Effect of terrorism on Islam in 20 years?

wautd · Post by **wautd** » 2004-09-20 10:31am

Every day you hear some crap about islamic terrorists every day. Islamic countries are also rather silent instead of condemning these cowardly attacks.

Needless to say, it hurts the islamic religion public relations.

How do you it evolve in the next 20 years if this continues to happen (including a major attack say 2 or 3 years like in NY, Madrid or Beslan)

SyntaxVorlon · Post by **SyntaxVorlon** » 2004-09-20 11:23am

Islam is going to face its demons sooner or later. Its going to see a really major conflict eventually, like Iraq or Isreal with US backing going after Saudi Arabia or Iran or Syria. The atrocities that are committed will leave a black mark that will be there for all the world to see and they will have to reform themselves or eat themselves apart. The reformers will come into power and try distance themselves from the old guard, as Germany did after the Nazis fell. They will embrace other political systems as best they can, and they will stop being bastards.

In 20-50 years there might even be a Eurasian Federation of some kind.

Post by **Edi** » 2004-09-20 12:27pm

SyntaxVorlon wrote:Islam is going to face its demons sooner or later. Its going to see a really major conflict eventually, like Iraq or Isreal with US backing going after Saudi Arabia or Iran or Syria. The atrocities that are committed will leave a black mark that will be there for all the world to see and they will have to reform themselves or eat themselves apart. The reformers will come into power and try distance themselves from the old guard, as Germany did after the Nazis fell. They will embrace other political systems as best they can, and they will stop being bastards.

In 20-50 years there might even be a Eurasian Federation of some kind.

That's a load of horseshit. 20 years is a very short time for the kind of far-reaching, deep and total change in the attitude of a whole collection of societies (remember, it's several countries, each with its own issues) and that's just taking into account the Arab countries, I'm leaving the non-Arab Muslims out of the equation for now. Currently there is no incentive for that change, and there is not going to be unless a number of important external factors change significantly. Foremost among these is US foreign policy toward Arab countries, and Arab perception of the US. As long as they have a perceived external foe to focus on, they will not change, because everything is that foe's fault. Even if the US were to change for its part (not going to happen as long as there is oil there), Israel will still serve as that external focus that will maintain the status quo. Things might be different if Israel had chosen another path in the 1990s, but that road was blocked when Rabin died.

Additionally, the Iraq war has had such a radicalizing effect on a great number of Arabs that it is going to take a minimum of one generation and likely more to simply nullify its effects before any change is going to start taking place. Iran took 25 years to get where it is after the revolution, and even now the positive changes are very slow, and might be undone if somebody on any side fucks up too badly.

Terrorism is a symptom of deep problems in the Muslim society, especially Arab societies (it is far less common in e.g. Indonesia and Malaysia, two Far Eastern Muslim countries), and we're not going to see those problems go away anytime soon. I don't expect it to happen during my lifetime.

Edi

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2004-09-20 02:23pm

If terrorism keeps up and keeps increasing in the damage it does in its strikes, then in 20 years it is very possilbe the only references to islam will be history books and a series of very large radioactive craters.

I'm not in the Nuke'em all camp with Shep, but seriously, of all the nuclear powered countries in the world, only Pakistan and NK are not really pissed off at terrorists right now. And Pakistan is only on that list because of some hard liners in the government, there is a fair percentage who are upset agaisnt terrorists there as well.

India and Israel are ready to bomb their neighbors if things get bad enough. America, Russia, and China have all been hit with good sized attacks for years, England and France are in a treaty that if the USA gets nuked by terrorists they will have to go along with.

If things keep going, nukes could come into play to end it.

SyntaxVorlon · Post by **SyntaxVorlon** » 2004-09-20 02:25pm

I would say that the middle east has been a quagmire for western powers for decades now. I'm probably wrong, prognostication being what it is, but a conflict is going to happen eventually, guerrila or otherwise. It's going to force the middle east to take a nice long look into its skeleton closet. That's really the only way for this to get resolved.
I concede that 20 years is too early for a major federation of Europe and asia minor, but 50 years from now a lot of the conflicts in this area are going to either go away or turn into a massive bloodbath, probably both.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-09-20 03:31pm

I don't see the shit hitting the fan really unless a nuke kills U.S. civilians (possibly against military only too). Say New Jersey goes up in a mushroom cloud. I think our response will be generalized nuclear retaliation. The complete destruction of whatever nation was helping or sheltering them.

Post by **Edi** » 2004-09-20 03:43pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:I don't see the shit hitting the fan really unless a nuke kills U.S. civilians (possibly against military only too). Say New Jersey goes up in a mushroom cloud. I think our response will be generalized nuclear retaliation. The complete destruction of whatever nation was helping or sheltering them.

I think you underestimate the threshold for using nukes even in retaliation. I don't see how the US could justify wholesale genocide of civilian populations for the actions of a terrorist group or even an autocratic government that supported them.

Edi

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-09-20 04:42pm

At the very least there would be nuclear weapons used in the ensuing conflict, perhaps not against population centers, but they would be used, and in significant number. No more worrying about conventional bombs being enough for caves.

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2004-09-20 06:37pm

"Illuminatus Primus wrote:
I don't see the shit hitting the fan really unless a nuke kills U.S. civilians (possibly against military only too). Say New Jersey goes up in a mushroom cloud. I think our response will be generalized nuclear retaliation. The complete destruction of whatever nation was helping or sheltering them.

I think you underestimate the threshold for using nukes even in retaliation. I don't see how the US could justify wholesale genocide of civilian populations for the actions of a terrorist group or even an autocratic government that supported them.

Edi"

Nukes are a whole different ball game. MASSIVE disproportionate retaliation has been the US policy since the cold war.
Without MAD, there is just no reason for the US NOT to retaliate in kind 1000 fold.
You saw what 911 brougfht about, and that was just conventional attack.

If the USA was ever nuked by terrorists, you can be you sweet ass that the USA would destroy EVERY nuclear facility known not in the hands of friends or allies. Enemies would be given a SHORT time to surrender ALL nuclear material and start dismantlingdecomissioning ALL known facilities.
The USA might just unilateraly decide that having a nuclear program an act of war, and preemptivly nuke it.

Wait and see what happens to Iran for a trend setting decision. Just today Iran said their nuclear program is nobodies business but theirs. There will be a confrontation, and a resolution within 5 years.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2004-09-20 06:52pm

Fusion and other new energy sources come on line and the Arab world becomes the next Africa. Islam lives on, but the west no longer has to put up with it.

sketerpot · Post by **sketerpot** » 2004-09-20 07:35pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:Fusion and other new energy sources come on line and the Arab world becomes the next Africa. Islam lives on, but the west no longer has to put up with it.

For those of us who aren't sure what you mean by the "next Africa", could you clarify that? And what does fusion have to do with it?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-09-20 07:37pm

sketerpot wrote:
Wicked Pilot wrote:Fusion and other new energy sources come on line and the Arab world becomes the next Africa. Islam lives on, but the west no longer has to put up with it.
For those of us who aren't sure what you mean by the "next Africa", could you clarify that? And what does fusion have to do with it?

As in third world shithole riddled with intercine fighting.

And it's not just fusion so much as any practical alternative to oil for energy. Of course one way or the other that oil going to run out. Then we get to see a real mess in te Middle East.

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2004-09-20 07:45pm

As long as their put their time, money, and energy entirely into attacking the infidel, mindlessly obeying a book written by some guy in the desert centuries ago, and sending their own people to go blow themselves up, they'll just continue falling behind until they fall apart. Even with all the money it has, Saudi Arabia can't start up a decent industrial base to replace revenues from oil when it all dries up. To have industry they need educated people, engineers and managers and people like that. Instead the few people who both are able to get a degree (cut out 50% of the population first, and you all know what I'm talking about) and bother to attain one usually get it in "Islamic philosophy" (memorizing the Koran). Attaway to learn how to operate computers and advanced technology.

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2004-09-20 08:02pm

sketerpot,
Africa is a worthtless imploding shithole. Between AIDS, tribalistic hostilities that include genocide, and a complete lack of any military power worth solving it being interested. Civil war, plauges, and anarchy!
Clear enough?

Africa has one HUGE problem, among all the rest. It has NO resources that make it worth stablising, so so one with the power to effect change cares. Thus rich asshole shakes drive Cadilacs, and the masses suffer, but those actualy RUNNING the country are ok with it.

Without the constant massive input of cash from the west, (from oil) the middle east will implode even faster than Africa, when the well paid foreign experts and technocrats that are actualy RUNNING the important stuff leave the country.
Whatever is left over as far as infrastructure, will decay without qualified maintenence. Just like Africa. It is getting WORSE there with time , not better as time passes. It will get MUCH worse before it gets better.
The masses are ignorant, and CAN'T run things, being ignorant and illiterate. Madrassas don't tech math.
The ruling class, though educated, feels hard work is beneath them, and that's what foriegn workers are for. (Foreign workers can be deported if irksome, speading those stupid ideas like human rights and equality.) The ruling class keeps the masses in ignorance, for fear of revolt, and points the blaming finger at the west as a scapegoat for ALL the ills thery suffer.
This is a formula for holding onto power, until you wreck the system.
The system would have colapsed long ago without large infusions of trained manpower and consumer goods.

Most specificaly, can you think of ONE product or service that the middle east or Africa produces that isn't either a localy grown gourmet item, or a finite resource discovered by imperialistic europeans?

There is only so much copper ore, oil, or diamonds(ect...) in your land, and when it is gone, it is gone for ever.

sketerpot · Post by **sketerpot** » 2004-09-20 09:25pm

Mayabird wrote:As long as their put their time, money, and energy entirely into attacking the infidel, mindlessly obeying a book written by some guy in the desert centuries ago, and sending their own people to go blow themselves up, they'll just continue falling behind until they fall apart. Even with all the money it has, Saudi Arabia can't start up a decent industrial base to replace revenues from oil when it all dries up. To have industry they need educated people, engineers and managers and people like that. Instead the few people who both are able to get a degree (cut out 50% of the population first, and you all know what I'm talking about) and bother to attain one usually get it in "Islamic philosophy" (memorizing the Koran). Attaway to learn how to operate computers and advanced technology.

It's amusing how the people who benefit the most from the evil infidels are often the ones who contribute the least yet complain the most.

It would be wonderful if we could just forget about the middle east and leave them to decay, if we found a replacement for their oil.

Two things, though. First, what would happen in the long run? And what will happen to Africa in the long run? Do they just keep getting worse? Do they bottom out somewhere and stay there? Do they eventually start getting better?

Second, this gives me an idea for foreign aid: cheap tickets out of dying countries. The problems are that it might be hard to get good countries to accept so many immigrants, and it can be hard to get people to leave their homes if they've been raised in a xenophobic culture.

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2004-09-20 09:46pm

sketerpot wrote: Two things, though. First, what would happen in the long run? And what will happen to Africa in the long run? Do they just keep getting worse? Do they bottom out somewhere and stay there? Do they eventually start getting better?

I'd say, especially with southern Africa, it all depends on whether or not they're able to get the AIDS epidemic under some semblance of control. If not, then nothing else can really change anything. They'll be left with a population of orphans fending for themselves, uneducated and impoverished, and some elderly people. When the orphans get old enough to start killing each other and don't have much to do (and can't do much else besides) kill each other...

Since the Arab/Islamic world doesn't have this same level of an AIDS epidemic, the analogy doesn't hold.

Second, this gives me an idea for foreign aid: cheap tickets out of dying countries. The problems are that it might be hard to get good countries to accept so many immigrants, and it can be hard to get people to leave their homes if they've been raised in a xenophobic culture.

It already happens for the most educated portion of many poor countries. It's usually called "The Brain Drain." One of the profs I know was Egyptian. She got an engineering degree some years back, but since women had a much harder time getting any sort of work she moved to the US and now has absolutely no interest of ever going back. And hell, Egypt is a relatively secular country (well, it's not crazy fundamentalist anyway).

This happens with a lot of highly educated people from these countries. Why stay somewhere where they'll be underpaid/unappreciated/discriminated against when they can move somewhere without those issues (or, if with them, to a much lesser extent)? Of course, it impedes the development of those countries since they can't develop without some people with brains, learning, and training keeping things working. But can you really blame the people who leave, though? Why should the good prof be forced to live somewhere where her work would be belittled and ignored because she lacked a penis if she could live somewhere else happy and appreciated?

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2004-09-20 09:58pm

sketerpot wrote:For those of us who aren't sure what you mean by the "next Africa", could you clarify that? And what does fusion have to do with it?

Without oil, they'd be too poor to do anything to any one. They can scream and holler about the west, and be whiney bitches all they want, but we definately won't have to put up with any of their bullshit any more. They can stay within that worthless sand pit and have their glourious Islamic state without any interference from us. It's not as if we would care any more. We could seal that place up, letting into our world only who we want, and allow Allah to sort out the rest.

wautd · Post by **wautd** » 2004-09-21 03:11am

EmperorChrostas the Cruel wrote: Africa has one HUGE problem, among all the rest. It has NO resources that make it worth stablising, so so one with the power to effect change cares. Thus rich asshole shakes drive Cadilacs, and the masses suffer, but those actualy RUNNING the country are ok with it.

Errr... actually Afrika is quite rich in natural recources. Not oil but minerals, diamonds,...

Many dirty wars are fought to get hold of these

sketerpot · Post by **sketerpot** » 2004-09-21 01:51pm

wautd wrote:
EmperorChrostas the Cruel wrote: Africa has one HUGE problem, among all the rest. It has NO resources that make it worth stablising, so so one with the power to effect change cares. Thus rich asshole shakes drive Cadilacs, and the masses suffer, but those actualy RUNNING the country are ok with it.

Errr... actually Afrika is quite rich in natural recources. Not oil but minerals, diamonds,...

Many dirty wars are fought to get hold of these

It would probably be cheaper to invest in synthetic diamonds. Higher quality, and without the bloody wars!

The other minerals, like uranium, are a bit harder to get otherwise---but in the case of uranium, reprocessing can help, and for the others... well, I don't know about those.

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2004-09-21 02:29pm

wautd wrote:
EmperorChrostas the Cruel wrote: Africa has one HUGE problem, among all the rest. It has NO resources that make it worth stablising, so so one with the power to effect change cares. Thus rich asshole shakes drive Cadilacs, and the masses suffer, but those actualy RUNNING the country are ok with it.

Errr... actually Afrika is quite rich in natural recources. Not oil but minerals, diamonds,...

Many dirty wars are fought to get hold of these

yeah, but Africa's special resources(like diamonds), in general, are not as crucial to the Western economy- meaning that diamonds, although valuable, are not valuable enough to make Africa worth the effort of the Powers-that-be to keep stable.

Much of the Arab world is already like Africa in the sense of endless amounts of rising population, and major issues of corruption and despotism- except that oil makes sure that there is a layer of government over it. Without the oil, that layer, in most cases, either goes away or becomes ineffective.

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2004-09-21 02:38pm

Africa is a huge area.
There are plenty of small pockets of rich resources, each with a small tinpot thug running the place, keeping the foreign workers safe, and the money flowing. Many allow foriegn private armies to secure the resource collection and labour from harm. Little Corporate fiefdoms, like Shell in Nigeria.

Small islands of represive safety, in an ocean of trouble and death.

The vast majority of the land is worth less than the trouble to extract any wealth it might contain. Where ever this is, tribal grudges, and individual ambitions for territorial expantion go unchecked, leading to constant war and strife.
Also, the world does not depend on anything coming out of Africa, by volume of total world production, unique availabilty, or very low cost of extraction and high volume.

The easy to plunder stuff is already gone from previous plundering, for the last 300 years.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-09-21 03:52pm

Africa has one HUGE problem, among all the rest. It has NO resources that make it worth stablising, so so one with the power to effect change cares. Thus rich asshole shakes drive Cadilacs, and the masses suffer, but those actualy RUNNING the country are ok with it.

Actually, it's quite rich in resources. It's just that anti-colonialism has
taken firm hold, so the tribes continue to lie cheat and rob each other
blind.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-09-21 05:25pm

Edi wrote:I think you underestimate the threshold for using nukes even in retaliation. I don't see how the US could justify wholesale genocide of civilian populations for the actions of a terrorist group or even an autocratic government that supported them.

US policy is, and remains, massive retaliation. If we discover where that nuke came from (probably by analysis of the fission products) and if it was given to said terrorists (as opposed to having it somehow stolen) that country is going to become a self-lit parking lot. The morality of killing all of those people doesn't even enter the equation.

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2004-09-21 05:37pm

Shep.
The operative word here is "Worth stabilising", meaning the money and blood needed for extraction."
The resources worth exploiting are being done with the blessing of the thugocracy that runs the said country.
Some of these thugs take a greater percentage of the money their country makes for the multination corporation extracting the wealth for them.

Why does everbody see the part about no resources, but miss the part about "worth stabilising", and proceed to chide me about the small concentrated patches of wealth and repressive safety. These places don't NEED much stabilising, and are thus worth exploring. When the local governments gets a big influx of foreign "security" workers, safety for foreign workers is easy to have.The diamonds, oil, Platinum, Copper and whatnot are all in enclaves of stability, in a sea of starving chaos. The enclaves are so much richer than their neighbors, and well being run by power grabbers who fear their predecessor's fate have well armed security forces, which their starving pathetic neighbors are outclassed by.

This is NOT the vast majority of Africa, which is dirt poor, and prone to revolutions, coups, and just plane old greedy power grabs.

Many a time the political climate changed via revolution, and what was once affordable, now became prohibitively expencive due to angry armed indigines folk.
Some countries like Nigeria are semi taken over by corporations like Shell, who own there own private army, and answer only to the highest level of government.(In which they hold much influence on, from the power of their purse, with the very real threat of their own military. They have enough money to finance a revolution towards a more frienldly government if need by. (East India Trading Company anyone?)
Same is true of the diamonds. Run by government regulations, to finance the country.
Same with the Platinum, Chromium, and Copper. The government has a stake in security, to get their cut of multinational cash by milking the resouce in question..