Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Pb on June 07, 2017, 10:03:46 AM
-
What is the goal of Islamic terrorism in the west?
-
Convince west to declare war on Islam. Which will unite all of Islam together in self-defense. Establish a caliphate. Tax people if they don't convert. Must continue to expand the borders of the caliphate, as a religious requirement.
-
Convince west to declare war on Islam. Which will unite all of Islam together in self-defense. Establish a caliphate. Tax people if they don't convert. Must continue to expand the borders of the caliphate, as a religious requirement.
This.
Which is kind of oxymoronic... Because what they want is impossible. Even if we in the West completely played into it.
1. Islam will never unite. If you look at body-count, it's clear that internecine/sectarian violence within Islam kills orders of magnitude more people than Islam kills Westerners, Christians, Jews etc. And the fracture lines are deep indeed. Not even counting Sunni vs. Shia, just within Sunni, where one might think there's agreement... The rather brutal and repressive Saudi Wahabis vs. the more Salafi/Takfiris stance ISIS takes. One would think they're close cousins, but ISIS/ISIL considers most of Wahhabism, and other Sunnis who make the pilgrimage to be idolaters due to the Kaaba in Mecca etc.
And even if you could wipe away the sectarian problems, the national/regional ones that add a whole other layer of back-stabby complexity to it all... it just wouldn't function because they're so culturally handicapped. The endemic lack of trust beyond one's family or tribe etc. and the corruption would leave them hamstrung. Granted, this has worked in ISIS' favor, like how the Iraqi forces, trained and supplied by the US with helicopters and export M1 Abrams tanks... initially fled before ISIS in a bunch of Toyotas with RPG's. :P But ISIS has the same problems internally. Units cutting and running, all the foreign fighters drawn to jihad can also just as easily flee back to their homes if the going gets rough etc.
2. Ignoring #1 for the sake of argument, assuming the unified caliphate got established, regional/national militaries and their logistics were all integrated... They still lose to the U.S., NATO, and the "West". And that's assuming Russia and China sit it out, or hell, even if they actually help this putative Caliphate with logistics/weapons, hoping it'll weaken/destroy the West for them by proxy. It would be a bloodbath. A turkey shoot. Imagine how Iraq fell in one week to us twice in Gulf Wars 1 and 2, but the whole region. And we'd bring air and naval assets into play that we never needed in Iraq.
And if it were "total war" without occupation, nation building, or hearts-and-minds stuff afterward, and civilian/economic targets were on the table and not just military ones, it could conceivably depopulate the Middle Eastern Muslim population by something like 50 to even 90% within a year through infrastructure collapse.
I mean... Israel, all alone, defeated what arguably would have mostly comprised such a caliphate army three times in the 20th century. Imagine what the U.S./NATO would do to them.
-
What is the goal of Islamic terrorism in the west?
if you have to ask, you just have not been paying attention for the past 20 years.,
-
AJ, you forgot the entire Persian/Arab rift as well, and that goes back as far as recorded history, even before 600 CE.
Plus the most populous Muslim country isn't even the Middle East (Indonesia). And if somehow the Middle East Muslims did unite, to include Pakistan,, India would go fast and hard into Kashmir. So the "caliphate" would be fighting at least a multi-front (at least two) war with India and NATO (Again, assuming that at best Russia and China were, at best, supplying the Muslim side.)
Plus we've trained most of the Muslim world so we know how they react to given events, and have built in some predictability to their actions....aka "Break left".
-
This.
Which is kind of oxymoronic... Because what they want is impossible. Even if we in the West completely played into it.
"God wills it" is the standard answer to your points. It's not remotely an Islamic thing. Actually, more than a couple folks believe that the Islamic folks will have to lose some huge battle before the 'end times' start and they start to win again. Hence why the ISIS caliphate was considered a huge deal and why they've had so many concerns. They announced a caliphate, which is automatically supposed to get support from all Muslims everywhere (bwahahaha). They also have a couple of key cities where apocalyptic wars are supposed to be faught.
Westerners have plenty of Book of Revelation cults, for two thousand years. This is no different. The reality doesn't matter. That it is impossible, doesn't matter. "God wills it."
if you have to ask, you just have not been paying attention for the past 20 years.,
It's a fair question.
99.99% of westerns don't know it. Government and military has a much higher percentage of awareness. 98% are unaware of the actual goals of Islamic militants. I'm being generous, but you get the idea.
-
Scare people?
Kill infidels?
Win the "Islamic 72 Virgins" lottery?
-
if you have to ask, you just have not been paying attention for the past 20 1300 years.,
Fixed.
-
if you have to ask, you just have not been paying attention for the past 20 years.,
Out of curiosity: What do you think Islamic Terrorists want to accomplish with their attacks? What's their strategic goal?
I ask, because based on your posts here, I would have pegged you as one of the majority of Americans that Rev mentioned, i.e. not really understanding the depth of difference in cultural principals, and the specific planning and goals of Islamic terrorism.
-
Convince west to declare war on Islam. Which will unite all of Islam together in self-defense. Establish a caliphate. Tax people if they don't convert. Must continue to expand the borders of the caliphate, as a religious requirement.
I think the first two sentences are a bit too complicated for them. I agree with the later part. I don't think they consider the West capable of bringing war to Islam.
That said, look at what has happened in Iraq the last 20 years. They are just treating Westerners the same way they treat each other.
-
I have often wondered what if the West were to destroy, vaporize, their false god allah, by destroying Mecca and the Al Kaaba Al Musharrafah. Some believe the entire religious/government structure would collapse. I tend to lean in that direction because I agree with what AJ explained above in detail.
-
I have often wondered what if the West were to destroy, vaporize, their false god allah, by destroying Mecca and the Al Kaaba Al Musharrafah. Some believe the entire religious/government structure would collapse. I tend to lean in that direction because I agree with what AJ explained above in detail.
Point proven in anyone was leery of my assertion. =D
That would be a good way of trying to accomplish the Islamic terrorist goals. And no, it likely would not make Islam disappear. Unfortunately, it's a non-centralized religion. Essentially all clerics are more or less independent, except for... reputation? Kinda, sorta. Some clerics are more respected than others, but there's no official hierarchy. Except when there is.
Unless you're talking about it uniting all Muslims across the world into a single jihad which would then be easily destroyed. Which neither would happen. Unifying all Muslims everywhere won't happen. Ever. Because it's worse than herding cats. And any time anyone claims an enemy can be "easily destroyed", they tend to miss the point that we've lost the majority of significant wars where we're trying to take over someone else's turf. Technology favors defenders over invaders.
-
if you have to ask, you just have not been paying attention for the past 1395 years.,
Fixed it for you
The goal of Islamic terrorism in the west is the exact same as the goal of islam when it was founded: kill or subjugate every nonbeliever in the world.
-
I have often wondered what if the West were to destroy, vaporize, their false god allah, by destroying Mecca and the Al Kaaba Al Musharrafah. Some believe the entire religious/government structure would collapse. I tend to lean in that direction because I agree with what AJ explained above in detail.
... they don't believe the black stone IS allah, gramps...
-
I have often wondered what if the West were to destroy, vaporize, their false god allah, by destroying Mecca and the Al Kaaba Al Musharrafah. Some believe the entire religious/government structure would collapse. I tend to lean in that direction because I agree with what AJ explained above in detail.
It would be like nuking Vatican City, when your beef is with the Baptists and Presbyterians, the Greek Orthodox Church.
-
Peace. Duh!
-
It would be like nuking Vatican City, when your beef is with the Baptists and Presbyterians, the Greek Orthodox Church.
Dammit, ya gotta sart someplace.
-
Day of the Siege. Good film, probably find it free online. Same goals, different century. Same solution. I love the whole killing terrorists creates more terrorists argument. Why yes it does. Creates new, poorly trained, non ideal physical specimens who have just had their new to them stuff broken. Who then hopefully cluster into more compact military targets or out in the world try to pull off more inept capers.
-
Out of curiosity: What do you think Islamic Terrorists want to accomplish with their attacks? What's their strategic goal?
I ask, because based on your posts here, I would have pegged you as one of the majority of Americans that Rev mentioned, i.e. not really understanding the depth of difference in cultural principals, and the specific planning and goals of Islamic terrorism.
laughing. You would have pegged me wrong, but to address your question, the purpose of islam is to dominate the world, subjugate the infidels to Allah, and to bring about the second, and final caliphate. At least that's what they say.
They do hate each other almost as much as they hate us though. That has always slowed them down. It's been islam vs the rest of the world for a bit over 1400 years now, with no end in sight.
-
Point proven in anyone was leery of my assertion. =D
That would be a good way of trying to accomplish the Islamic terrorist goals. And no, it likely would not make Islam disappear. Unfortunately, it's a non-centralized religion. Essentially all clerics are more or less independent, except for... reputation? Kinda, sorta. Some clerics are more respected than others, but there's no official hierarchy. Except when there is.
Unless you're talking about it uniting all Muslims across the world into a single jihad which would then be easily destroyed. Which neither would happen. Unifying all Muslims everywhere won't happen. Ever. Because it's worse than herding cats. And any time anyone claims an enemy can be "easily destroyed", they tend to miss the point that we've lost the majority of significant wars where we're trying to take over someone else's turf. Technology favors defenders over invaders.
On that last, we did actually take their turf easily but I would say we didn't try to destroy them (depending on who you define as them). It wasn't the turf taking or the basic destruction we failed at. It was what to after that that began the problems.
-
They do hate each other almost as much as they hate us though. That has always slowed them down. It's been islam vs the rest of the world for a bit over 1400 years now, with no end in sight.
They hate each other WAY more than they hate the west. That's why they have to work so hard to make the West the "Great Satan" to band together against. These conversations always seem to gloss over (or miss completely) that while Arabs and Persians are Muslim, they are also strongly culturally Tribal. They are probably even more tribal than they are Muslim. I don't think Americans get that, because our convenient just doesn't have "tribes" the way SW Aisa does.
-
I don't think Americans get that, because our convenient just doesn't have "tribes" the way SW Aisa does.
Did you mean to say covfefe? ???
-
Dogmush, the animosity between muslims is not so much culturally driven, as it is the result of the Sunni/Shia issue. I am sure you are conversant with that schism, and the results for islam, down through the years and still a factor today.
-
T.E. Lawrence: Sherif Ali. So long as the Arabs fight tribe against tribe, so long will they be a little people; a silly people; greedy, barbarous, and cruel, as you are.
-
Did you mean to say covfefe? ???
Actually I meant to say continent, but spell check got me.
Dogmush, the animosity between muslims is not so much culturally driven, as it is the result of the Sunni/Shia issue. I am sure you are conversant with that schism, and the results for islam, down through the years and still a factor today.
Meh. Not to discount that schism completely, because it IS still an issue, and is a decent indicator of how countries will lean in conflicts (Iran and the Houthi's for example), but I have seen some epic multi-generational hate between a Sunni Turkomen village and a Sunni Bedouin village. It don't matter WHAT religion a Kurd is, Arab's don't like him. You have to watch the ANSF units you're working with because if you get a Tajik unit near a Pashtun unit 50/50 they'll drop everything and try to slaughter each other.
That's what I'm saying. Islam isn't as big a driver as many westerners and ISIS's own propaganda would have you believe. They TRY to make a big deal out of Islam and the "Evil" west to use it as a mechanism to force the disparate tribes together.
That's one of the goals of the terrorists that is often discounted. Provide at once a specific enemy (the West) and a path to victory (Join together under Islam) to their fractious followers.
-
They hate each other WAY more than they hate the west. That's why they have to work so hard to make the West the "Great Satan" to band together against. These conversations always seem to gloss over (or miss completely) that while Arabs and Persians are Muslim, they are also strongly culturally Tribal. They are probably even more tribal than they are Muslim. I don't think Americans get that, because our convenient just doesn't have "tribes" the way SW Aisa does.
This exactly. The entire "Unite the Muslim world", had about as much chance as the Flying Spaghetti coming down from the Great Meatball and appointing me his Holy Messenger on Earth.
Arabs and Persians - US Civil War only going on for several millennia.
Shia vs Sunni vs Wahabi,vs Sufi vs Alwites vs all the others - Picture Europe before WWI, but way, way. way worse.
Tribal - Hatfields vs McCoys
And the last is why Western Armies and continue to kick the *expletive deleted*it our of Arab armies. Picture your a private in Basic, in the west. You have no tribe, so you learn to get along and work with everyone in your unit regardless of race, color, creed, religion, sex, or anything else. You have to work together or you could very well get kill and/or kill everyone around you. (which makes you very unpopular with what's left of your unit.) As Gunny Hartman says in Full Metal Jacket I am hard, but I am fair. There is no racial bigotry here. I do not look down on niggers, kikes, wops or greasers. Here you are all equally worthless.
And it's true, everyone gets *expletive deleted*it on equally, the fireguard/KP/other duty rosters generally are in alphabetical order, so there it no favoritism.
You go to an Arab Army, and Tribe is everything. It starts with whether the "leadership" in your unit is the same Shia or Sunni as you. Then the same tribe, then the same family. The closer you are in family relations to your leadership, the better your duties, assignments and promotions. If you are say a Sunni in Shia unit (like a lot of the Iraq Army was (and to a certain extent is), you could be guaranteed to get every *expletive deleted*it assignment in both war and peace. You job would be to "Move out and draw fire", when you weren't cleaning latrines with your face. Yet the guy right next to you in the ranks, would be more and better food, cush assignments, and promoted ahead of you. So there was no cohesion. And that's assuming that there isn't the rampant corruption, and incompetence (again promotions and appointments based upon how closely you were related to TPTB. SO even an greatly outnumbered, inadequately armed and trained, cohesive force, like the Israelis could cut through them like a hot knife through butter. Back in the 80's, we thought the IDF was the absolute *expletive deleted*it when it came to warfighting. Then we went up against an Arab Army in DS/DS. And learned first hand that the IDF truly had been going up the JV team.
And the "No central religious authority", means there's nothing to rally around. There is no "Pope", so killing Al-Baghdadi only pisses off a few thousands, a few ten thousands of Arabs. As opposed to killing the Pope would inflame millions of Catholics. (I remember when John Paul II was shot), I know lots of Catholics that wanted NATO to go after Bulgaria.
Anyway, what was the question?
-
The goals of Islamic terrorism in the west are largely political and specific to the geopolitics of the terrorist.
-
And it's true, everyone gets *expletive deleted*it on equally, the fireguard/KP/other duty rosters generally are in alphabetical order, so there it no favoritism.
Is that how it's done in today's Army? When I was in (late 1960s, Vietnam) there were always people rotating in and out of units, so alphabetical wouldn't have worked. The company clerk ran each roster. Each name on each roster had a number after it. Every day, each man's number increased by one -- it was the number of days since he last pulled duty. High man got the short straw. New guys just got plugged into the rotation.
-
I was referring to Basic (and AIT) training. That's were you form your first cohesion. Then when you get to your unit, since everyone has been through the same training, more or less, you already understand your role and place in the grand scheme of things... (Shut-up and carry the M60. ;))
But yes, once you arrived at your unit, the DA6 was run as you described, although most units kept two lists. One for regular duty days, and one for weekends/holidays. Otherwise, depending on your number you could end up pulling whatever duty several weekends and/or holidays in a row. And DA6's were a nightmare in an MP unit as you had the 1SG running the KP, CQ and CQ runner duty rosters and the Platoon Sergeants running the DLO mission DA6's and those roster actually came ahead of the 1SG. And when we were in Garrison it often took two platoons for the DLO mission. We tried to do it so that one platoon was *expletive deleted*it detail platoon (and prep for the field) that belonged to the 1SG, one platoon in training, and two platoons doing DLO. And then rotating after a week.
So every month you spent two weeks on the road, one week pulling CQ and KP while preping for the field, and then one week in the field. Of course, this all went to hell if one of the brigades went to Graf or Hohenfels, or there was a Caravan Guard or REFORGER exercise.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZk4Yu42g0I