read.

Israelis and Palestinians are both polyglot groups. Neither is pure Semitic, not even the Jews.
neither is remotely "semitic", because "semitic" relates to linguistics, not to ethnicity.

Palestinians and Jews who did not leave with the diaspora are as polyethnic as any on Earth. Put genetics aside. Like America, Israel-Palestine is a vast polyglot country like Austro-Hungarian Empire.
er.... yes, but society is about value systems and each state has an issue with conflicting value systems. you may have heard the remark by the historian bernard lewis about how israeli society is in conflict between the jews of christendom and the jews of islam...

I admire the Jewish people for their superior intelligence and gift of scientific research.
the palestinian diaspora are some of the brightest people there are; tremendous entrepreneurs and many eminent scientists; take them out of the sclerotic and backward middle eastern science base and you realise that when they start returning to the middle east then you will have the basis of a solution, but they won't as long as the beardy nutballs and dictators are in charge. jews do not have superior intelligence, but what we do have is a culture based on lifelong learning and peer-review.

If America were smart, they would encourage Israel to be resettled in New Jersey.
really? so my middle-eastern relatives, who've never set foot in europe (like the ancestors of 50% of israeli jews, remember) would have prayed for a return to new jersey three times daily for 2,000 years? i never realised!

Jersey has rich farmland, and an established Jewish American community. Having been to Palestine and New Jersey, I would pick Jersey in a snap.
you know, the zionists were offered land in uganda and south america at various point. why do you think they didn't go for that? do you really understand so little about jews?

I am Scottish and part Irish with no ethnic affinities the Palestiians and Israelis. If Romney wins, he would approve giving half of New Jersey to form a new Country of Israel. I know that I as a non-Jew and non-Palestinian would rather live in New Jersey.
and because you are a non-jew and a non-palestinian that is why you think that way. if you had the choice of living in new jersey, or returning to a renascent celtic homeland that you had been dreaming of for centuries, i wonder, would you take the money?

America would benefit, and Palestine would still be an ugly dust bowl mixed with lava rocks.
you see, this is what it comes down to. it's what is called "the racism of lower expectation". you think jews are "white" (which my family are not, incidentally) and therefore should be held to the standards of western europe and its vogue for human rights (which is pretty darn recent given the behaviour of western europeans in the last couple of millennia) whereas you think palestinians are not and therefore can't be expected to behave like civilised human beings. it offends you that jews in a survival situation have recourse to the military, not to lawyers, but apparently it doesn't offend you that, for example, in the palestinian authority the sale of land to a jew is carries the death penalty. do you think that the nascent state of palestine when (and not if) it is established should have jewish citizens, let alone with full civil rights? because, i can assure you, that is not a popular position in palestinian politics. so don't you preach to me; i am fully conversant with all the stuff you object to and much of it i object to myself, in my own way, from within my community, which is much more powerful and effective than the "soft racism" of the so-called progressive".

bananabrain
 
Back
Top