(Ed) What was the most successful war in history?

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Craig B

That's not a very profound or even useful observation, smartcooky.

I wasn't trying to make a profound statement.

Is there a difference between an an Arab Muslim terrorist organisation, and an Islamic Arab terrorist organisation?

If there is, I can't see one. AIUI the followers of the religion of Islam are called Muslims, in the same way that the followers of the religion of Christianity are called Christians and the followers of the religion of Judaism are called Jews.

(The really tragic thing about all this is that they all believe in and worship the same God!!! Go figure!!)


Perhaps Gumboot can explain?

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by bruto

On the other hand, of course, we cannot be sure how the other colonies would have been treated if the UK had not just lost a nasty revolution. Certainly at the time of the Revolution there was no sign that the UK was in any mood to relent. So maybe the reason the Canadians didn't need a revolution was because we had it first.

I don't think this logic holds, given the colonies didn't become independent until the mid 20th Century.

Originally Posted by bruto

Of course then there's the question of slavery. If, for example, there had been no revolution, what would have prevented the south from seceding and waging a war of its own independence? Could we have counted on as intense an anti-secession effort from a British colony as we did from the Union? Or would we have ended up with something like South Africa?

I think the fact the UK put so much effort into trying to keep the US colonies suggests they would have put a great deal of effort into preventing the south from leaving. If anything, the south would have been so out-matched (imagine the north with the addition of the entire British Empire as its height behind it) the war would have been over that much more quickly.

At the time of the Civil War the US regular army only numbered 16,000 men, with the majority of the manpower being provided by militia or conscripts with zero military experience. At about the same time the British sent 12,000 veteran Imperial soldiers to New Zealand to suppress a fairly minor Maori uprising. Those 12,000 soldiers would have had a dramatic impact on the US Civil War.

Originally Posted by bruto

I"m inclined to agree that the revolution was not as successful in the very long run as it seems to have been, but we'll never know for sure.

Of course. It's fun to speculate, but in the end it's just speculation.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Perhaps Gumboot can explain?

I've never claimed there was a difference, so I don't know what the relevance of this strawman is at all. The first seven attacks listed in your summary were not carried out by Islamic/Muslim (pick which ever you prefer) Arab terrorists.

[Giz]

Originally Posted by gumboot

I think the fact the UK put so much effort into trying to keep the US colonies suggests they would have put a great deal of effort into preventing the south from leaving. If anything, the south would have been so out-matched (imagine the north with the addition of the entire British Empire as its height behind it) the war would have been over that much more quickly.

On the other hand, a major motivation for the North to fight against secession was Unionist patriotism... would that still have been present if the USA hadn't become an independent country?

And (as regards the British Empire) what if the great powers of Europe decided to get involved to bring down Britain a peg or two? Britain could end up rather distracted...

Originally Posted by gumboot

At the time of the Civil War the US regular army only numbered 16,000 men, with the majority of the manpower being provided by militia or conscripts with zero military experience. At about the same time the British sent 12,000 veteran Imperial soldiers to New Zealand to suppress a fairly minor Maori uprising. Those 12,000 soldiers would have had a dramatic impact on the US Civil War.

Come now... in order to defeat the South, the Union Army eventually had 2,213,363 men serve. 12,000 doesn't look that impressive compared to 2.2 million...

[Damien Evans]

Originally Posted by Profanz

Come on now. Is it really just because they are white? I don't think so. I am Irish Catholic and even I know they have done some terrible things. If you put a bomb in a cafe and kill innocent people you are a sick bastard. End of story. Its all history and complected... whatever.

America was won by going up against a tyrannical Government. Except for maybe the Romans the most powerful nation in the history of the earth was England. We said no. You won't do this to us. Some people would say the most successful war ever. Because we were right. That being said we are still the children of England with or own imperialistic wants. Did we really win? I would say America is more than just a little hypocritical.

I know I'm going to get hammered for this but I think some of the countries in the Middle East are going through this now. They're saying no. We won't put up with this imperialistic crap. They are no more terrorist in my opinion than the American Patriots who won the revolution. We beat the British with gorilla warfare. We invented it. As an American how can I disrespect that?

As far as Ireland goes? I shouldn't say this but I think they they punked out. They like being British. Though I will never understand Protestant Irish. And I'm not even a practicing Catholic any longer. Protestant Irish are just traitorous in my opinion.

I guess its just the American terrorist in me coming out.

Hardly. You were over 2000 years late to the party with that style of warfare.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...rrilla_warfare

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by gumboot

I think Corsair is saying that all of the freedom and independence the American colonists wanted was ultimately obtained by all other British colonies without having to wage a bloody revolutionary war, thus suggesting that the revolutionary war was unnecessary.

I thought that was readily apparent in my comment. Thank you for confirming that it was indeed fairly obvious. (Unless, of course, you are somehow above average in your post interpretation skills. )

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Giz

On the other hand, a major motivation for the North to fight against secession was Unionist patriotism... would that still have been present if the USA hadn't become an independent country?

Help me understand: You're proposing American colonies so loyal to the Crown that they remain a part of the British Empire... and then questioning whether their loyalty to the Crown would have been a factor in putting down a rebellion against the Crown?

Your confusion about human motivation leads me to believe you may be some kind of robot or space alien.

[Foolmewunz]

Originally Posted by gumboot

I don't think this logic holds, given the colonies didn't become independent until the mid 20th Century.





I think the fact the UK put so much effort into trying to keep the US colonies suggests they would have put a great deal of effort into preventing the south from leaving. If anything, the south would have been so out-matched (imagine the north with the addition of the entire British Empire as its height behind it) the war would have been over that much more quickly.

Several things don't match up, here. The British were a tad on the powerful side in 1776. Imagine the British Empire with the might of the British Empire on its side! That's what they had in '76, yet they didn't succeed in keeping the American colonies in line. And the Americans, of course, were aided by the French (just so our British friends don't come running in and objecting to the notion that a bunch of ragtag ruffians beat Mother England).

And who were the powers in Europe to reckon with 90 years later? Why, France, of course. So you have the American Dominion (under British rule) trying to fight a war against Southern secession, and assume that Napoleon III wouldn't have seen this as a lovely opportunity to stick it to England?

Quote:

At the time of the Civil War the US regular army only numbered 16,000 men, with the majority of the manpower being provided by militia or conscripts with zero military experience. At about the same time the British sent 12,000 veteran Imperial soldiers to New Zealand to suppress a fairly minor Maori uprising. Those 12,000 soldiers would have had a dramatic impact on the US Civil War.

In which month? Total combat deaths in the U.S. Civil War were over 200,000, the vast majority of those on the Union side.

Quote:

Of course. It's fun to speculate, but in the end it's just speculation.

I agree, but I'd speculate that a British America would have had a much more difficult time mustering the esprit de corps necessary to continue overplaying their hand with their greatest strength - the sheer numbers of combatants they could commit. By 1864, facing fatalities that were double those of the Confederacy, would they have had the will to keep at it? And again, do you cede Mexico to Nappy 3? It was only US pressure that got him out of Mexico but I don't think England would've taken too kindly to a France/Hapsburg pigeon running Mexico, so just how that would've played out is anyone's guess. Mine (since we're doing Alt History) would be that France would've actually joined on the side of the Confederacy, something that was considered a worry by the Union, ITRW.

[Tolls]

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

Several things don't match up, here. The British were a tad on the powerful side in 1776. Imagine the British Empire with the might of the British Empire on its side! That's what they had in '76, yet they didn't succeed in keeping the American colonies in line. And the Americans, of course, were aided by the French (just so our British friends don't come running in and objecting to the notion that a bunch of ragtag ruffians beat Mother England).

Well, it was rather an important bit of support. Indeed France virtually bankrupted itself. It can be argued to have been a major cause of their own revolution.

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

And who were the powers in Europe to reckon with 90 years later? Why, France, of course. So you have the American Dominion (under British rule) trying to fight a war against Southern secession, and assume that Napoleon III wouldn't have seen this as a lovely opportunity to stick it to England?

Unless we are postulating a completely different world, Napoleon III spent most of his time trying to court the support of GB, since the Prussians had done a bang up job of isolating France. So, no. He would have been a supporter.

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

Mine (since we're doing Alt History) would be that France would've actually joined on the side of the Confederacy, something that was considered a worry by the Union, ITRW.

Ah, but that's in a world where Britain and France were both potential supporters of the confederacy. See above. Napoleon wanted an alliance with GB.

[Foolmewunz]

Originally Posted by Tolls

Well, it was rather an important bit of support. Indeed France virtually bankrupted itself. It can be argued to have been a major cause of their own revolution.



Unless we are postulating a completely different world, Napoleon III spent most of his time trying to court the support of GB, since the Prussians had done a bang up job of isolating France. So, no. He would have been a supporter.



Ah, but that's in a world where Britain and France were both potential supporters of the confederacy. See above. Napoleon wanted an alliance with GB.

Ah, but I was just pulling stuff out of my butt, as that's what this sort of speculative meandering is all about. But if we were to take Gumboot's postulated mid-19th century Colony of America seriously, then we have to realize that the Louisiana Purchase never happened, as it's highly unlikely that England would've given Nappy I the funds he was raising to wage war against them and their allies. And no Andy Jackson myth coming out of the Battle of New Orleans - since there would be no need to defend someone else's territory, so what that particular beat of a butterfy's wing would've done to the Presidential politics of the era, no one can say.

That's the problem and/or fun of these sorts of What If scenarios. For every probable, you have to consider the meme of the time traveler - e.g. that you can't do anything when you visit the past because any action, even tiny and insignificant, could change the course of history.

[Tolls]

Well, Lousiana would have simply been taken over.
It's what we did.
Especially if we bordered the place in question.

I don't see the point of What-Ifs that stray too far off What-Happened.
After all, NIII could well not have been on the throne.
As I mention above, no American revolution, quite possibly no French revolution. Or at least a delayed one.

[Giz]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Help me understand: You're proposing American colonies so loyal to the Crown that they remain a part of the British Empire... and then questioning whether their loyalty to the Crown would have been a factor in putting down a rebellion against the Crown?

Your confusion about human motivation leads me to believe you may be some kind of robot or space alien.

Actually, I was thinking that a major factor in the rebellion was that Americans had started to feel "American" rather than "British" and that the alternative hypothetical just assumed that they didn't take that a step further and go to war over it (but the feeling would still have been present).

[Profanz]

Originally Posted by Giz

Actually, I was thinking that a major factor in the rebellion was that Americans had started to feel "American" rather than "British" and that the alternative hypothetical just assumed that they didn't take that a step further and go to war over it (but the feeling would still have been present).

It was inevitable I guess. Maybe Britain realized this.

In my opinion America just grew too fast and too big for Britain to outwardly control at the time. But they still have a huge influence on us. We never go against them. It makes me wonder. Did we win or did they just let us think we won? A very strategic diplomatic maneuver maybe?

[Giz]

Originally Posted by Profanz

It was inevitable I guess. Maybe Britain realized this.

In my opinion America just grew too fast and too big for Britain to outwardly control at the time. But they still have a huge influence on us. We never go against them. It makes me wonder. Did we win or did they just let us think we won? A very strategic diplomatic maneuver maybe?

Pretty sure:
a) the US won
b) The US calls the shots nowadays

[Profanz]

Originally Posted by Giz

Pretty sure:
a) the US won
b) The US calls the shots nowadays

They call the shots? If you say so....

[dudalb]

In Terms of Quick Victory at a Low Cost, the Austro Prussian War aka The Six Weeks War in 1866 has to be up there.
Prussian with Breech Loading Rifles and Artillery against Austria with Muzzle Loading Weapons. No Contest.

[Dcdrac]

Go down fighting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKb9X...endscreen&NR=1

[Dcdrac]

War is a failure

War is an instrinic failure

WAR = FAILURE

[Dcdrac]

There is no such thing as a successful war becaue war is failure the ultimate failure a tragie conseunce of a an inability to see that is it an inability to see

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKb9X...endscreen&NR=1

[Giz]

Originally Posted by Dcdrac

War is a failure

War is an instrinic failure

WAR = FAILURE

we will surrender the seas and oceans, we shall give up our Island, whatever the cause may be, we shall sit it out on the beaches, we shall concede the landing grounds, we shall forfeit the fields and the streets, we shall roll over in the hills; we shall always surrender

[bruto]

Keeping alive for a moment the idle speculation on the US and all, a couple of things need to be added.

First, I think it's already been pointed out that although the US had a very small standing army at the beginning of the Civil War, it was able to muster huge numbers quickly. It's not that different from what happened in the revolution, where the colonists were badly outnumbered by trained British troops and Prussian mercenaries. The apparently ragtag US militia became quite large quite quickly, and had the advantage of home turf, vast territory, and a cause. One of my favorite American revolutionary characters is General Israel Putnam, by legend a modern Cincinnatus who dropped his plow in the field when called to duty, but whether or not that is a crock, he did lead his men all over New England, skirmishing with the British at almost no cost to himself and his troops, and then melted back into the woods to reappear elsewhere. I'm not sure he is credited with any victories at all, but he and his men kept turning up. His men liked him, of course, since under his command they tended not to die needlessly. It's hard to beat an opponent who refuses to die for his cause.

As for how a still-British US might have handled a secession, who knows? The Southerners were good guerrillas too, after all, and it's hard to know whether the cause of union would have meant as much to a colony as it did to a nation. After all, remaining a colony does not really require great loyalty to the crown. It only requires that attachment to the crown outweighs the disadvantages and risks of rebellion. Even the rather disgruntled might opt for the status quo, but they would not necessarily be eager to promote the crown's interests at great expense and little gain.

Idle speculation again, of course, and even a seemingly sure thing can be very different if you wait a hundred years more.

[Profanz]

Originally Posted by Giz

we will surrender the seas and oceans, we shall give up our Island, whatever the cause may be, we shall sit it out on the beaches, we shall concede the landing grounds, we shall forfeit the fields and the streets, we shall roll over in the hills; we shall always surrender

Is that a quote from Churchill or Japan?

[twinstead]

Originally Posted by bruto

On the other hand, of course, we cannot be sure how the other colonies would have been treated if the UK had not just lost a nasty revolution. Certainly at the time of the Revolution there was no sign that the UK was in any mood to relent. So maybe the reason the Canadians didn't need a revolution was because we had it first. Of course then there's the question of slavery. If, for example, there had been no revolution, what would have prevented the south from seceding and waging a war of its own independence? Could we have counted on as intense an anti-secession effort from a British colony as we did from the Union? Or would we have ended up with something like South Africa? I"m inclined to agree that the revolution was not as successful in the very long run as it seems to have been, but we'll never know for sure.

I would imagine that even the most successful war can't be as successful as it could have been

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by gumboot

I've never claimed there was a difference, so I don't know what the relevance of this strawman is at all. The first seven attacks listed in your summary were not carried out by Islamic/Muslim (pick which ever you prefer) Arab terrorists.

Utter rubbish. These was ALL carried out by Arab/Mulsim/Islamic terrorists. They may not have been "organisations", or memebrs of such, but they were Arabs and they were terrorists, any way you slice it.

Quote:

1968
June 5 - U.S. presidential candidate Robert Kennedy murdered by Palestinian Sirhan Sirhan, in Los Angeles, which causes further terrorist attacks, as Arab terrorist groups demanded his release.

1970
Sept. 6 - “Skyjack Sunday” in Jordan. 3 planes (TWA, Swissair, Pan Am) en route to the U.S. hijacked, 400+ hostages, planes blown up in Jordan, Governments agreed to PFLP’s* demands, released terrorists from jails and hostages released.

*PFLP = Popular Front for the Liberations of Palestine, an Arab TERRORIST Organisation!!

1972
Sept. 5 - Munich Olympic Games massacre. Palestinian terrorists seize eleven athletes in the Olympic Village in Munich. One American, nine hostages and five terrorists killed,

This attack was carried out by Black September which was a PLO faction working independently from PLO. The PLO (Palestine Liberation Organisation) was an ARAB terrorist organisation.

1974
Sept. 8 - TWA Flight 841 exploded from bomb in cargo hold, all 88 passengers killed. Arab terrorists claimed responsibility.

1976
June 27 - Air France airliner hijacked, forced to fly to Uganda. 258 passengers and crew held hostage. Three passengers killed. July 4th, Israeli commandos rescue the remaining hostages. (this was made into a movie - "Victory at Entebbe"

*This attack was carried out by members of the PFLP, as previously mentioned, an Arab terrorist organisation


1979
Nov. 4 - Arab Terrorists seize the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and take 66 American diplomats hostage. 13 freed, but the remaining 53 held until their release on January 20, 1981 - 444 days - at the inauguration of President Ronald Reagan.

1981
May 13 - Pope John Paul II seriously wounded in assassination attempt in Rome, Italy, by terrorist Mehmet Ali Agca.

You're wrong on three counts out of seven so far. I think that is enough to show that you have utterly no idea what you are talking about

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

Several things don't match up, here. The British were a tad on the powerful side in 1776. Imagine the British Empire with the might of the British Empire on its side! That's what they had in '76, yet they didn't succeed in keeping the American colonies in line. And the Americans, of course, were aided by the French (just so our British friends don't come running in and objecting to the notion that a bunch of ragtag ruffians beat Mother England).

In the 18th Century the British Empire was the smallest of a number of very large European Empires squabbling for world domination. By the mid 19th Century the British had firmly overwhelmed all of the other European powers and was irrefutably the world power.

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

And who were the powers in Europe to reckon with 90 years later? Why, France, of course. So you have the American Dominion (under British rule) trying to fight a war against Southern secession, and assume that Napoleon III wouldn't have seen this as a lovely opportunity to stick it to England?

By 1860 France and Britain were cozy allies, and France unquestionably the inferior junior member of the partnership. France would have fought on the side of the North, if at all. You've got to remember that with the end of the Napoleonic Wars the British Empire was undisputed top dog of the world. In particular, they had total freedom of the seas; it would be the early 20th Century before any country in the world could even hope to compete with the Royal Navy.

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

In which month? Total combat deaths in the U.S. Civil War were over 200,000, the vast majority of those on the Union side.

If you re-read my post you'll see that I was referring to the number of trained professional soldiers. If you think press-ganged militia are comparable to career soldiers you are... mistaken. Further, my point is that they could have doubled the size of the North's pre-existing army in the first months of the war. In all likelihood they would have had a rather large land force already in North America (those Spanish-American wars in the first half of the 19th Century would have been Spanish-British Wars). If the south had been stupid enough to rebel in such a scenario, the initial efforts by the North would have been that much more effective at quickly stamping out the war before it grew big enough to drag a million conscripts into it.

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

I agree, but I'd speculate that a British America would have had a much more difficult time mustering the esprit de corps necessary to continue overplaying their hand with their greatest strength - the sheer numbers of combatants they could commit.

I think the South would have been destroyed long before that had time to whip up all their conscripts, but in any event I don't think so, British patriotism was at its zenith in the 19th Century. The Americans fought the British in their early days, when they weren't much of a world power. By the mid 20th Century they were growing into the largest Empire in human history, and the wee British Isles were fairly bubbling with patriotism. You want to see what the effect of that is? In WWI the British Army were using a million troops in a single battle, and that was just to help out a friend. Imagine what they'd have done to protect their own territory. Remember, they sent a quarter of the Imperial Army to the middle of the North Island of New Zealand (some of the most unbelievably inhospitable terrain on the planet) just to smack a Maori chief around for calling himself a King.

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

By 1864, facing fatalities that were double those of the Confederacy, would they have had the will to keep at it? And again, do you cede Mexico to Nappy 3? It was only US pressure that got him out of Mexico but I don't think England would've taken too kindly to a France/Hapsburg pigeon running Mexico, so just how that would've played out is anyone's guess. Mine (since we're doing Alt History) would be that France would've actually joined on the side of the Confederacy, something that was considered a worry by the Union, ITRW.

Like I said, France and Britain were close as cousins by the mid 19th Century. If anything, the Brits might have helped France in Mexico too.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Utter rubbish. These was ALL carried out by Arab/Mulsim/Islamic terrorists. They may not have been "organisations", or memebrs of such, but they were Arabs and they were terrorists, any way you slice it.

Your ignorance is staggering. Let me break it down for you.

Robert Kennedy was assassinated by a Christian Palestinian nationalist.

Mehmet Ali Agca was a right-wing Turkish nationalist and a Christian.

The Black September Organisation is believed to be part of Fatah/PLO which is a secular Palestinian nationalist terrorist organisation, not an Islamic terrorist organisation (such as, say, Hamas).

The Iranian students who seized the US Embassy were neither Arabs nor terrorists. Iranians are Persians. They were students partaking in a revolution, not terrorists.

The three remaining attacks were carried out by the PFLP, which, despite your ill-informed opinion, was not an Islamic terrorist organisation. It was a secular leftist-/Stalinist Palestinian nationalist terrorist organisation.

[Giz]

Originally Posted by gumboot

By 1860 France and Britain were cozy allies,

Allies of convenience (and despite the Crimean War partnership, the French tried to negotiate an alliance with Russia which would have left the UK out in the cold). Also, Napoleon III wanted to help the South during the Civil War... I think France, in combination with other countries might have tweaked the Lion's tail had the opportunity presented itself.


I think that the only way 12,000 British veterans might have made a significant difference to the Civil War is if:
1) they had all been present at 1st Bull Run/Manassas
2) Their presence had resulted in the North winning the battle
3) Losing the initial battle of the war had led to a collapse of the South's will to fight on

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Profanz

Is that a quote from Churchill or Japan?

If you are equating Great Britain in 1940 with Japan in 1945, welcome to my "Someone Whose Opinions Are Totally Worthless and Should Be Ignored" list.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by gumboot

Your ignorance is staggering. Let me break it down for you.

Robert Kennedy was assassinated by a Christian Palestinian nationalist.

Mehmet Ali Agca was a right-wing Turkish nationalist and a Christian.

The Black September Organisation is believed to be part of Fatah/PLO which is a secular Palestinian nationalist terrorist organisation, not an Islamic terrorist organisation (such as, say, Hamas).

The Iranian students who seized the US Embassy were neither Arabs nor terrorists. Iranians are Persians. They were students partaking in a revolution, not terrorists.

The three remaining attacks were carried out by the PFLP, which, despite your ill-informed opinion, was not an Islamic terrorist organisation. It was a secular leftist-/Stalinist Palestinian nationalist terrorist organisation.

Pointless hair splitting.

I don't care whether they are Islamic, Christian, Secular or otherwise. They were still ARABS, and they were still TERRORISTS, and the families of their brutally murdered victims will not be comforted one iota by who the bastards worshipped or if they even worshipped anyone at all.

Your seeming dismissal of those facts staggers the mind. I really wonder if you actually care about anything at all other than your own ego!

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Pointless hair splitting.

I don't care whether they are Islamic, Christian, Secular or otherwise. They were still ARABS, and they were still TERRORISTS, and the families of their brutally murdered victims will not be comforted one iota by who the bastards worshipped or if they even worshipped anyone at all.

Your seeming dismissal of those facts staggers the mind. I really wonder if you actually care about anything at all other than your own ego!

That's not even competent racism! Persians are not Arabs. Dear heaven, if you can't manage even something as simple as racial abuse, there's little hope of you being able to convince others of the soundness of your views.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Craig B

That's not even competent racism! Persians are not Arabs. Dear heaven, if you can't manage even something as simple as racial abuse, there's little hope of you being able to convince others of the soundness of your views.

One of my neighbours, an Iranian refugee whose daughter goes to school with my grand-daughter, tells me that most Arabs are Sunni Muslim, while most Persians are Shi'ite Muslim (he is Shi'ite).

He also tells me that terrorist organisations such as the PLO and Al Quaeda are cross denominational, i.e. they have both Shi'ite and Sunni members. Is he right or wrong?

If he is right, then it does not really matter whether they are actually Arabs or not, does it? If they bomb aircraft and buildings and murder innocent people, all in the name of their religion, then it doesn't matter whether they are brown, white or yellow, Arab or Persian, Muslim, Christian or Secular, they are still terrorists.

While my neighbour resents being called an Arab (in the same way that I resent being called an Australian) he understands why people do, and interestingly, he has similar views to me with regards to terrorism. He is actually ashamed to be associated with the acts of terrorism perpetrated by what he calls "mirdm esbana" (madmen). He says it makes him cringe every time hears of another "outrage perpetrated in the name of Allah"

[Craig B]

smartcooky statement 1:

Quote:

I don't care whether they are Islamic, Christian, Secular or otherwise. They were still ARABS, and they were still TERRORISTS, and the families of their brutally murdered victims will not be comforted one iota by who the bastards worshipped or if they even worshipped anyone at all.

smartcooky statement 2

Quote:

... it does not really matter whether they are actually Arabs or not, does it?

Thanks, smartcooky. That gives me something to think about today. And you have a nice day, too.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Craig B

smartcooky statement 1: smartcooky statement 2Thanks, smartcooky. That gives me something to think about today. And you have a nice day, too.

Glad I could help!

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

One of my neighbours, an Iranian refugee whose daughter goes to school with my grand-daughter, tells me that most Arabs are Sunni Muslim, while most Persians are Shi'ite Muslim (he is Shi'ite).

He also tells me that terrorist organisations such as the PLO and Al Quaeda are cross denominational, i.e. they have both Shi'ite and Sunni members. Is he right or wrong?

Well, since the PLO is not a religious organisation, it has all sorts in it.

Originally Posted by smartcooky

If he is right, then it does not really matter whether they are actually Arabs or not, does it? If they bomb aircraft and buildings and murder innocent people, all in the name of their religion, then it doesn't matter whether they are brown, white or yellow, Arab or Persian, Muslim, Christian or Secular, they are still terrorists.

None of the seven listed attacks were carried out in the name of religion. They were all carried out for nationalist reasons. Even confronted with your own ignorance, you embrace it.



While my neighbour resents being called an Arab (in the same way that I resent being called an Australian) he understands why people do, and interestingly, he has similar views to me with regards to terrorism. He is actually ashamed to be associated with the acts of terrorism perpetrated by what he calls "mirdm esbana" (madmen). He says it makes him cringe every time hears of another "outrage perpetrated in the name of Allah"
[/quote]

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by gumboot

None of the seven listed attacks were carried out in the name of religion. They were all carried out for nationalist reasons.

In most Middle Eastern countries that support terrorism, either openly or covertly, nationalism and religion are intimately entwined. Some have Islamic Government, in which following of the Islamic faith is all but compulsory. Commit an act of terrorism for nationalistic reasons, and you are automatically doing so for religious reasons as well.

Some have Sharia Law which is known for its brutal oppression of women and which inflicts savage punishments on those who contravene it.

[John Jones]

Quote:

1979
Nov. 4 - Arab Terrorists seize the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and take 66 American diplomats hostage.

Iranians/Persians are not Arabs. Unless I was misinformed, the seizure of the US Embassy was by Iranians.

[Profanz]

WWI and WWII were to be the end of all wars. Who has every really won and what did they gain that was permanent?

I think its pretty obvious that I am antiwar at this point. Just tell me how war succeeds in the long term. And what is the long term? 200 years? A thousand?

The Greeks? The Romans maybe? But what happened to them in the end? Do empires ever last? For how much longer?

[SpitfireIX]

Originally Posted by Profanz

WWI and WWII were to be the end of all wars. Who has every really won and what did they gain that was permanent?

I think its pretty obvious that I am antiwar at this point. Just tell me how war succeeds in the long term. And what is the long term? 200 years? A thousand?

The Greeks? The Romans maybe? But what happened to them in the end? Do empires ever last? For how much longer?

Exactly what do you feel that Britain, France, and the United States should have done in response to Axis aggression from 1938-1941?

[Kid Eager]

Originally Posted by Profanz

WWI and WWII were to be the end of all wars. Who has every really won and what did they gain that was permanent?

I think its pretty obvious that I am antiwar at this point. Just tell me how war succeeds in the long term. And what is the long term? 200 years? A thousand?

The Greeks? The Romans maybe? But what happened to them in the end? Do empires ever last? For how much longer?

False dichotomy, as you haven't looked at the other side of the coin. Tell us about the permanent results that non-war has achieved (ie the exercising of foreign policy that didn't use war).

As for your question of Greeks and Romans, insert any empire one wishes to consider, and with 100% certainty I say say that none last forever. One could argue the failure of the Roman Empire arose through loss of the ability or will to successfully conduct war.

I have a theory that the longevity of an empire is dictated by the advantage it has in the speed of communication of the empire, compared to the non-empire; and that empires have shorter lives as we approach the modern era due to overall faster communication. Watch this space for publication.

[Profanz]

Originally Posted by Kid Eager

False dichotomy, as you haven't looked at the other side of the coin. Tell us about the permanent results that non-war has achieved (ie the exercising of foreign policy that didn't use war).

As for your question of Greeks and Romans, insert any empire one wishes to consider, and with 100% certainty I say say that none last forever. One could argue the failure of the Roman Empire arose through loss of the ability or will to successfully conduct war.

I have a theory that the longevity of an empire is dictated by the advantage it has in the speed of communication of the empire, compared to the non-empire; and that empires have shorter lives as we approach the modern era due to overall faster communication. Watch this space for publication.

Are you a military expert?