WWIII

[JerrySeinfeld]

Sure! Try taking your wife into Aulnay-sous-Bois or Chlichy Sou Bois outside Paris without wearing a Hijab and see what happens to her.

[Black Dog]

Sure! Try taking your wife into Aulnay-sous-Bois or Chlichy Sou Bois outside Paris without wearing a Hijab and see what happens to her.

And that has what to do with what? I'm asking about causes. You say muliticultrralism is "one of the prime root causes of the Islamofascist movement in the west." That indicates that befoe multicultralism, there was no such thing as "islamofascism" in the west. Now, becaus eof multicultralism, there is. But where did that ideology come from? It did not develop here (something you implicitly recognize in your, uh, arguments). So it came here from elsewhere and, it could be argued, was allowed to grow due to policies of multicultralism. But if it came from elsewhere, where did it come from, how did it develop and, most importantly, how did it get so strong as to make it's way into our societies?

[Michael Hardner]

Sure! Try taking your wife into Aulnay-sous-Bois or Chlichy Sou Bois outside Paris without wearing a Hijab and see what happens to her.

JS, I went to high school with Arabs from Clichy (not sous-Bois), St. Denis, and Bois Colombes. The second generation (ie born in France) were much more French than their parents, and marginally different than their white French peers.

That's not multiculturalism, that's melting pot and that's how France views immigration. As Black Dog is ably pointing out, you seem to think multiculturalism is the cause when that's not policy in France. Multiculturalism doesn't mean the same thing as 'immigration'.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Sure! Try taking your wife into Aulnay-sous-Bois or Chlichy Sou Bois outside Paris without wearing a Hijab and see what happens to her.

And that has what to do with what? I'm asking about causes. You say muliticultrralism is "one of the prime root causes of the Islamofascist movement in the west." That indicates that befoe multicultralism, there was no such thing as "islamofascism" in the west. Now, becaus eof multicultralism, there is. But where did that ideology come from? It did not develop here (something you implicitly recognize in your, uh, arguments). So it came here from elsewhere and, it could be argued, was allowed to grow due to policies of multicultralism. But if it came from elsewhere, where did it come from, how did it develop and, most importantly, how did it get so strong as to make it's way into our societies?

This is truly a clash as this Arab woman states so articulately:

http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=...wmv&ak=null

We will perish badly in the war if we don't start standing up against the cartoon jihadists and those infiltrators in our society who think they can form foreign policy by self-detonating in pizzarias and aircraft.

[Black Dog]

This is truly a clash as this Arab woman states so articulately:

I didn't bother watching the link. I want you to answer the questions.

You say muliticultrralism is "one of the prime root causes of the Islamofascist movement in the west." That indicates that befoe multicultralism, there was no such thing as "islamofascism" in the west. Now, becaus eof multicultralism, there is. But where did that ideology come from? It did not develop here (something you implicitly recognize in your, uh, arguments). So it came here from elsewhere and, it could be argued, was allowed to grow due to policies of multicultralism. But if it came from elsewhere, where did it come from, how did it develop and, most importantly, how did it get so strong as to make it's way into our societies?

We're waiting.

[Liam]

I am the anti-thesis of a neo-con, yet I think we are in the middle of a new kind of war and am willing to call it WWIII. Unlike WWI and WWII, however, this war will not entail massive troop and artillery movements by one nation or another in large fields of battle. And unlike those earlier world wars, there will remain a significant number of people on both sides of the battle line who will remain in denial that a war is being fought.

This war is largely invisible, but it is a war, nonetheless. This is a global ideological war, a war of values and, yes, a war of civilizations. The sides are not evenly matched in terms of numbers or armaments, but the enemies of westernism and secularism do not need tanks or missiles or huge armies. All they need are the next generation of young nihilists and $100 worth of explosives. We cannot win this battle on the battlefield, we can only win it by winning hearts and minds. Just because this war does not bear the insignias of earlier struggles does not make it less of a war.

[JerrySeinfeld]

This is truly a clash as this Arab woman states so articulately:

I didn't bother watching the link. I want you to answer the questions.

You say muliticultrralism is "one of the prime root causes of the Islamofascist movement in the west." That indicates that befoe multicultralism, there was no such thing as "islamofascism" in the west. Now, becaus eof multicultralism, there is. But where did that ideology come from? It did not develop here (something you implicitly recognize in your, uh, arguments). So it came here from elsewhere and, it could be argued, was allowed to grow due to policies of multicultralism. But if it came from elsewhere, where did it come from, how did it develop and, most importantly, how did it get so strong as to make it's way into our societies?

We're waiting.

It is written in the KORAN and has grown and developed on the backs of a number of causes, multiculturalism, the crusades, danish cartoons, Salmon Rushdie, theo van gosh films, and yes, even foreign policy.

Haven't you noticed? The jihad morphs and grows with each new "justification" for it.

As I said, it's far more complex than you thought.

As I said before, let me repeat it, it is written int eh KORAN and that is it's source.

Now will you please try to learn more than what the CBC spoonfeeds you. You probably believe the "50,000 Canadians" in lebanon BS too.

[Black Dog]

It is written in the KORAN and has grown and developed on the backs of a number of causes, multiculturalism, the crusades, danish cartoons, Salmon Rushdie, theo van gosh films, and yes, even foreign policy.

Haven't you noticed? The jihad morphs and grows with each new "justification" for it.

So you're sayin the problem is intrinsic to Islam itself?

As I said, it's far more complex than you thought.

That's most emphatically not what you've said:

I know usually the left tries to pull out it's "complex / nuance/ I understand more about the situation than you to" snoot nosed BS to try to evade candid realistic discussion, but who are you really gonna believe about JIHAD? The elitist lefty drivel or your LYIN' EYES?

Just because you say contradictory things in different threads doesn't mean people can't find them.

[JerrySeinfeld]

It is written in the KORAN and has grown and developed on the backs of a number of causes, multiculturalism, the crusades, danish cartoons, Salmon Rushdie, theo van gosh films, and yes, even foreign policy.

Haven't you noticed? The jihad morphs and grows with each new "justification" for it.

So you're sayin the problem is intrinsic to Islam itself?

As I said, it's far more complex than you thought.

That's most emphatically not what you've said:

I know usually the left tries to pull out it's "complex / nuance/ I understand more about the situation than you to" snoot nosed BS to try to evade candid realistic discussion, but who are you really gonna believe about JIHAD? The elitist lefty drivel or your LYIN' EYES?

Just because you say contradictory things in different threads doesn't mean people can't find them.

blah blah blah - you're just mad 'cause I have seen through your facade.

[Riverwind]

I am the anti-thesis of a neo-con, yet I think we are in the middle of a new kind of war and am willing to call it WWIII.

I would agree that we are in a battle of cultures and ideas that is similar to the Cold War. However, I think that calling it WW3 is a misnomer and makes it more difficult to have a sensible discussion about what we should do about it.

The English word "World War" implies that we are in a struggle for our very existance and that any tactic up to and including the use of nuclear weapons is justified. This is not case - the Islamic extremists are extremely weak opponents who can do little more than kill a few people with terrorist attacks.

[Black Dog]

blah blah blah - you're just mad 'cause I have seen through your facade.

And that's game, folks.

[Liam]

I would agree that we are in a battle of cultures and ideas that is similar to the Cold War. However, I think that calling it WW3 is a misnomer and makes it more difficult to have a sensible discussion about what we should do about it.

The English word "World War" implies that we are in a struggle for our very existance and that any tactic up to and including the use of nuclear weapons is justified. This is not case - the Islamic extremists are extremely weak opponents who can do little more than kill a few people with terrorist attacks.

As far as I'm concerned, there is nothing about the phrase "world war" which connotes the justified use of nuclear weapons. In my mind, a world war is a global struggle. With bombings in Bali, London, Madrid, 9/11, countless smaller attacks across the Middle East, Africa and South/Southeast Asia, we are definitely experiencing a global battlefield. Is our very existence at stake? Well, the US and Canada fought in WW2, yet their very existences were not at risk. I'd say that in the current war, the US and Canada are in much greater danger of catastrophic damage than between 1939 and 1945.

[scribblet]

Aug. 22 is supposed to be the day Iran makes some kind of landmark announcement

is it possible that they will say:

1) have mastered the fuel enrichment cycle

2) have created a workable atomic bomb

and if the U.S. (or anyone else)tries to stop them they will use it on the West ?

It is also the day that Korea could be preparing for an underground detonation of a nuclear device, the

http://counterterrorismblog.org/

"What is the significance of Aug. 22?

This year, Aug. 22 corresponds, in the Islamic calendar, to the 27th day of the month of Rajab of the year 1427. This, by tradition, is the night when many Muslims commemorate the night flight of the prophet Muhammad on the winged horse Buraq, first to "the farthest mosque," usually identified with Jerusalem, and then to heaven and back (c.f., Koran XVII.1). This might well be deemed an appropriate date for the apocalyptic ending of Israel and if necessary of the world.

It is far from certain that Mr. Ahmadinejad plans any such cataclysmic events precisely for Aug. 22. But it would be wise to bear the possibility in mind. A passage from the Ayatollah Khomeini, quoted in an 11th-grade Iranian schoolbook, is revealing. "I am decisively announcing to the whole world that if the world-devourers [i.e., the infidel powers] wish to stand against our religion, we will stand against their whole world and will not cease until the annihilation of all them. Either we all become free, or we will go to the greater freedom which is martyrdom. Either we shake one another's hands in joy at the victory of Islam in the world, or all of us will turn to eternal life and martyrdom. In both cases, victory and success are ours.""

[Michael Hardner]

As far as I'm concerned, there is nothing about the phrase "world war" which connotes the justified use of nuclear weapons. In my mind, a world war is a global struggle. With bombings in Bali, London, Madrid, 9/11, countless smaller attacks across the Middle East, Africa and South/Southeast Asia, we are definitely experiencing a global battlefield. Is our very existence at stake? Well, the US and Canada fought in WW2, yet their very existences were not at risk. I'd say that in the current war, the US and Canada are in much greater danger of catastrophic damage than between 1939 and 1945.

If you take nuclear weapons out of the picture, I can't see how you can say catastrophic damage to Canada/The US is a risk from this. WWII cost 50 million lives and laid much of Europe and Japan to waste. Let's not overstate what's happening today.

[August1991]

If you take nuclear weapons out of the picture, I can't see how you can say catastrophic damage to Canada/The US is a risk from this. WWII cost 50 million lives and laid much of Europe and Japan to waste. Let's not overstate what's happening today.

I agree Michael. The past wars were horrific and this current battle seems to pale in comparison.

In my mind, in the future, WWI, WWII and the Cold War will become known as one war from 1914-1989 with a violent phase and a less violent phase. The western liberal democracies defended an individual's freedom to choose against institutional authority (call it fascism, socialism, Bismarckism or what you will).

What we face now is different. For a lack of a better term, we now face heathen hordes who have never quite accepted or understood liberal values and the freedom of the individual to choose. Too many are uneducated and superstitious. We are facing a threat from the 14th century.

[JerrySeinfeld]

If you take nuclear weapons out of the picture, I can't see how you can say catastrophic damage to Canada/The US is a risk from this. WWII cost 50 million lives and laid much of Europe and Japan to waste. Let's not overstate what's happening today.

I agree Michael. The past wars were horrific and this current battle seems to pale in comparison.

In my mind, in the future, WWI, WWII and the Cold War will become known as one war from 1914-1989 with a violent phase and a less violent phase. The western liberal democracies defended an individual's freedom to choose against institutional authority (call it fascism, socialism, Bismarckism or what you will).

What we face now is different. For a lack of a better term, we now face heathen hordes who have never quite accepted or understood liberal values and the freedom of the individual to choose. Too many are uneducated and superstitious. We are facing a threat from the 14th century.

I agree that this is a 14th centruty threat.

But the scariest part is the WILL that these people have. As the Taliban showed USSR, these people will just keep fighting and fighting. They will not stop fighting. As supersticiuos and ridiculous I find strong religions, I must admit they can be very formidable foes.

Contrast that with what we see in the west. Michael Moore, Howard Dean et. al. waving the white flag - their very best friend.

As Osama is fond of saying, in a long race its the strong horse that wins. And he believes the strong horse is the side with the WILL to win, more importantly than the "weaponry". As Iran says: "America is risk averse - that is to our advantage."

The strength of the Islamic Republic - a movement of Muslims across the globe and a desire to destroy this brief 60 year glimpse of freedom in the world - comes from it's people's support. These are people willing to die for the cause, for Allah,...tommorrow! Meanwhile Michael Moore and the Toronto Star can't wait to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq after 2500 deaths. 2500!!!! That's about one month's toll in Vietnam. But as Iran says: we're squeemish, we're risk averse.

It's a scary proposition. I don't see many moderates in the Islamic community demanding a stop to global terrorism in the name of Allah with the same fervour that Michael Moore demands "out of Iraq TODAY".

In other words, the Islamic Republic has the will and the long-term attitude. They know that our multi-lateral UN stalemate/lack of action will ultimately lead to an Iranian Nuke.

And, unlike us, they have the balls to use it.

[Black Dog]

Meanwhile Michael Moore and the Toronto Star can't wait to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq after 2500 deaths. 2500!!!! That's about one month's toll in Vietnam. But as Iran says: we're squeemish, we're risk averse.

Uh...you are aware that the death toll in Iraq is a lot higher than that, right? Like what about the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who've died?

[August1991]

Uh...you are aware that the death toll in Iraq is a lot higher than that, right? Like what about the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who've died?

Since the comparison with Vietnam has been rolled out, let's have with it...

First, the Americans lost the Vietnam Battle but won the larger Cold War - of which the fight in Vietnam was a critical part. Second, too many American liberals consider their opposition to the Vietnam War a "political victory" and they've been trying to replay this scenario again. It won't work. And your post, BD, points out one reason.

Many of the deaths in Vietnam were caused by aerial American bombing (not just in the North, but also in the South). Most of the deaths in Iraq have been caused by Iraqis (or other Arabs/Muslims) killing Iraqis. This is increasingly a sectarian war between Shiites and Sunnites, with Kurds and Christians and too many innocents unfortunately caught in between.

The worst case scenario for the Americans was that Iraq turns into a civil war. If these fools want to kill each other, then that's there business. They did it for over 15 years in Lebanon and all they got for it was a wrecked country.

[bTW, Iraqi Body Count now has about 45,000 civilians killed by military intervention. Robert McNamara gave about 3.2 million for civilian casualties in Vietnam.)

[jdobbin]

[bTW, Iraqi Body Count now has about 45,000 civilians killed by military intervention. Robert McNamara gave about 3.2 million for civilian casualties in Vietnam.)

That is just an estimate, of course. No one knows for sure.

http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publis...ticle_643.shtml

And deaths have escalated to more than a hundred a day. Three more Americans killed yesterday. Their body count is about two a day.

If it is a civil war, will Bush admit to that fact before his term is up?

[Black Dog]

First, the Americans lost the Vietnam Battle but won the larger Cold War - of which the fight in Vietnam was a critical part. Second, too many American liberals consider their opposition to the Vietnam War a "political victory" and they've been trying to replay this scenario again. It won't work. And your post, BD, points out one reason.

I think calling the Vietnam war a "critical part" of the Cold War in order to justify it is historical revisionism at its finest. That he U.S. and Soviets decided to overlay their own conflict over the local, nationalist struggle that was at the core of the conflict does not alter the essential nature of the war. IOW, that struggle had little direct bearing on the Cold War, as evidenced by the fact that the U.S.'s loss there and the growth of communism in Southeast Asia did not alter the end result.

The worst case scenario for the Americans was that Iraq turns into a civil war. If these fools want to kill each other, then that's there business. They did it for over 15 years in Lebanon and all they got for it was a wrecked country.

"Gee we wanted to give them democracy. Is it our fault the silly wogs can't get along?"

BTW, Iraqi Body Count now has about 45,000 civilians killed by military intervention.

Of course Iraq Body Count, due to its methodology, only gives a limited picture of casualties. That's what, 30 a day since 2003? I find it a little difficult to believe that more Americans die each year in traffic accidents than Iraqis have died in three years of war and civil strife.

[Liam]

As far as I'm concerned, there is nothing about the phrase "world war" which connotes the justified use of nuclear weapons. In my mind, a world war is a global struggle. With bombings in Bali, London, Madrid, 9/11, countless smaller attacks across the Middle East, Africa and South/Southeast Asia, we are definitely experiencing a global battlefield. Is our very existence at stake? Well, the US and Canada fought in WW2, yet their very existences were not at risk. I'd say that in the current war, the US and Canada are in much greater danger of catastrophic damage than between 1939 and 1945.

If you take nuclear weapons out of the picture, I can't see how you can say catastrophic damage to Canada/The US is a risk from this. WWII cost 50 million lives and laid much of Europe and Japan to waste. Let's not overstate what's happening today.

I did not say nuclear weapons will not be used by either side. (Though I find it entirely possible that it could happen.) My mentioning of nuclear weapons was in response to the poster who said that calling the current struggle a "world war" connoted the *justified use* of such weapons. I did not say they would be used, I did not say they wouldn't be used in the current struggle.

That said, the US and Canada could face catastrophic damage in the form of nuclear, biological or chemical agents, computer hacking, attacks on the power grid, business centers, hospitals and chemical facilities, economic damage, plane hijackings, etc. How many billions of dollars were lost after 9/11? Now imagine how many hundreds of billions of dollars would evaporate if a few suicide bombers hit Eaton Centre, Mall of America, South Coast Plaza, or the West Edmonton Mall all on the same day. Do you think moms with strollers are ever going to go to the mall again? The consumer-oriented economies of the US and Canada would crash.

I do not think a war has to tally up a certain body count for it to be designated a world war. I see a world war more as a struggle between two incompatible and dominant belief systems (fascism v liberal democracy, for example), and within that struggle are armed conflicts that take place on a global basis (as opposed to national, regional or continental bases).

[Riverwind]

I do not think a war has to tally up a certain body count for it to be designated a world war. I see a world war more as a struggle between two incompatible and dominant belief systems (fascism v liberal democracy, for example), and within that struggle are armed conflicts that take place on a global basis (as opposed to national, regional or continental bases).

You are changing the definitions of words - If we use your definitions then the Cold War was WWIII and whatever we have going on right now is WWIV.

[Michael Hardner]

Rather than redefining what 'World War' means, we could probably agree to restate the argument. For example, "be it resolved that the current threat is greater than it is widely perceived to be".

[Liam]

I do not think a war has to tally up a certain body count for it to be designated a world war. I see a world war more as a struggle between two incompatible and dominant belief systems (fascism v liberal democracy, for example), and within that struggle are armed conflicts that take place on a global basis (as opposed to national, regional or continental bases).

You are changing the definitions of words - If we use your definitions then the Cold War was WWIII and whatever we have going on right now is WWIV.

I never claimed to be the Director of New Definitions at Merriam Webster, I simply opined from the start what I believe. So, yes, I am stressing my own definition and my own opinion, but I am not forcing them on anyone.

I should have continued my last post with the following (but I stopped short): "I believe the Cold War was another "world war", and considerably less bloody than its predecessor." Personally, I believe there have been many world wars in our history, some major (WW1, WW2), some broad in the theatre of war but with fewer casualties than the biggest two world wars (e.g., The Seven Year War/French and Indian War), some broad in theatre with an almost negligible number of casualties (e.g., Spanish-American War).

[Black Dog]

That said, the US and Canada could face catastrophic damage in the form of nuclear, biological or chemical agents, computer hacking, attacks on the power grid, business centers, hospitals and chemical facilities, economic damage, plane hijackings, etc. How many billions of dollars were lost after 9/11? Now imagine how many hundreds of billions of dollars would evaporate if a few suicide bombers hit Eaton Centre, Mall of America, South Coast Plaza, or the West Edmonton Mall all on the same day. Do you think moms with strollers are ever going to go to the mall again? The consumer-oriented economies of the US and Canada would crash.

So we're talking about reaction to terrorism and not the capacity of terrorism to inflict any major damage on its own. Now, it seems to me, a large element of terrorism is psychologial and thus, any effort to fight terrorism should address that by putting terrorism in context. That is: terrorism is not ever likely to pose a threat our survival and way of life. Unfortunately, it seems that the society is going the other way, led by the bedwetters on the right like Mark Steyn who soil their trousers if they happen to see a swarthy guy with a beard sitting in coach, which, really, is making the jobs of those who would seek to terrorize us that much easier.

I do not think a war has to tally up a certain body count for it to be designated a world war. I see a world war more as a struggle between two incompatible and dominant belief systems (fascism v liberal democracy, for example), and within that struggle are armed conflicts that take place on a global basis (as opposed to national, regional or continental bases).

What belief systems were clashing in World war 1? Militaristic imperialism and, uh, militaristic imperialism. World War 2 fit the bill a bit better, but was essentially a clash of totalitarian ideologies, with the liberal democracies as bit players. Indeed by your definition, the only true world war was the one where the principle players never fired a shot at each other, the Cold War. In each of those cases, though, the war was characterized by the relative parity of the participants. The main reason why radical Islam versus western liberal values (such as they are) fails to qualify is that it will reamin a clash of idea characterized by small skirmishes in which one side enjoys a overwhelming advantage over the other in terms of military strength, economic clout and political power.

MH:

Rather than redefining what 'World War' means, we could probably agree to restate the argument. For example, "be it resolved that the current threat is greater than it is widely perceived to be".

I would say its the exact opposite: the current threat has been grossly inflated beyond the scope of reality.