Mannlicher
New member
SparkySteve
I think you have mixed up who attacked who.
I think you have mixed up who attacked who.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Are we on the verge of WWIII???
- Thread starter sparkysteve
- Start date
zippyfusenet
New member
mujahid = someone who does jihad.
mujahideen = plural form.
It's just a common noun in Arabic. It's not the official name of a political party or army or armed movement. The Afghan guerillas who fought the Soviets called their war a jihad, and themselves mujahideen.
mujahideen = plural form.
It's just a common noun in Arabic. It's not the official name of a political party or army or armed movement. The Afghan guerillas who fought the Soviets called their war a jihad, and themselves mujahideen.
Ah ... okay. That makes sense and clears the confusion. Western, "bright-line" distinctions sometimes have difficulty capturing the best meanings of foreign terms.mujahid = someone who does jihad.
mujahideen = plural form.
It's just a common noun in Arabic. It's not the official name of a political party or army or armed movement. The Afghan guerillas who fought the Soviets called their war a jihad, and themselves mujahideen.
Anyway, in regards to the topic, I'm getting a little tired of the panic I'm hearing in the news talkers. Am I the only one here who is old enough to remember the days when EVERY day the news reported battles in the Middle East between Israel and her neighbors? It's unfortunate those days have returned, but they are not anything new.
And the belly-aching about high gas prices because of this situation. Well, boo-hoo. Dial 1-800-Waa-Haaa. We are in the middle of a war that is at least as important as WWII and probably more difficult to win given the dispersed nature of our foes. Does anyone remember the rationing and restrictions our populace endured during WWII? In some places, you couldn't even have your lights on at night. But now the sky is falling when it costs an extra $10 in gas to go shopping or to a movie. If it costs you $1,000 to fill up the tank of your 20-ton ChevForDodge GodzillaXBGH (XtraBigGasHog) that gets 10 gallons to the mile, all I can say is that you knew the thing was expensive to fill up when you bought it.
Yes, I'm VERY concerned about Iran using nukes against Israel. In my misspent youth, I had limited involvement in some issues regarding nuclear warfare, and it may be impossible for any human to fully understand all the ramifications of a nuclear exchange. Study Chernobyl and you'll glimpse a tip of the radioactive iceberg. And sadly, the use of one nuke will likely cause the use of others in a "fight fire with fire" scenario. Israel in response would turn Iran into a glass field. After that, what would happen is anyone's guess.
But I also think Iran would have already nuked Israel if it could. Also, the "Arab world" has not lined up against Israel as yet. I think Iran and Syria expected more support and are now uncertain how to proceed.
I'm also concerned about N. Korea, but they're mostly likely rattling their rusty scabbard now because they're taking advantage of the situation. However, that situation will change, and they may end up harming themselves in the end, like a fish caught on the beach when the tide moves out. Meanwhile, it looks like their oddly appropriately named Taepodong-2 missile needs Viagra to keep it up. What they've accomplished so far is to motivate Japan to start handling some of the load in the Asian theater, which takes some of the load off us.
Which makes this particular war different from all the others. Past wars featured a united islamic front, with a few exceptions, from the get-go. The fact that we don't see a united front betrays division in the muslim world over the actions of two terror organizations and their sponsor, Iran. Iran's bellicose stance may well have isolated itself from the Arab world. Perhaps we are beginning to see the sorting out of difference between muslim states and arab states.But I also think Iran would have already nuked Israel if it could. Also, the "Arab world" has not lined up against Israel as yet. I think Iran and Syria expected more support and are now uncertain how to proceed.
Bravo! Exactly!Which makes this particular war different from all the others. Past wars featured a united islamic front, with a few exceptions, from the get-go. The fact that we don't see a united front betrays division in the muslim world over the actions of two terror organizations and their sponsor, Iran. Iran's bellicose stance may well have isolated itself from the Arab world. Perhaps we are beginning to see the sorting out of difference between muslim states and arab states.
308Enfield
New member
I voted yes in the sense of a conventional, multi-theatre, World War III. I say this because being a kid in the 80's World War III was synonymous with the U.S.-USSR nuclear annihilation of the world. The multiple conflicts either going on or on the verge of erupting (Israel vs. Lebanon, Syria, and Iran; North Korea vs. South Korea, Japan, and others; India vs. Pakistan; France surrendering just to be safe, etc.) could quickly add up to a world-wide conflict where once again you see multiple powers fighting a local war while the world powers like the U.S. and major Western European powers are engaged in multiple theatres (South Asia, the Middle East, the Far East, etc.). When will it happen? If I knew that I'd be a very powerful person. Will it happen? I think the answer is unfortunately yes.
seeker_two
New member
Nope, WWIII was the Cold War. Plenty of battlefields (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Middle East, etc).....
This is WW IV. And it's not a "cold" one....
(...although you could make the arguement that ALL the conflicts of the 20th & 21st Centuries (post-1918) were outgrowths of the Treaty of Versailles and WWI. So it's France's fault, after all....)
This is WW IV. And it's not a "cold" one....
(...although you could make the arguement that ALL the conflicts of the 20th & 21st Centuries (post-1918) were outgrowths of the Treaty of Versailles and WWI. So it's France's fault, after all....)
johnsonrlp
New member
Lebanon is a tool, hardly a real threat to anyone. We wont get involved militarily unless... Syria has Iraq's WMD's (and they do). If they get itchy...Israel will nuke the bejesus out of them and... Iran will get involved. Then it's bad.
WhyteP38 I highly agree...
I love your statement about the XtraBigGasHog, rather hilariously true. We need people to pursue biofuels, hybridization, and better fuel consumption!! It will help stop this dependency on foreign oil, and help the environment at the same time, then perhaps we can start paying for our fuel in mere change instead of large bills. Though I must say, who else would get involved against Israel, other than Syria, Lebannon, and possibly Iran? Jordan and Saudi Arabia would probably stay out of it wouldn't they? It also bothers me that most people I've talked to don't think of the other implications using nukes, such as radioactive fallout that can carry across outside of the war zone.
Epyon
And the belly-aching about high gas prices because of this situation. Well, boo-hoo. Dial 1-800-Waa-Haaa. We are in the middle of a war that is at least as important as WWII and probably more difficult to win given the dispersed nature of our foes. Does anyone remember the rationing and restrictions our populace endured during WWII? In some places, you couldn't even have your lights on at night. But now the sky is falling when it costs an extra $10 in gas to go shopping or to a movie. If it costs you $1,000 to fill up the tank of your 20-ton ChevForDodge GodzillaXBGH (XtraBigGasHog) that gets 10 gallons to the mile, all I can say is that you knew the thing was expensive to fill up when you bought it.
I love your statement about the XtraBigGasHog, rather hilariously true. We need people to pursue biofuels, hybridization, and better fuel consumption!! It will help stop this dependency on foreign oil, and help the environment at the same time, then perhaps we can start paying for our fuel in mere change instead of large bills. Though I must say, who else would get involved against Israel, other than Syria, Lebannon, and possibly Iran? Jordan and Saudi Arabia would probably stay out of it wouldn't they? It also bothers me that most people I've talked to don't think of the other implications using nukes, such as radioactive fallout that can carry across outside of the war zone.
Epyon