Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Obsession: Islam's War Against The West

  1. Dec 14, 2006 #1

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    This seems to be getting a lot of attention.
    http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/

    Personally, I think we are likely in for very bad times. I think that by invading a Muslim country and managing the effort so horrifically, Bush has lit the fuse on a pile of dynamite that has accumulated for decades. He has helped to empower our enemies in the worst way possible - he proved that we are a threat and will invade. However, what's done is done, and one thought that has been crossing my mind lately is that the people of the ME had better get these jihad nuts under control. What the world has seen these last few years from the US, and really for the last few decades, is a half-hearted pseudo-war strategy that was intended to prevent widespread conflict. Keep in mind that we haven't even declared a war to be official since WWII. We don't even have a draft! In short, you ain't seen nothin’ yet. We have been swatting flies and playing politics…and trying to prevent WWIII.

    I believe that many people have no idea of the awesome military power of the United States. This especially includes those who are strapping bombs to their bellies. They have no idea of what we keep hidden, and they have no idea of the shear brute force that we can muster. For example, one US submarine could basically erase Iran from the map within a couple of hours or less. If our existence was truly perceived to be in jeopardy and the enormous power of the US were let loose, the entire ME could basically be gone in less than a day.

    You people in the ME had better get your nuts under control. If this is really as bad as some say, we may ALL be lucky to survive. It we were to really cut loose and use our power, we would certainly pay a very heavy price [at the least], but the way things are going, we may not be able to keep our nuts under control much longer. Already we barely avoided Bush et al implementing the use of nukes as bunker busters. And even something as minor [relatively speaking] as 911 changed my country into a place that I barely recognize.

    But no matter the consequences to us, if things get bad enough, you can be sure that the ME would end up as nothing but scorched sand and bones. You must stop this insanity before its too late.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 14, 2006 #2
    That all depends on how we defend ourselves and our willingness to use force when neccesary.

    This statement defies all logic of martial strategy. :rofl:
    It is the opposite, being able to demonstrate your willingness to use force is a clear military advantage.

    At least something we can agree on.

    Amen to that!
     
  4. Dec 14, 2006 #3
    Amen to you too.
     
  5. Dec 14, 2006 #4
    It's not that easy, ivan you are asking for total submision, and that is imposible. even if things get worst and the US nuke the ME, then you will have trouble all around the globe just for nuking the ME. It's simple, the system that the us force on the world finaly leads to rebelion.
     
  6. Dec 14, 2006 #5
    What do you think about this opinion piece - On the verge by Ari Shavit?
     
  7. Dec 14, 2006 #6
    Just to balance things out, maybe you should look at Encounter Point. A few days ago me and my housemates hosted a meeting between Palestinians who have spent many years in Israeli jails and students from our university. It was organized by Courage to Refuse. Though I don't agree with the basic aspects of this movement, I share the view that the best way to combat this violence is for ordinary people on both sides to meet and talk.
     
  8. Dec 14, 2006 #7

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Now what, precisely would that look like when it went off? Perhaps terrorists might knock down a few skyscrapers in New York...?
     
  9. Dec 15, 2006 #8

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Who said anything about submission? What are you talking about?

    I don't know what would happen if we did cut loose, but it seems that everyone assumes that we never will, and that is an unjustified and dangerous assumption. If pushed far enough, we would. For one, there is no longer a Soviet threat to keep us in check. In fact, I would be surprised if half of their old missiles [controlled and maintained by whom?] even made it out of the silos. I would be even more surprised if the warheads were properly maintained. But beyond that, we've been preparing for WWIII for fifty years. We have spent trillions in today's dollars on weapons that we hope that we never have to use. But that certainly doesn't mean that we never would use them. If we would never use them under any circumstances, then we would never build them.
     
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2006
  10. Dec 15, 2006 #9

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    This is part of what I'm talking about. Don't believe it for a minute. If we got serious about fighting a real war - if we were truly threatened - Iran would barely be more than an afterthought. Note that Iraq was supposed to be the fourth most powerful military in the world, and we took them out in about a hundred hours in Gulf I, and again in a few weeks with a "fast and light" force in Gulf II. This entire notion of a battered US confuses limited warfare fought with volunteers, with all out warfare and the full strength of the military and its entire arsenal of nuclear and classified weapons.

    This shows that Bush made a terrible mistake. He has made us look weak by mismanaging a badly conceived strategy. This is dangerous because it empowers the enemy. It makes the enemy think that he could actually win when he can't. But if he thinks he can, if these nuts actually think they can take us out, the world is a much more dangerous place.

    The only thing that makes us weak is the desire to prevent widespread conflict or WWIII. If we believe that WWIII can't be avoided and we act on that belief, God help us all.

    As for the dems being weak, someone has been watching too much Fox news. Recall that it was a democrat that dropped the bombs on Japan after a long and hard fought war. The only other US President to authorized the use of nuclear weapons [gave military commanders the power to decide] was Carter, who was also labeled a weak democrat. Luckily the nukes were never needed.

    Oh yes, and then there was the Cuban missile crisis: Kennedy, a Democrat.
     
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2006
  11. Dec 15, 2006 #10

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I keep thinking about an excersise that was done for a time in high schools. Take thirty kids or so and ask them how many would authorize a nuclear strike that would start a nuclear war. Thirty kids [as a rule] say that they would never do such a thing. Then the kids are presented with real world types of problems like those faced during the cold war with the Soviet Union. Before long, most of the kids can be steered into a position where they would authorize a nuclear first strike.

    The point is that perspectives can change drastically and quickly. What seemed impossible yesterday can be inevitable tomorrow.
     
  12. Dec 15, 2006 #11
    Yes you do have a technically advanced military, the most advanced in the world, and we have all seen it in action. But unless you want to commit mass suicide, its highly irrelevant, in the current climate. What I mean by mass Suicide, is that if you let rip with some nukes, you have a very high probability of being nuked yourself.
    Maybe in days of the duke of Wellington, or the thin red line but nowadays, it isnt not a military advantage to show your willingness to invade and use force. Especially when you *need* to win hearts and minds, or you will continue to be terrorised. Snap out of the cold war line of thought and get with the modern problem.

    1 Man who hates you, with a rucksack can terrorise you!
     
  13. Dec 15, 2006 #12
    That is indeed very true but with our current technological evolution, one won't need an entire army to cause a lot of destruction. A small group of a few crazy people with access to the necessary advanced waepons will do the job just fine.

    Having said that, indeed the USA are superior in military power, but will that make your country a better/safer place ?


    greets
    marlon
     
  14. Dec 15, 2006 #13
    Regarding the original topic, although islamic militants are in a war against the west, the truth exists on a grander scale. Islamic militants have managed to get into a fight with the hindus, they are waging a genocidal campaign against the black africans in Sudan, and they have even managed to start a war with the buddhists in Thailand (that takes talent). The truth is that they have managed to get into fights with people from just about every religion that they come in contact with including their own.

    Also, the war against the west did not start with the invasion of Iraq. While the USA was leading a coalition to rescue the muslims in Kosovo from genocide at the hands of the Serbs (I was personally involved), islamic militants were planning and training to murder as many americans as they possibly could.

    This is not a hate speech against muslims in general. It is simply intended to point out the truth.
     
  15. Dec 15, 2006 #14
    You seem to come back to this every time. There is nothing wrong with the French ecconomy Last time we look at this, we evaluated the DIFFERENCES between the US Economy and that of France.

    France has a higher unemployment rate, yet has more percentage of people above the poverty line, than the USA. If your emphasis is on helping society rather than the grab culture, then France could be thought of as having a better Structure. I dont think this is true however, but I certainly wouldnt say on average Americans are far more happy with their life than that of the French

    Regardless France is nothing to do with the USSR, and comparing the two systems as alike, or approaching one another, is funny at best.

    IMO the reason why the European Growth is slowing, is because we are expanding and taking in very poor eastern countries. It will equalize in perhaps a decade, then our economic market purchasing power will outstrip that of the USA. The idea of the EU is multiple, only 1 of them is to do with increasing economic power.
     
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2006
  16. Dec 15, 2006 #15

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Terrorist acts won't physically jeopardize the security of the United States unless they can be accomplished nearly every day. Psychologically, the nation would feel it faced a dire threat at levels a lot lower than that.

    With isolated incidents, you would expect a rational response from US leaders. Specifically, nuclear attacks aren't a very effective weapon against terrorist groups. It would basically be a hope that the terrorist group would be so shocked by seeing civilians of their own country and religion killed that they would stop. It's not completely inconceivable it would work, although the odds of it working certainly aren't worth the consequences.

    If terrorists did reach a certain success level within the US, counting on a rational response from the leaders of a country whose populace is completely beside themselves in screaming for retaliation would be extremely optimistic. At some point, someone would have to be blamed and face retribution and a nuclear attack would start to become a realistic consideration.

    I don't know what level that would be, but I don't think we're anywhere remotely close to that. People living in the US and Europe forget what really bad wars are like - especially people in the US who have never had to endure high death rates from war. High casualty rates are on the level of what Europe went through in WWII (or, even worse, the 10,000 per day that the Soviet Union endured). On the other hand, having forgotten what war really costs, I don't think the US would accept even 3,000 deaths a month (very roughly, the paltry casualty rate Americans endured in WWII - at least paltry compared to Europe and the USSR).
     
  17. Dec 15, 2006 #16
    apparently the seeds of the insurgency that is currently being fought in iraq came from the participation and training of the iraq army who largely survived the initial invasion. so i disagree that the impressive use of precision bombs in the invasion of iraq actually defeated the iraqi army.


    regarding the potential use of weapons of mass destruction by the usa, i don't think that would achieve anything, least of all in favor of american security because the brutality of such an act would shock the world, alienating allies, infuriating the moderates and driving your enemy's to new levels of desperation and determination.

    now if the iranian government could be credibly linked to a nuclear detonation on american soil, things could be much different. its unfortunate that the CIA has lost credibility after iraq because some credibility will be required to start another preemptive war on account of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a mad man.
     
  18. Dec 16, 2006 #17

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    That wasn't the point. The point is that if "terrorists" manage to sneak a nuke or biological weapon into the US and detonate it, the entire world will be brought to its knees. I just think people should know that. I'm not saying that I support the use of nukes or those who might use them, but we have them, and if cornered we will use them. Of that you can be sure. And it won't just be a nuke or two like the terrorists hope to achieve, it may well be hundreds or thousands of them if all hell breaks loose. There was a time when we were ready to launch something like 20,000 nuclear warheads.

    The difference between the knuckleheads that we are fighting today and the Soviets is that the Soviets were smart enough to know just how dangerous we really are.
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2006
  19. Dec 16, 2006 #18

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    There wouldn't be an enemy. At least not any old ones. And if we get hit hard enough, we won't care what our allies have to say either. Just look at what happened after something as small-time as 911. What do you think the response would have been if we had lost all of New York?

    Did you catch the part about a "light and fast" force of volunteer soldiers? That wasn't a war, that was a military exercise. But even so, we took the castle in three weeks and the king was found hiding in a hole. Also, there is no way to fight an effective war without an infrastructure, and precision bombs do a very good job of taking out the infrastructure - ie. command and control.

    Also, with nuclear weapons there is no need for precision.
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2006
  20. Dec 16, 2006 #19

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    A lot of the responses here tell me that I am absolutely correct. People have no clue of the incredible power that we have managed to keep corked in a bottle.
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2006
  21. Dec 16, 2006 #20
    the heading of this original post was Islam's war against islam this what western people think while in the islamic world people think its west's war against islam who are terrorists first we need to unnderstand that .People who reply to the Israeli tanks with stones are not terrorists people fighting for their their rights of freedom (like kashmir) are not terrorists. Wars are never the solution to problem humanity on the whole is on stake not because of terrorists but because of prejudice that exist in west for Muslims and in Muslims world for West . On the whole we need to dialogue and need to have peace .
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?