The Big Yellow Book

Seeing the World from Both Oculars-- a Bananaslug's Journal


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Why Islamic armies are so lousy...and why it doesn't matter
bigbananaslug
bigbananaslug
There has been an interesting discussion on Baen's Bar about why the Arabic militaries are mostly so terrible. It is an interesting discussion, no doubt, and well worth reading but not something I'm bringing here...

But something was said there that I think is very important, and it was also said in one of the Chicago papers this morning: that is that the Pan Islamic movement is going to be the death of the nationstate.

So it doesn't matter that we can go anywhere in the world and beat the bleep out of any Islamic field army (except the Turks...always excepting the Turks). All they have to do is to wait until the west is distracted. Everything western is a slight against Islam, and the Islamic populations of Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, and probably the United States and Canada are becoming more and more fertile grounds for religious recruiting...and since, for a believer in Islam there is no difference between the state and the religion, suddenly you have a committed fifth column, and it makes logical sense that this is so.

We can, if we have the will to, break the Islamists in the only way possible: make it too personally expensive to be a terrorist.

But the Islamofascists KNOW that all they have to do is wait until a Democrat is elected President of the USA, and then they will win.

They all believe this, the madresseh teach this, and it is quite likely true.

The fact is, there is a communications disconnect of the highest water between what the Islamists are saying and what the elites of the western democracies are willing to believe.

The Islamists have said, publicly, over and over, that they don't want westernism. They don't want western culture. They don't want western technology. They are very happy living in the first half of the 16th century.

Why then? Because in Islamic History, there are two Just Rulers, beside the Prophet himself...Suleiman ibn Dawwud, king of Israel, and Suleiman ibn Selim, Sultan/Caliph ul Islam. Between Suleiman and Suleiman there is only Mohammed, and after Suleiman there is nobody. They are well aware that the absolute height of Islamic civilization is coincident with the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent.

If, in fact, the Islamists do win...and it is an even chance they will, unless the western democracies suddenly develop spines and will, look for the first Caliph of the resurgent Dar ul Islam to take the name of Suleiman. If that Caliph is bin Laden he most certainly will.

The Islamists are the original One Worlders...and they mean it. But it will be their world.

Bananaslug.

  • 1
The only positive thing I can draw from the current situation is that as badly as I believe the West misreads (and therefore fails to understand and effectively deal with) muslim fundementalism, They too misread the West. Overwhelmingly they percieve what we consider decency as weakness. The risk aversion which characterises the present US military, is 'weakness'. Not killing civilians - and therefore allowing them to act as a shield for muslim fundies to commit atrocities from behind is 'weakness'. In their book the weak kowtows. They simply do not get the concept of the line past which 'decency' cannot be pushed. They pay lip service to it, but it's like fifth dimension to them, just as mindless religious fanaticism is to us. I do not think they understand - yet - after the fall of afghanistan, that the worm can turn. Their success is more due to slow erosion than major attacks (seriously). But if they grow impatient and decide on a Beslan or a dirty bomb, I think they will find that the west has a spine, and very little mercy. Risk aversion and consideration for civilians will disappear if that line is crossed.

You may be right, Dave

And in fact I hope you are. I am working on a story set in the year 1463 after the Hejira...that's something like 2045 AD. It takes place in Islamic Chicago, and writing it is scaring the bleep out of me, because the scenario is just too real for any meaningful comfort.

Bananaslug.

Re: You may be right, Dave

I hope I am too... Look, just because I am what I am I've ended up in places with humans in life threatening spots - in the army, then as climber and mountain rescue, and ofcourse at se as a fisheries scientist. Probably more than my fair share of seeing how people react in extreme, unusual circumstances. What I have seen there - and if you think of 9/11 and those guys on flight that charged the terrs down... funds my belief that the West is full of xerophytic plants struggling to survive in a well watered garden. They actually look pretty sickly... until the real sh*t hits the fan. Then the most ordinary seeming people do the extraordinary. And it is almost always the ordinary guys, who prove that for the long-haul tough going they are damn near unstoppable. The braggarts and loudmouths alway woos out after a short brief showing. Think about it: our culture selected for fighters who just wouldn't quit. You either ended up dead - or breeding. The rifs on the other hand selected quitters. yep. If you surrendered and joined them you got to survive and breed. It in my opinion it colors their whole world view.

I used to be more afraid they might win. Now I'm not. I find I believe that if we get that (temporary) result from electing a Democrat, that it won't be long at all before we quit electing Democrats. They could be out of power for 40 years until they reinvent themselves into something that won't compromise national security.

I'm not sure why I believe that. It's one of those things I just know in my heart---one of those hunches I'm sure is the right answer but I haven't sorted out into reasoning yet.

I distinguish this from substituting emotion for reason. I have these hunches all the time. When I was a kid, I had them all the time with math---I'd look at a problem, a number would pop into my head, I'd work the problem step by step, and the "hunch" number would be right.

Usually when I get these hunches now, it takes a few days to a few weeks for the reasons that are subconsiously driving my gut to shake out in my head.

Sometimes the hunch doesn't shake out, or something shakes out "wrong" and doesn't fit, and I change my mind. Usually this kind of hunch shakes out right.

My hunch is that we are still, at heart, the same people that thought the only good Indian was a dead Indian and the same people that dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We have the vices of our virtues and the virtues of our vices.

I think the Muslims are like a little yappy dog in the same cage, teasing a bengal tiger. We're neither particularly hungry nor particularly annoyed, but eventually the little dog is going to annoy us to the point that we'll snap him in half with one bite.

The reason I'm afraid of us electing Democrats to the Presidency is that I'm terrified of what they'd do. Republicans get mad cold, and strategically. Democrats think Republicans are warmongers and think of themselves as peaceful. That's dangerous, because they're still Americans and they mistake their own natures, I think.

I'm afraid that if a Democrat is President when the Islamists hit us with a WMD attack that does serious damage, that that Democrat will launch across the board in a fit of rage.

It's always the laid back, mild mannered, calm, long-suffering types that when they get mad they go up like a volcano.

American Democrats may ape the French, but they are not French. Democrats have an enormous capacity for going off in a rage and thinking they're right, dammit.

That scares the crap out of me.

Julie

Sorry, I rambled.

I think Democrat Presidents would be most likely to give away the store---unless America is seriously WMD attacked while one of them is in office.

If there was a major WMD attack while a Democrat is President, I'm afraid the reaction could be like Yellowstone going off. They're so they're peaceful that then when they're not they're absolutely convinced they're right.

I think the way we should try to beat Islam is to keep beating it down, measuredly, until some other religion grows up in its territory and supplants it--which could take a millenium or more.

The only other choice is the zero option. I'd rather we suppress them for a millenium and try to outwait them than that we just go ahead and kill a billion people. I think those are the only two conditions of victory for the other five billion people on this planet.

The Koran itself is an unsolvable problem. I've read it. Islam cannot co-exist with anything else in the world over the long term, because Islamofascism *is* what you get if you read the Koran and follow it without cherry-picking verses, IMO.

Christianity was solvable, because you have to cherry-pick verses to justify holy wars and inquisitions. Islam is just the opposite case. Tragically.

A billion people.

Religions have been supplanted before by new ones that sprouted seemingly from nowhere, even when the powers that be were completely murderously opposed to the new religion.

I think a billion people make it worth trying to outwait them. Their religion is absolutely inimical to modern science, technology, and economics. It's obsolete, and ossified. It's totalitarian, and humanity at large has developed better methods of competing with each other than Islam can keep up with.

They're like a Norman Bates edition of the Amish.

I believe time is on our side and we can afford to try to outwait them.

I also believe time will only make us more capable of killing them far faster than they can kill us, to the zero option point, despite disparate birth rates.

  • 1
?

Log in