Has WWIII started? Someone thinks so -

IF it is WWIII, can it be won considering European, and to some extent the USs’, economic dependence on Muslim immigrants?
Not to mention the monetary investments made in ‘Western’ banking systems by Islamic interests.

This man thinks the flag has already gone up.

[quote]It’s war already, says spy
Mark Dunn, October 18, 2006 12:00a

WESTERN countries are fighting World War III and it would last a generation, former head of Israel’s Mossad spy network, Efraim Halevy, said in Melbourne yesterday.

Mr Halevy, who ran Israel’s intelligence agency between 1998 and 2002, said a major terror attack was possible in Australia.

But he said the public didn’t appear to realise the seriousness of the threat.

“The threats today are aimed at destroying the whole way of life in democratic societies . . . of turning back the wheel more than 1000 years,” Mr Halevy said.

The security adviser to former prime minister Ariel Sharon and now head of strategic studies at Hebrew University of Jerusalem, said Islamic militancy was squarely aimed at establishing an international caliphate.

“The goals here are global. The goals here are absolute,” Mr Halevy said.

“This is a modern-type third world war . . . (but) it’s very difficult to convince the public there is a war at all.”

Mr Halevy said the three major threats the world faced were weapons of mass destruction, Islamic terrorism and risk of rocketing oil and energy prices, and said all those threats emanated from the Middle East.

“If the world is threatened by the Middle East there is no option but for the world to come to the Middle East,” he said.

In a wide-ranging interview, Mr Halevy said:

PRIME Minister John Howard was a courageous and respected leader whose experience on the international stage was much needed.

“He’s one of the more courageous and one of the more seasoned leaders in the world today.”

SOME Muslim migrants were using religion as an identity card, motivated by international Islamism and not a wish to integrate into societies.

“Their approach is to maintain their culture, religion and ethnic identity parallel to the society in which they have been invited to live.”

IRAN would be emboldened by North Korea’s nuclear debut in its drive for nuclear weapons.

THE Iraq War was necessary to depose an unchecked Saddam Hussein and defeat in Iraq would be a huge blow in the war on terror.

NEITHER Israel or Hezbollah won the recent war in Lebanon but Iran was dealt a strategic defeat.

THE answer to the Palestine conflict lies in recognition of Israel’s right to exist and the need for Palestinians to be given dignity in any settlement.
news.com.au/heraldsun/story/ … 61,00.html[/quote]

If Western countries are suckers enough to get pulled into the endless quagmire of religious war in the Middle East then they deserve what they get.

Pretending that we haven’t already taken sides there and are just innocent bystanders is the con of the millenium.

We need their oil. That makes us involved.

[quote=“spook”]If Western countries are suckers enough to get pulled into the endless quagmire of religious war in the Middle East than they deserve what they get.

Pretending that we haven’t already taken sides there and are just innocent bystanders is the con of the millenium.[/quote]

Let them drink COKE!!

Seriously, Coke is it, baby. :slight_smile: We should be doing what we do best, making money from any situation, good or bad.

[quote=“spook”]If Western countries are suckers enough to get pulled into the endless quagmire of religious war in the Middle East than they deserve what they get.
Pretending that we haven’t already taken sides there and are just innocent bystanders is the con of the millenium.[/quote]spook -
Uhhh…the gist of the mans comments are that its being brought to the “Western” countries.
Not as you posit might occur.

And I think its wise to be on the side of self-preservation.
As to who is “conning” who…well I guess thats your daily “spookism.”

[quote=“jdsmith”][quote=“spook”]If Western countries are suckers enough to get pulled into the endless quagmire of religious war in the Middle East than they deserve what they get.

Pretending that we haven’t already taken sides there and are just innocent bystanders is the con of the millenium.[/quote]

Let them drink COKE!!

Seriously, Coke is it, baby. :slight_smile: We should be doing what we do best, making money from any situation, good or bad.[/quote]

I thought we had done something like that recently by sending aid to Lebanon while sending weapons to Israel.

There was some pundit who was calling the war on terrorism “World War IV”, claiming that the Cold War was WWIII.

I think it’s a crock.

[quote=“TainanCowboy”][quote=“spook”]If Western countries are suckers enough to get pulled into the endless quagmire of religious war in the Middle East than they deserve what they get.
Pretending that we haven’t already taken sides there and are just innocent bystanders is the con of the millenium.[/quote]spook -
Uhhh…the gist of the mans comments are that its being brought to the “Western” countries.
Not as you posit might occur.

And I think its wise to be on the side of self-preservation.
As to who is “conning” who…well I guess thats your daily “spookism.”[/quote]

We supplied the bombs – including the anti-personnel cluster bombs which serve as a daily reminder of our ‘love’ for the people of the Middle East – which just blasted much of Lebanon to smithereens, killing over 1,000 civilians. Pretending that we’re not up to our necks in the killing by choice already is, at best, a monumental self-delusion.

Personally, I like to think of the Crimean War as “World War Zero.”

You guys [i]really[/i] ought to go out and buy a history book or two. Look up the Battle of Yarmuk…636AD. It’s an old war and a long war. If you don’t understand this, you’re just spinning your wheels.

History lessons from members of the ‘Mission Accomplished’ religious cult are a bit ironic, particularly when its historical epitaph will most likely read: “Here lie the latest fools who tried to hustle the East.”

Absolutely correct- too many wimpy defeatocrat liberals not willing to fight and die for the preservation of our Byzantine Way of Life.

[quote=“jdsmith”]Let them drink COKE!!
Seriously, Coke is it, baby. :slight_smile: We should be doing what we do best, making money from any situation, good or bad.[/quote]

Let them drink Mecca Cola, but please do not mix with alcohol.


mecca-cola.com/

beautifulatrocities.com/archives … e_t_1.html

Organisation of Islamic Countries:

Total GNP: roughly 1.2 trillion (2002 figures; maybe 1.5 at most)

Military budgets: about 60 billion (a fair amount of which comes from Western military aid programs)

Nuclear Weapons: estimates from 50-100 (all Pakistani)

Literacy rate: 51%

Western nations:(not including Israel, Japan or South Korea)
Total GNP:Roughly 23 trillion

Military budgets:600 billion plus

Nuclear weapons: US 10,000
France 350
UK- 200
(Israel 200; India 75-110)

Let’s just say WWIII doesn’t seem to be on the same level as I or II.

Ah, but energy to live life and conduct war, where is it?

This is a very unfocused thread.

Labeling a conflict of interests as war is a semantical exercise. Who cares? It’s just language. The word war properly refers to a political relationship that accepts violence as a necessary means to an outcome which two or more nations wish to influence in mutually exclusive ways.

If you want to label a football game as a war, that is acceptable in common usage. If two countries declare war on each other, that is indisputable. If a pundit want to call an amorphous international situation a war, just let him do so. It doesn’t really matter.

Personally, I refuse to call the Iraq Invasion a war because I don’t think it fits the bill. America never declared war and I dislike the broadening of the official use of the term to cover unilateral attacks. I don’t want to buy into the Bush administration’s linguistic propaganda.

In my opinion, World War Three only starts when organized military forces start fighting back against the US. This may be about to happen, but so far I prefer to call it resistance or terrorism depending on the particulars.

But whatever… we still have to deal with people throwing around memes like “war on drugs,” “war on AIDS,” war against terrorism" and the lot. It’s still just exploitation of the propensity for violence that all people (especially men) possess.

Are we winning the semantic conflict of this “war” yet?

Semantics…,IMO the refuge of someone with nothing to say and wanting desperately to say it.

Lets look at another issue that is occurring in this war.
The Unholy Month of Ramadan
Persecution of non-Muslims increases in Iraq.

Why are people supposed to feel the world is facing some new global “warlike” crisis caused by some postulated shift toward this new “Islamofascism” we keep hearing about? Wasn’t this more of an issue when certain Muslim countries actually were attacking Israel?

Why should I care so much about the Iranian president’s rhetoric? Since when was Iran a democratic society? If I were running Iran, I would want nukes too - to head off an unwarranted attack by the US.

Pakistan has had nukes for ages and never used them. I don’t like any country to have nukes, but why should Islamic countries refrain from developing them when the current nuclear powers show no interest in disarmament?

It seems this “war” is being touted only because certain western leaders don’t approve of the leaders of various Muslim countries. I agree, there is terrorism, and much of it perpetrated by Muslims. This hs been going on since the seventies (or is it sixties). What is so different now that we need to trot out a new label, calling it a global war tht threatens us? Why can’t we continue to fight terrorism the way we have been? Is there really a need to ramp it up? Look at the damage that approach is causing - Iraq, Lebanon, spreading hatred of America, reduced chance of Israel becoming accepted as a state by surrounding countries.

The “war” used to be against communism. Terrorism was called a problem. Now that communism is not seen as such a threat, Terrorism has replaced it as the raison d’etre for the Western war machine that makes so much profit for our leaders and their connected friends. I think I smell the endless war that Orwell wrote about.

7 question marks in 5 paragraphs.
Is this Philo 201?

Look up “Caliphate” and see whats happening.