WWIII

[JerrySeinfeld]

6 months ago last time I was on this thing I was railroaded and shunned for stating the obvious: We were headed for WWIII: Islamofascists and their "friends" versus Democratic states that have balls enough to stand up to them.

Now, 6 months later it's unfolding. I hate to say I told u so, but who can dispute this now?

[Riverwind]

Now, 6 months later it's unfolding. I hate to say I told u so, but who can dispute this now?

There will never be a WWIII because the modern global economy is too interdependent and the big players could never keep up a war with each other for very long. We will, of course, see small regional conflicts but that is a nothing new. Even the economies of Saudi Arabia and Iran would be reduced to nothing the second they stopped selling oil as fast as they can to the rest of the world.

[Charles Anthony]

Before World War One was labelled as such, it was called the War To End All Wars.

Calling us in World War Three makes sense except that it would be wiser to just accept that we will perpetually be at war.

[Michael Hardner]

Now, 6 months later it's unfolding. I hate to say I told u so, but who can dispute this now?

Your argument might have been a little more compelling if you could have submitted it before the ceasefire.

Personally, I find it a little too coincidental that the leader of Hamas was making overtures towards peace before this whole thing flared up again. If Hamas and Fatah both acknowledge the right of Israel to exist, then that's one less hot button for a lot of governments in the region to use to fire up their people when they want to distract them from other issues.

It's just a theory, though.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Now, 6 months later it's unfolding. I hate to say I told u so, but who can dispute this now?

Your argument might have been a little more compelling if you could have submitted it before the ceasefire.

Personally, I find it a little too coincidental that the leader of Hamas was making overtures towards peace before this whole thing flared up again. If Hamas and Fatah both acknowledge the right of Israel to exist, then that's one less hot button for a lot of governments in the region to use to fire up their people when they want to distract them from other issues.

It's just a theory, though.

Ceasefire - oh you mean pause before a bigger storm?

Did anyone catch Ahmedinejad on 60 minutes? Besides the way he rolled the unprepared Wallace, couldn't u see the purest of evil on those eyes? This guy is wacked. He, nor most of his shia followers are not afraid to die in the name of destroying the west and creating a worldwide domination by Islamofascism.

58,000 suicide bombers waiting for the go signal worldwide.

When these guys say "Islamic Republic" they mean it. And the creepiest part is how "gentle" and "peaceful" they try to come off ass. It's scary sh*t.

[jdobbin]

Now, 6 months later it's unfolding. I hate to say I told u so, but who can dispute this now?

What have you been doing to prepare for the war?

[Riverwind]

When these guys say "Islamic Republic" they mean it. And the creepiest part is how "gentle" and "peaceful" they try to come off ass. It's scary sh*t.

The "Islamic" world consists of a huge number of diverse cultures that have no interest in a political union. When you look at the near civil war in Iraq it is clear that even Arab Muslims could never get together and create a larger state. Calls for an "Islamic Republic" are empty gesters intended to shore up political support among their populations. They will never be more that that. Taking them seriously is a waste of time and energy.

[Black Dog]

I thought the Cold War was World War III in winger land?

[JerrySeinfeld]

When these guys say "Islamic Republic" they mean it. And the creepiest part is how "gentle" and "peaceful" they try to come off ass. It's scary sh*t.

The "Islamic" world consists of a huge number of diverse cultures that have no interest in a political union. When you look at the near civil war in Iraq it is clear that even Arab Muslims could never get together and create a larger state. Calls for an "Islamic Republic" are empty gesters intended to shore up political support among their populations. They will never be more that that. Taking them seriously is a waste of time and energy.

So old fashioned are your comments. "Larger state"? They have no interest.

Flags and olympic teams are such a distraction and mundane when you can hijack governments internally.

DId you know the English flag is no longer flown over prisons in England - too offensive for muslims.

Or as the Danish cartoon protester in Toronto said "we won't stop until the world obeys Islamic law"

[Riverwind]

Or as the Danish cartoon protester in Toronto said "we won't stop until the world obeys Islamic law"

Then they will never stop. Such statements by Islamic radicals cannot be taken seriously. The most successful "attack" to date killed a mere 3000 people - more people die from traffic accidents than from terrorist attacks. The Islamic radicals are mosquitoes that can never do anything more than annoy the billions of non-muslims and moderate muslims that control the societies they live in. Even a nuclear blast that killed millions would never bring about Islamic law - it would more likely trigger a genocide that would result in a world with a lot fewer Muslims.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Or as the Danish cartoon protester in Toronto said "we won't stop until the world obeys Islamic law"

Then they will never stop. Such statements by Islamic radicals cannot be taken seriously. The most successful "attack" to date killed a mere 3000 people - more people die from traffic accidents than from terrorist attacks. The Islamic radicals are mosquitoes that can never do anything more than annoy the billions of non-muslims and moderate muslims that control the societies they live in. Even a nuclear blast that killed millions would never bring about Islamic law, however, it would likely trigger a genocide that would result in a world with a lot fewer Muslims.

Keep telling yourself that.

Meanwhile the Muslim suburbs in Paris and Copenhagen and Britain swell.

Euro-descent birthrates are miniscule and Europe's been importing un-integrated Muslim populations en masse.

Why blow up parlaiments when they're gonna own them in 50 years. They've already eliminated free speech (danish cartoons) - what is next?

[Charles Anthony]

Meanwhile the Muslim suburbs in Paris and Copenhagen and Britain swell.

Euro-descent birthrates are miniscule and Europe's been importing un-integrated Muslim populations en masse.

Are ALL muslims "Islamofascists" in your eyes? Is that part of your rant?

[KrustyKidd]

Then they will never stop. Such statements by Islamic radicals cannot be taken seriously. The most successful "attack" to date killed a mere 3000 people - more people die from traffic accidents than from terrorist attacks. The Islamic radicals are mosquitoes that can never do anything more than annoy the billions of non-muslims and moderate muslims that control the societies they live in.

That attack was intended to garner a response rather than kill people as an end result. The response was hoped to bring about a unification of Muslims against a western threat. The end result was that unification.

The terrorist activities around the world are designed to unbalance weak governments by proving them defenceless aginst their power. Then, a group with Islamic and conservative Sunni values can take over and recreate the Caliphate. Once together they can then concentrate on the rest of the world.

There is no war against the west at the moment nor is there likely to be one within the next twenty years. Anything you see in the west is designed to get a backlash that will strengthen their position. A position that is threatened by democracy in Arab and Islamic countries such as Iraq. Hence the energy expended there by Islamists.

[Michael Hardner]

Jerry S:

DId you know the English flag is no longer flown over prisons in England - too offensive for muslims.

I couldn't believe this, so I slipped into a comfortable Google search and found it to be incorrect.

News Article

It wasn't the flag - it was a tiepin worn by prison guards. It was removed because the flag has been associated with the far right in England. The decision was made by a prison official, it seems, and is apparently opposed by the home secretary.

[Michael Hardner]

I concur with the posters above. War against the west isn't possible.

Keep telling yourself that.

Meanwhile the Muslim suburbs in Paris and Copenhagen and Britain swell.

Euro-descent birthrates are miniscule and Europe's been importing un-integrated Muslim populations en masse.

Why blow up parlaiments when they're gonna own them in 50 years. They've already eliminated free speech (danish cartoons) - what is next?

Jerry, from the tone of your posts it seems that we're already defeated.

Do you not think there are moderate Muslims among us that are every bit a part of our community as we are ?

[JerrySeinfeld]

I concur with the posters above. War against the west isn't possible.

Keep telling yourself that.

Meanwhile the Muslim suburbs in Paris and Copenhagen and Britain swell.

Euro-descent birthrates are miniscule and Europe's been importing un-integrated Muslim populations en masse.

Why blow up parlaiments when they're gonna own them in 50 years. They've already eliminated free speech (danish cartoons) - what is next?

Jerry, from the tone of your posts it seems that we're already defeated.

Do you not think there are moderate Muslims among us that are every bit a part of our community as we are ?

Yes I do think there are "moderate" muslims. But even they are far too defensive of the militant Muslim posture. Example: after the arrests in London recently, saw an interview with a Muslim MP in england. She was ranting about how this potenial tragedy was another good example of why Brtain's foreign policy must be changed. Regardless of what you think of Britain's foreign policy, that's a ridiculous proposition. She's basically saying "terrorim works".

And what good are moderates if they acquiesce (sp?) to the more militant factions? I don't see a massive division in the Islamic faith between moderates and militants. Why? Perhaps fear? I'm not sure but the "moderates" often come off as unapologetic and accusatory (intolerance) rather than publically questioning those in their faith that are hot for jihad.

Think about it. Shouldn't the moderates be doing everything they can to distance themselves from the militants? Everything they can to speak out at every turn against terrorism? That's not what I am seeing. What I am seeing is 10,000 Arabs in dearborn michigan waving HEZBOLLAH flags. What I am seeing is Danish cartoon protesters in Toronto stating "we will not stop until the world obey's Islamic Law".

Remember the holocaust (I know the pres. of Iran denies itm but most don't). Sure, not all germans were Nazi war criminals, most were basic, normal MODERATE people. But alot of good that did the jews.

If the moderates don't avidly fight against the militants within, then they are part of the proble - just like the Germans.

[Black Dog]

There is no war against the west at the moment nor is there likely to be one within the next twenty years. Anything you see in the west is designed to get a backlash that will strengthen their position. A position that is threatened by democracy in Arab and Islamic countries such as Iraq. Hence the energy expended there by Islamists.

The problem with Iraq isn't the Islamists, its the sectarian rivalires that have been brewing for centuries. Otherwise, though you're on the right track. And of course, since inading Iraq and continuing to suport Israel unconditionally have arguably strengthened the hand of the Islamist movement (such as it is: according to our resident comedian, the threat is Shia, not Sunni), then the kind of policies Jerry is calling for will be self-defeating.

[Michael Hardner]

Jerry,

Think about it. Shouldn't the moderates be doing everything they can to distance themselves from the militants? Everything they can to speak out at every turn against terrorism? That's not what I am seeing. What I am seeing is 10,000 Arabs in dearborn michigan waving HEZBOLLAH flags. What I am seeing is Danish cartoon protesters in Toronto stating "we will not stop until the world obey's Islamic Law".

I have read statements from Canadian moslem organizations and leaders that condemn terrorism, so I would say that is distancing themselves from the militants. 10,000 Arabs were not all waving Hezbollah flags were they ? Or was it a few in a crowd of 10,000. And your last sentence doesn't speak to the point.

All of this contributes to a general alarmist sentiment that doesn't help us with a plan to deal with things - it just makes us perpetually nervous.

[JerrySeinfeld]

There is no war against the west at the moment nor is there likely to be one within the next twenty years. Anything you see in the west is designed to get a backlash that will strengthen their position. A position that is threatened by democracy in Arab and Islamic countries such as Iraq. Hence the energy expended there by Islamists.

The problem with Iraq isn't the Islamists, its the sectarian rivalires that have been brewing for centuries. Otherwise, though you're on the right track. And of course, since inading Iraq and continuing to suport Israel unconditionally have arguably strengthened the hand of the Islamist movement (such as it is: according to our resident comedian, the threat is Shia, not Sunni), then the kind of policies Jerry is calling for will be self-defeating.

It's such a typical and wrgonheaded argument - that Islamofascists only exist and are strengthened by Western foreign policy. It's pure BS. This is a movement that's been brewing and will continue to brew regardless of western foreign policy.

The old saying "if you're pissing people off you must be doing something right" applies here. Pan Islamism has been creeping for decades. Think of the Fatwa against Salmon Rushdie - basically multinational bountry placed on the head of a writer by the leader of the global Islamic republic - ie IRAN.

Just a strong an argument could be made that what has REALLY been strengthening the pan islamic position is not western foreign policy, but rather western squeemishness in the face of war or casualties. Squeemishness and a failed multicultural policy that favours tolerance above all else - even tolerance of those groups that are INTOLERANT of us - namely the Islamofascists who see tolerance and sensitivity in western democracies as a sign of weakness and an opportunity to move in.

[Black Dog]

It's such a typical and wrgonheaded argument - that Islamofascists only exist and are strengthened by Western foreign policy. It's pure BS. This is a movement that's been brewing and will continue to brew regardless of western foreign policy.

Western foreign poliecs vis a vis the Middle East are behind the rising tide of radical Islam. Now, radical Muslim organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood existed before those policies really took hold in the post-colonial era, but western policies (open-ended support for Israel, supression of nominally secular natuionalist movements, support for brutal dictatorships etc etc) threw gas on the fire. Ahistorical attempts to de-link the two are, frankly, stupid.

The old saying "if you're pissing people off you must be doing something right" applies here. Pan Islamism has been creeping for decades. Think of the Fatwa against Salmon Rushdie - basically multinational bountry placed on the head of a writer by the leader of the global Islamic republic - ie IRAN

Uh...if the past 60 years of pissing of the radical Muslims is "doing something right" why are you running around squawking about "World War III"?

Just a strong an argument could be made that what has REALLY been strengthening the pan islamic position is not western foreign policy, but rather western squeemishness in the face of war or casualties. Squeemishness and a failed multicultural policy that favours tolerance above all else - even tolerance of those groups that are INTOLERANT of us - namely the Islamofascists who see tolerance and sensitivity in western democracies as a sign of weakness and an opportunity to move in.

Western democracies have been anything but squeamish in executing their policies. Through their proxy regimes they are responsible for the deaths or hundreds of thousands, the torture of dissidents, coups, massacres and all manner of atrocities committed in the name of stability (in and of itself, not a bad goal) and for the benefit of western democracies in mind. Ignoring 60 years of that and laying blame at the door of multicultral policies that have been around for all of 25 years is missing the forest for the trees.

[Riverwind]

Squeemishness and a failed multicultural policy that favours tolerance above all else - even tolerance of those groups that are INTOLERANT of us - namely the Islamofascists who see tolerance and sensitivity in western democracies as a sign of weakness and an opportunity to move in.

Actually, countries like Canada and the US which accept Muslim immigrants the way they are and do not expect them to completely assimilate into the majority culture have fewer problems with Muslim extremism. Ultimately, the tolerance and sensitivity of democracies will win the war of ideas in the long run because moderate Muslims will see through the empty rhetoric of the extremists.

[JerrySeinfeld]

It's such a typical and wrgonheaded argument - that Islamofascists only exist and are strengthened by Western foreign policy. It's pure BS. This is a movement that's been brewing and will continue to brew regardless of western foreign policy.

Western foreign poliecs vis a vis the Middle East are behind the rising tide of radical Islam. Now, radical Muslim organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood existed before those policies really took hold in the post-colonial era, but western policies (open-ended support for Israel, supression of nominally secular natuionalist movements, support for brutal dictatorships etc etc) threw gas on the fire. Ahistorical attempts to de-link the two are, frankly, stupid.

The old saying "if you're pissing people off you must be doing something right" applies here. Pan Islamism has been creeping for decades. Think of the Fatwa against Salmon Rushdie - basically multinational bountry placed on the head of a writer by the leader of the global Islamic republic - ie IRAN

Uh...if the past 60 years of pissing of the radical Muslims is "doing something right" why are you running around squawking about "World War III"?

Just a strong an argument could be made that what has REALLY been strengthening the pan islamic position is not western foreign policy, but rather western squeemishness in the face of war or casualties. Squeemishness and a failed multicultural policy that favours tolerance above all else - even tolerance of those groups that are INTOLERANT of us - namely the Islamofascists who see tolerance and sensitivity in western democracies as a sign of weakness and an opportunity to move in.

Western democracies have been anything but squeamish in executing their policies. Through their proxy regimes they are responsible for the deaths or hundreds of thousands, the torture of dissidents, coups, massacres and all manner of atrocities committed in the name of stability (in and of itself, not a bad goal) and for the benefit of western democracies in mind. Ignoring 60 years of that and laying blame at the door of multicultral policies that have been around for all of 25 years is missing the forest for the trees.

Ahmedinejad isn't stupid. He realizes that in a long race, the "strong horse" is the one with the support of his people. Squeemish low-committment liberals in the US, Canada and abroad are tiring of the war. Lack of support for this fight - BTW I didn't say I wasn't in favor of WWIII to stop the fascists - is our week link and the Pan Islamists know it. THAT is what is behind the rise of Islamofascism.

That coupled with the multiculti-post-modernest-post-christian identity-bereft society the Euros and Canadians have tried to build.

The empty shell nations of the multiculti left are prime breeding grounds for fellows like the 17 arrested in Toronto ot the 20 arrested in London, or the 10,000 waving Hezbollah flags in Dearborn, or John Allen Mohammed (Washington Sniper), or Marc Lepine (Montreal Massacre - son of a Muslim wife-beater woman hater), or ...or...or...

Face it. Mutliculturalism is one fo the prime root causes of the Islamofascist movement in the west.

Self-centereds who can't think outside the box and keep relying on the journalist drivel about "western foreign policy" need to re think their tired expressions and realize there is a movement that has nothing to do with policy and everything to do with religion and the hating of jews and infidels.

Face it: if Howard Dean or Black Dog were to swing by the cave for a visit with Osama, he'd shoot you in the head before you had a chance to say "but I'm on your side". Why? Not because of your "foriegn policy" but because you are an infidel.

The "western foreign policy" argument doesn't really explain the slaughtered schoolchilderen in Chechnya or the Muslim massacring nations in africa does it? Or the assasination of Theo Van Gogh, Dutch filmmaker. Or firebombings of Danish embassies and 9 killed over CARTOONS does it?

When a French oil tanker was attacked off the coast of Yemen. Back then, you'll recall, the French foreign minister was deploring American "simplisme" on a daily basis, and M. Chirac was the principal obstructionist of the neo-con-Zionist-Halliburton plan to remake the Middle East. If you were to pick only one Western nation not to blow up the oil tankers of, France would surely be it.

But they got blown up anyway. And afterwards a spokesman for the Islamic Army of Aden said, "We would have preferred to hit a U.S. frigate, but no problem because they are all infidels."

[Black Dog]

Mutliculturalism is one fo the prime root causes of the Islamofascist movement in the west.

S'funny, one can draw a pretty clear line between of western foreign policy and its effects (for example, the U.S. backed Eygpt's repression of the Mulsim brotherhood in the '70s, which led to the formation of groups like Islamic Jihad.) Can you quantifiably demonstrate any link between multicultralism and the rise of Islamism? 'cause its a bit of stretch to say domestic policies in Canada have an affect on domestic politics in, say, Iran or Saudi Arabia.

elf-centereds who can't think outside the box and keep relying on the journalist drivel about "western foreign policy" need to re think their tired expressions and realize there is a movement that has nothing to do with policy and everything to do with religion and the hating of jews and infidels.

And presumably, that movement totally came out of nowhere and its rise and spread totally occurred in a vacumn. Riiiiight.

Face it: if Howard Dean or Black Dog were to swing by the cave for a visit with Osama, he'd shoot you in the head before you had a chance to say "but I'm on your side". Why? Not because of your "foriegn policy" but because you are an infidel.

Ah..I get it now. Your problem with the foreign policy argment is that it's hard. It's complex, and requires some degree of understanding of history and politics. Hence your reliance on empty slogans in lieu of actual evidence.

The "western foreign policy" argument doesn't really explain the slaughtered schoolchilderen in Chechnya or the Muslim massacring nations in africa does it? Or the assasination of Theo Van Gogh, Dutch filmmaker. Or firebombings of Danish embassies and 9 killed over CARTOONS does it?

Yes. Yes it does. (Well, maybe not Chechnya, which was tied into the longstanding and brutal struggle between Russian and Chechyen nationalism, or Africa, where tribal conflicts are often hijacked by local religious movements.)

When a French oil tanker was attacked off the coast of Yemen. Back then, you'll recall, the French foreign minister was deploring American "simplisme" on a daily basis, and M. Chirac was the principal obstructionist of the neo-con-Zionist-Halliburton plan to remake the Middle East. If you were to pick only one Western nation not to blow up the oil tankers of, France would surely be it.

But they got blown up anyway. And afterwards a spokesman for the Islamic Army of Aden said, "We would have preferred to hit a U.S. frigate, but no problem because they are all infidels."

Yeah because France has ever been a friend to Muslims (coughAlgeriacough).

[JerrySeinfeld]

FRANCE has never been a friend to muslims? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

BTW you need to get off the idea that foreign policy is complex.

Every second word I hear coming out of Bill Graham's mouth is "nuance". It's a veiled attempt to blame the USA (again) for every problem on the planet.

In fact, there is a Palestinian state: it's called Jordan, whose population has always been majority Palestinian. It's not as big a state as it used to be, but that's because King Hussein, in the worst miscalculation of his long bravura highwire act, made the mistake of joining Nasser's 1967 war to destroy Israel. Hence, the 'occupied territories': they're occupied because the Arabs attacked Israel and lost.

[Black Dog]

FRANCE has never been a friend to muslims? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

You've never heard of French colonial possessions in Algeria, Lebanon, Tunisia, Morrocco, have you?

BTW you need to get off the idea that foreign policy is complex.

Every second word I hear coming out of Bill Graham's mouth is "nuance". It's a veiled attempt to blame the USA (again) for every problem on the planet.

Well that's appropos of nothing...

In fact, there is a Palestinian state: it's called Jordan, whose population has always been majority Palestinian. It's not as big a state as it used to be, but that's because King Hussein, in the worst miscalculation of his long bravura highwire act, made the mistake of joining Nasser's 1967 war to destroy Israel. Hence, the 'occupied territories': they're occupied because the Arabs attacked Israel and lost.

Get back on the ADD meds, dude, you're all over the place.

BTW, you didn't answer my question: can you quantifiably demonstrate any link between multicultralism and the rise of Islamism?