Crown Prince Hassan declares current events are a run up to WW3

[FEBA]

BBC Radio 4 25 Mar 2004 Today program interview with CP Hassan

CP "The makings of a third World War are taking place infront of our eyes"

I believe the Crown Prince to be correct in that the Israel problem and the prolonging of it by the US will end in the ultimate conflict. This being the case defence cut backs must be halted NOW.

[Roger the cabin boy]

Not good is it? Have a read of "Total War 2006" by Simon Pearson. It's not exact, but large parts of it are pretty approximate to what is occurring.

Roger Out

[Jackonicko]

I have always thought that the instability resulting from the end of the Cold War (and the end of the USSR) required higher defence spending rather than less.

In Cold War days, nuclear deterrence worked, and relatively small conventional forces were 'big enough' for contingencies and to buy time for negotiation.

So when the Cold War ended what did we do? Encouraged Joe Public to expect a peace dividend and reduced our defence spending accordingly. And just to make sure we were doubly f*cked, we disbanded useful assets like FJ squadrons, did nothing significant to improve rapid deployment and OOA forces and equipment and instead retained irrelvant but glamorous assets like SSBNs and massed 'big armour' units in Germany.

Even if the worst thing that we might face was a repeat of Granby, we need bigger, better equipped forces. And if WW3 is round the corner, then.....

So we're agreed on the need to resolutely discourage further cuts, on this thread, so far.

But what about the other half of the equation raised by FEBA. Surely logic dictates that we should also try to do something about "the Israel problem and the prolonging of it by the USA"?

Oops!

[Paracab]

I will just quickly say that I noticed a recent thread was deleted for 'Israel bashing' - would be shame to lose another potentially interesting thread before it gets off the ground....

[FJJP]

It's regretably only a matter of time before some terrorist organisation gets involved with a nuclear device of some sort - be it a conventional explosive device packed with nuclear waste or a low yield bomb. The God help us, the Middle East will be turned into a stretch of wasteland uninhabitable for tens of thousands of years...

[Unwell_Raptor]

The fundamental flaw in this argument is that to have a world war you need opponents who are at least fairly equal.

There is only one superpower, and that is likely to remain so for the forseeable future.

The obvious Islam v The West split is only relevant to a terrorist threat, not a real world war.

And they can't kill us all.

Unlike the Soviet Union that could have killed a lot of us, a long time ago.

[I was Lucky_B*]

No! This can easily be WW3 if we allow for assymetric warfare. The Us is unbeatable in a conventional war, so fight an unconventional one!

But this is a dirty war, it takes SF, Camp Delta's and lot of courage on behalf of the democracies to fight it. But we have no choice, unfortunatly maybe, just mabe Isreal is right and you have to kill them all!!:confused:

[soddim]

The only positive about a suicide bomber is that there is one less after the event.

Seriously, though, it is only the willingness of suicide attackers that has changed the equation significantly in that it is difficult to defend against. Unless the anti-Israelis get WMDs their attacks will be limited to the sort of terrorist events we have seen already.

We can if we wish blame Israel for wanting to survive as a nation but surely this is their right. We might try to persuade them to get back to negotiation instead of force but it takes at least two opponents to negotiate anything.

I cannot see a WW3 when there is such a significant difference in real military power.

[Captain Sand Dune]

World War 3 started on the 11th of September 2001.

[soddim]

Why pick the twin towers attack date? Why not the earlier attack on the WTC?

The World is not at war - only the terrorists are.

[MSF]

Cut off the head , and an new one is in place before the blood hits the ground.

Do it enough times and the organisation gets a less capable head
to the point where the planning cells cannot plan effectively.

Israel has decided to make CinC Hamas a no notice TDY!

If they can keep collateral damage to a minimum - go for it!

[FEBA]

There's a few issues here which you are not addressing

First one is, do you recognise that the catlyst that may spark WW3 is Israel. If you do, what do you think should be done to prevent it.

Secondly, if you think it's un-prventable, maybe because Washington lacks the political balls to do anything about it, what should be done about the kit inadequacies Navy Army and Air Force, both small and large ?

[Boy_From_Brazil]

World War 3 - The Clash of Civilisations - is well and truly underway. There is barely a country in the world that is untouched by it in some form or another. It is an inescapable fact that Westerners and Western interests are terrorists targets everywhere.

Israel is just another excuse for Islamic militants to blow up more innocent people. If the Israeli/Palestinian issue was resolved overnight, Fundamentalist terrorism would continue in other parts of the world, for a plethora of other excuses.

Even in Brazil, a very peaceful country, there are Al Queda training camps on the border with Argentina and Paraguay. The terrorist tentacles are spreading everywhere.

Get used to it guys, this is going to be a long and very violent war. We have only seen the precursors of it, there is far worse to come and it will be totally unlike WW1 & 2.

BFB

[OFBSLF]

Surely logic dictates that we should also try to do something about "the Israel problem and the prolonging of it by the USA"?And what is it that we should do? Allow the Palestinians to achieve their aim of pushing the Israelis into the sea? If there was an easy answer, someone would have found it already.

Osama Bin Laden and his followers want to take over the world and remake it into a global Islamic state. The Israel/Palestinian issue is just their current excuse. Solve that and they will find another.

[Jackonicko]

Though the Palestine issue may be 'an excuse' for OBL and Al-Q, it is a problem which needs to be addressed on other grounds (what's morally right, for example).

Moreover, it's an issue which can be exploited by Al Q because it arouses enormous passion among a huge proportion of Islamic people (and others). They'd have a job finding 'another excuse' that exerted quite such a pull on popular support.

It's also simplistic and offensive to pretend that the Palestinians want to push Israel into the sea. They may have wanted that once, and Hamas and Islamic Jihad may still want that, but many Palestinians now want no more than a viable state for themselves, preferably based on the 1967 borders.

I quite categorically don't support letting anyone push Israel into the sea, but I would support a forced compromise which either a) gave back enough territory to give the Palestinians a viable state or b) resulted in a secular state to which dispossessed Palestinians had a right of return. Since the latter would mean an end to a religious Jewish homeland state, I would quite understand and support Israel's right to reject it.

But I don't support their total intransigence on the return of land.

[Bubbette]

I believe the Crown Prince to be correct in that the Israel problem and the prolonging of it by the US will end in the ultimate conflict. This being the case defence cut backs must be halted NOW. Not quite sure what you mean by the Israel "problem," so please clarify it for us. And as far as "prolonging of it" don't you think that after 50+ years of existence its Arab Muslim enemies are the problem as they insist on no less than its destruction?

[Smoketoomuch]

Chaps, don't kid yourselves that this has anything to do with Israel - it's a problem all right and it needs sorting out, but it's not the cause of any of the troubles we are facing. The Palestinians have been treated badly by many people, Jordan has much to answer for, and Muslims all over the world have suffered terribly, usually at the hands of other Muslims, but you won't hear any hatred preached against them in your local mosque - that particular honor seems to be reserved for Jews and the west in general.

Also don't kid yourselves that we are fighting a war against terror, or even against al qaeda [whatever that is] - the truth is [tho we are too politically correct to say it], is that we are fighting fundamentalist Islam. The Saudis have been funding extremists for years, they have basically exported a civil war, and we now have a worldwide insurgency. The extremists want to re-establish the Muslim domination of much of the world, under a Taliban style rule. The Madrid train bombers spoke of 'settling old accounts with Crusader Spain', in other words they're looking back to 1492 when the last Muslim stronghold in Spain, fell to the Catholic King Ferdinand. They still haven't forgotten it.

This is much more than a struggle about a bit of land in Israel/Palestine, it's about a fascist expansionist totalitarian creed, similar to Nazism or communism but probably more dangerous.

[Jackonicko]

Only the nutters care about 'Crusaders' and Spain. Only the real fundamentalists care about Western degeneracy and all the rest. But issues like Palestine (and to a lesser extent the 'desecration' of Islam's holy places) provide a focus for much more moderate Moslems, and that plays into the hands of the extremists by giving them mass support or sympathy.

[Amateur Aviator]

Surely a big hand should go to the clerics who talk teenagers/women/camel jockeys (yes, i'm going straight ot hell for that one) into blowing themselves up for the cause. Their powers of persuasion must be as good as Tony Blair's to get the public backing for last year!

On a different note though, how many stupid terrorists do you get? Don't the stupid ones get caught or fail suicude bomber camp, leaving the sharper ones about?

A point to consider

[radarcontrol]

In my estimation, most terrorists fit in to the "stupid" catagory on one level or another.

How stupid do you have to be, to believe that you will achieve martydom and glory in the afterlife if you blow up X many hundreds or thousands of people. Lets face it, it isn't democracy or the peoples of western states which terrorists despise. It is the leaders and their policies. The mass killing in between is simply a means to an end. I cannot think of a better way to get governments to sit up and take notice. I agree with AA, most suicide bombers and the like are the result of religious fanaticism which has completely consumed whatever rationality they once had.

The stupidity, however, lies mainly in an unfounded belief that their actions stand the slightest chance of changing anything (to their benefit and in relation to their goals). All that is achieved by terrorism is an increased determination to "hunt and destroy" those responsible for it. How any terrorist organization can think that their actions are likely to change a situation to their favor is beyond me. After 9/11 the public swarmed to the support of a President who, until the attacks, had been plagued by a mood of general economic dissapointment - clearly displayed by opinion polls. Sure, terrorism spreads fear, but that fear turns in to anger, and anger means that life for the terrorist is going to be made a whole lot harder.

RC

[EJ Thribb]

If we are in the pre-amble to WW3, the immediate question must be, who will be on the opposing sides? It surely isn't going to be conventional forces v conventional forces.

The real problem to the current world situation is that the US seems to believe that there is a conventional military answer to the terrorist threat. However, as the British demonstrated in Northern Ireland, commited terrorists are hard to defeat using purely conventional forces because of the nature of terrorism and how they fight. What does defeat terrorism is to rigidly apply the Rule of Law in a way that all perceive to be impartial. This will then remove their support from the population within which they reside. This is admittedly far harder with international terrorism than against the IRA or the Mau Mau, who work within a known territory, but the principle should still be sound. We also need to work to achieve long term solutions that the international community understands to be as fair as possible. If it is not thought to be fair, someone will keep fighting and these days that means fighting dirty.

For me the real answer is that we need to turn back to the United Nations and prevent the US from undermining their work. The UN was formed for very good reasons post WW2. It is not perfect but it has far more international credibility than the US as it is mostly democratic, with each sovereign nation having a vote. The current world situation is as much a result of the lack of perceived international credibility for the US policy on Iraq than any other factor. After all, had the UN clearly stated that we should go into Iraq I doubt that we would have had a million people marching through London protesting. Once again, the UN may not have all of the solutions but the US policy has probably exacerbated international terrorism, not solved it.

If the international community is serious about achieving a long term solution we would be addressing some of the inequalities in the world and helping those nations whose people are starving or dying prematurely because of lack of resources. If we started building engineering and medical schools in Afghanistan and allowed the people there to become more self sufficient and help themselves, they may turn away from other solutions to their problems. Killing people who feel that they are defending their way of life creates long term problems. If you want proof of this ask yourself why the result of the Battle of the Boyne in 1690 is still relevant to the people of Northern Ireland today!

Lastly, the fact that 15 of the 19 terrorists responsible for destroying the WTC were from Saudi Arabia is still hugely significant. To the young disaffected men of that country there is a basic disconnect between the teachings of the Wahabi strain of Islam and the reality of what they see in their own country. They are told that their religion and beliefs are superior to non-Muslims yet their nation has been unable to defend itself against another arab nation (post the Iran-Iraq War and through the 1990s). Defence of Saudi Arabia has been aided by having large numbers of US forces, who are of course the infidel, based on Muslim territory. What they have been told does not relate to what they see. Their answer seems to be to attack the US and the western way of life. Remembering that the first WTC attack was back in 1993 shortly after the 1991 Gulf War.

This is my understanding and may be an overly simplistic view of a complicated situation. However, the might of the US military and intelligence community have yet to come up with real results on the ground in Iraq and Al Qiada are still active.

[Vage Rot]

You can't negotiate with a terrorist - even if they back down on the one issue another will be just around the corner. Unfortunately, the likes of Hamas and Al-Q maintain middle age grudges and avenge them with modern weapons. When somebody's stated aim is the anhilation of a country (Hamas on Israel) then how do you expect them to negotiate?

No, off with the head and as one previous post said - eventually a less able one will take it's place. It is just unfortunate that the rest of the word doesn't have the political boll0cks of Israel to fight fire with fire.

[Big Unit Specialist]

To all contributors to this forum,

Take a look at the text below - it's one of the reasons why Israel exists as a nation state at all. Read, digest and then comment please.

The Balfour Declaration - a letter to Lord Rothschild from the then Foreigh Secretary of Great Britain, Arthur James Balfour regarding the support for the establishment of a Jewish Homeland.

Foreign Office
November 2nd, 1917

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you. on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet:

His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours,
Arthur James Balfour


So what do you make of that Ppruners?

[Scud-U-Like]

How many times have we heard politicians utter the phrase, "We never negotiate with terrorists", only to find that, behind the scenes, they have been doing exactly that? The hard reality is that terrorism does work and negotiating with terrorist is necessary.

As has been mentioned, the Israeli/Palestinian issue and negative western meddling in the Middle East are huge propaganda and recruiting tools for Islamic fundamentalism and every effort must be directed toward alleviating these.

I would like to hear more senior Muslim clerics condemning suicide bombers. Islamic terrorists must be told by those with any influence over them, their actions are abhorrent to all Muslim teaching and belief. Following the Madrid outrage, Muslims placed a large banner on the Central Mosque condemning the attack. It would be heartening to see more of this. Of course, the same applies across the religious board, so I would expect, for example, the Pope to condemn Irish nationalist terrorism. If a religious leader has the power to ex-communicate the followers of his religion, why not use it on those who are so obviously devoid of morality?

BUS

The Zionists did much scouting for a suitable location for the Jewish homeland. Uganda, Argentina and several offshore islands were even considered. It might have saved a whole lot of trouble if they hadn't chosen Palestine, but, they did and that's something we have to work with. All but the most extreme Arab fundamentalists accept the right of Israel to exist. It's just a case of getting the border right. As the 'new kid on the block' it might help if Israel stopped behaving like it and its border have been around forever.

Or, for a completely off-the-wall idea (but one not without merit), check this out:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/kinsella5.html

[Jackonicko]

Yasser Arafat would probably now regard the Balfour declaration as unexceptionable:

"The establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people" was non-exclusive, and didn't even amount to full statehood. The PLO have already accepted far more.

But whether any Zionist politicians accept such a limited vision of Israel (no mention of the whole of 'biblical Israel' and thatinconvenient rider: "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine") is another matter.

[OFBSLF]

It's also simplistic and offensive to pretend that the Palestinians want to push Israel into the sea. They may have wanted that once, and Hamas and Islamic Jihad may still want that, but many Palestinians now want no more than a viable state for themselves, preferably based on the 1967 borders. And if you believe that, you must truly be naive.

[Jackonicko]

There is no need to hurl facile accusations of naivity.

There are some Palestinians who accept a rump state based only on Gaza and a very limited part of the West Bank, so there are certainly even more who'd happily accept a return to pre-67 borders (including East Jerusalem).

It is, however, probably naive to think that Israel will do anything at all to compromise, and to allow a Palestinian state without being forced to do so.

[Small Spinner]

For me the real answer is that we need to turn back to the United Nations and prevent the US from undermining their work. The UN was formed for very good reasons post WW2. It is not perfect but it has far more international credibility than the US as it is mostly democratic, with each sovereign nation having a vote.

The UN has always been run by the big power brokers like the US, UK, Russia and France. They make sure they get their way by arm twisting, bribery or persuasion. IMO the UN are not credible with respect to representing their individual nation's people.
A bit like Brussels, Westminster etc etc:ok:

[Boy_From_Brazil]

Todays newsworthy WW3 precursors - Uzbekistan, Manilla and London. Thank god two of the plots were thwarted.

BFB

[Ranger One]

Scud-U-Like:

How many times have we heard politicians utter the phrase, "We never negotiate with terrorists", only to find that, behind the scenes, they have been doing exactly that? The hard reality is that terrorism does work and negotiating with terrorist is necessary.

Well there's terrorists and there's terrorists. Yes, you can deal with Paddy - he wants the Brits out, but he'll eventually settle for less, so long as the Prod hegemony is ended. Same with PLO/ETA etc. Clearly-defined objectives that have some arguable basis in reason and rationality. 'One mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter' and so on.

OBL and his ilk are a very different breed of cat. How can you negotiate with someone whose objective is nothing less than to destroy you and your civilisation? You don't negotiate with that, you kill it where you can, and use persuasion, diplomacy and education to address the real or perceived issues everywhere else.

IMHO

R1

[SPIT]

Hi
Jaconico said "ONLY NUTTERS CARE ABOUT THE CRUSADES AND SPAIN" .
What about the Irish saying "IT IS ONLY TRADITION" making referance to Marching and the likes??:confused: :confused:

[ssultana]

Digress -

I don't like the way the current conflicts are compared to the crusades. Perhaps some elements are, but calling it a war between chritianity and islam is nonsense - ok the islamic fundamentalists (e.g al-cocksuck) are religious and so are some americans. However, most of the west is atheist or agnostic. I know alot of people in the UK/ Europe and only a fraction (maybe 5%) of them have some loosley held religious beliefs, no one else cares about that stuff in the 21st century.

[soddim]

Perhaps the similarity between what is happening now and the crusades is limited to the inability of different religions to co-exist. This is certainly not a problem posed by christianity but it does seem that Islam and Judism suffer from it.

What a shame in the 21st century that the events so far back in history are still used as an excuse for human intolerance.

[BillHicksRules]

Soddim,

I would have thought that Tony Drapes would have backed you up on this one.

Cheers

BHR

[Chimbu chuckles]

As far as ETA is concerned I think you will find that their historic reasons for fighting have all, largely, become non issues....they have simply evolved into a 'terrorism for terrorisms sake' group...as did most similar organisations of the past, Bahder Meinhoff etc.

Chuck.