The rising of an Empire and the future invasion of Europe!

[gladius]

Gladius,

I do not have to read the other posts of this thread to understand Muslim military technology.

You should, because I don't think you have a clear picture

1) Iran's potential to create a nuclear bomb is overrated. They need 5-10 years in order to produce a few small variants. These bombs would be smaller than those used at Hiroshima. MAD concepts would not come into play. Remember that the US arsenal includes thousands of deadly hydrogen devices.

What about Pakistan they are Muslim aren't they.They have the Bomb. Or maybe you didn't know that.

This isn't something to be seen from a one country perspective, but from a whole region united under one Empire.

2) Iran's rockets (the Shahab I to III) are complete junk. They have minimal payloads, minimal range and poor defensive capabilities against western anti-missile defence systems. War is in any case far more than just nukes, rockets or tanks. A whole range of issues such as strategy, operational methods, tactics, societal values, etc. come into play.

You don't know EMP is used do you?

They will only need one, and it would be detonated in the upper atmosphere, out of range of any ABM's. And the technology that can be used for this is comparable to V-2 rocket tech, so it doesn't matter if the Shahab III's are crap.

3) MOST IMPORTANT: Iran does not have the industrial infrastructure necessary to produce major weapons systems such as tanks or artillery in large quantities. In order to do so, Iran (and other Muslim countries) will have to industrialize and successfully sell civilian commodities on the world market. They need capacities such as those in the west. Otherwise, a massive rearmament program will bankrupt the Middle East and lead nowhere. How can Iran compete with say Germany in tank or artillery design? The Iranians cannot. The Germans have a proven development infrastructure funded by state expenditures and built on companies whose names include Daimler, etc. Is this German infrastructure going to stop designing new weapons or disappear? Hardly. What about the Americans? Do you know how hard and expensive it is to build a stealth bomber? What about the next generation of robotic weapons systems?

Have you heard of a guy named Saddam Hussien? At one point he did have the 4th largest army in the world. Did they manifacture any of their weapons? NO!

So you don't need manifacturing capability to build a large war machine. Besides Iran does manifacture their own tanks.

They don't need to match the West technologicaly. They have 4 things that will even the odds:
1) Superior Numbers.
2) EMP.
3) Large numbers of Muslims already in Europe.
4) Fanaticism to give their live in exchange for yours.

All of the hypotheses concerning the rise of the Muslim world (or even China) are built on the assumption that the West will remain stagnant, fail to respond over a 20-year period, or even decline.

They are failling right now, within 50 to 100 years the projection is that Europe will be completely assimilated.

The military might may still be there, but the question is will the West have the political will to use it. My feeling is that, not until its too late.

This hypothesis, considering massive American financing of weapons technology, is just stupid. The US spends over $500 billion per year on the military. Do you honestly think that this money will not produce any results? What about the $100 billion spent by Europe? Come on! The West is still in control of modern technological breakthroughs. The Third World is trying to play catch up. At the current rates of development, the West will only widen the breach between the two. What will the Muslim world do to develop a competitive industrial system? Good luck figuring that one out. It will make you a millionaire if you do.

I already gave the example of why they don't have to compete industrialy. So where my million bucks?!

Conclusion: The Muslim world will have to do a lot of praying. Only Allah will be able to alter the current balance of power.

Maybe not Allah, but their will to believe that they someday will conquer the world as in their prophecies.

Do you honestly believe that the west would not develop a countermeasure for the EMP weapon?]

Are there any countermeasure right now? I don't see any.

Do you understand what it will take to do this? It will take an upgrading of everything from top to botton with EMP hardened electronics, electronics which are way more expensive and lagging way behind in the technology of the non-hardened electronics.

Even if there was, it will be primarily restricted to the military the civilian infrastucture would be crippled.

The things you have pointed out has be discused in this thread several times already, I though you would give me soemthing new to think about.

 

[gladius]

Analysis: Moslem forces possess low-tech solutions to high-tech problems that ultimately harass and confuse western forces. 4GW at its best, but it hasn't stopped us in that type of conflict.

But they have in their favor ways to offset this, population, ect. (see previous post)

Analysis: The west, and Americans especially, are too damned stubborn as a whole not to respond until peace and quiet is restored. This bleeding heart liberal thing is largely just on the left coast.

This same left coast is what is taking away the political will to do anything before hand with its political correctness. This is part of what what will take us down this road.

Analysis: We (the democratic Western world) have the technical advantage, and generally the political connections, to fight a successful 4GW conflict. Our limiting factor in America is the resistance to change in warfare. I'm not sure about the rest of the world.

Like I said previsouly this can be offset.

Ollie Garchy (nice pun, by the way) has it exactly right. Look at Chad- they managed to sustain a full scale war for what, six weeks or less against Sudan? When you consider the amount of outdated and nonfunctional warfare material littered across the Mideast, the materiel for warfighting may be there, but it's not in a capacity to serve.

Bottom line: This Moslem Empire may be able to sustain a marginally successful offensive into Europe. However, it will lose momentum quickly and revert into the current fourth generation/ antiterror (note use of prefix anti) that plagues the west anyway. So we're looking at very little change.

This is my point if you read the thread. I never said the Muslims would win.

But they will have the capability to strike a heavy first blow, with the combination of an EMP strike, followed by an invasion and the in-country populous of Muslims already in Europe striking at the same time, this is what will result in millions of Europeans dying.

And Gladius, I'm glad you say that I have politics confused with core values. Politics is the application and defense of core values to obtain a goal and attempt to settle civil dispute. In the case of the Moslems, their politics and core values intertwine, and are both fragmented. That's why we have sectarian killings.

We have our political disagreement here in the US also, but don't you think if we had to we can put that aside and unite against an real enemy to fight him. Your saying the Muslims can't do the same thing?

Oh, yeah, we all have our own little Mahdi- it's called death. It's the way the world goes round, people. There are more attempts at creating a united Muslim state than I'd care to count.

That proves my point exactly, Mulsims have tried creating a united Muslim state before, and they will keep on trying. One of these days it may just succeed.

All it will take is one man. If it were more than that, than I'd say good luck, but thats not the case.

 

[deerslayer]

I hate to burst your bubble, but do you really believe that in the next 15-20 years a unilateral Moslem movement will begin? Islam, as I stated previously, is in effect a political system. "unilateral goals in politics" is a condraction in terms because, regardless of intentions, there will always be ulterior motives of all involved. because of this dysfunctionality and the sectarian split in the religion itself, I cannot foresee this happening.

Also, with EMP, you've taken away your use of armor, so there goes any heavy hitting power you have aside from suicide bombers and kegs of dyomite. We will still have our stockpiles of BTRs, SMAWs, claymores, etc. with which to defend and counter any attack. It's a foolhardy choice with EMP, and is simply not gonna happen. In the words of Leftover Salmon.... "ain't gonna work."

 

[gladius]

I hate to burst your bubble, but do you really believe that in the next 15-20 years a unilateral Moslem movement will begin?

What I believe is not what counts here, its what the Muslims believe, alot of them beleive this is what will happen. And chase are they will make it happen.

And this will not be some unilateral movement, that some conglamoration of nations will all of a sudden do, (if that were the case I would say it may never happen). This is something alot simpler, it with be ONE man charismatic enough and willy enough to make people believe he is their chosen leader, their Mahdi. It will only take one man, that is why the chances of this happening is very likely.

I hate to burst your bubble in that fact you think you know all about what the Muslims may or may not do, but you don't. Right now in Iran they have hotlines set up for people to call in case they sight the Mahdi, this is how serious they are about this.

If a certain set of conditions are met then this very well may happen, and it won't take alot to do so.

Islam, as I stated previously, is in effect a political system. "unilateral goals in politics" is a condraction in terms because, regardless of intentions, there will always be ulterior motives of all involved. because of this dysfunctionality and the sectarian split in the religion itself, I cannot foresee this happening.

You cannot forsee this happening because you don't know human psychology, you think just because you analyze something from your head it has to be true, but thats not always the case.

No matter how disunited a group is, as long as they have core values that they all strongly share and a leader smart or wise enough to appeal to these then they can be united. This goes for any group, throughout history past, present, and future. ...Wasn't this the case with Germany and Hitler, as well as many other examples, is some cases charismatic leaders have held empires together by force of personality alone.

Their basic beleifs in the koran and the Mahdi prophecies which they all share are what can unite them despite politics. The only reason they are not united is because there is no leader charismatic enough to unite them. It all boils down to basic human psychology, if you don't think this is true, then your really not as smart as you think you are and you're maybe thinking too much.

Also, with EMP, you've taken away your use of armor, so there goes any heavy hitting power

Here is an example of you not knowing as much as you think you do.

The old Soviet technology which the Islamic Empire is most likely to adapt and employ was made for EMP in mind. Their tanks used vacuum tubes which were resistant to EMP, rather than circuit boards which was favored by NATO. We laughed at this technology when we first discovered the Soviets were using it, but later found out it was part of EMP hardening.

you have aside from suicide bombers and kegs of dyomite. We will still have our stockpiles of BTRs, SMAWs, claymores, etc. with which to defend and counter any attack. It's a foolhardy choice with EMP, and is simply not gonna happen. In the words of Leftover Salmon.... "ain't gonna work."

Not so foolhardy now ain't it.

 

[deerslayer]

What I believe is not what counts here, its what the Muslims believe, alot of them beleive this is what will happen. And chase are they will make it happen.

You cannot forsee this happening because you don't know human psychology, you think just because you analyze something from your head it has to be true, but thats not always the case.

No matter how disunited a group is, as long as they have core values that they all strongly share and a leader smart or wise enough to appeal to these then they can be united. This goes for any group, throughout history past, present, and future. ...Wasn't this the case with Germany and Hitler, as well as many other examples, is some cases charismatic leaders have held empires together by force of personality alone.

Their basic beleifs in the koran and the Mahdi prophecies which they all share are what can unite them despite politics. The only reason they are not united is because there is no leader charismatic enough to unite them. It all boils down to basic human psychology, if you don't think this is true, then your really not as smart as you think you are and you're maybe thinking too much.

Here is an example of you not knowing too much.

The old Soviet technology which the Islamic Empire is most likely to adapt and employ was made for EMP in mind. Their tanks used vacuum tubes which were resistant to EMP, rather than circuit boards which was favored by NATO. We laughed at this technology when we first discovered the Soviets were using it, but later found out it was part of EMP hardening.

Not so fool hardy now ain't it.

I really don't think we should get into personal insults here, Gladius. Try to stick to straight, no BS analysis and you may prove to be a more charismatic leader than you currently are It is neither kind nor wise to make assumptions on the mental capacities of other human beings.

Because I can see little on the strategic side of the actual argument and topic, I will dissect what you have said in your last post.

1. "Know all about the Muslim religion?" A false assumption- I know only what I have read and can infer from the information I dissect.

2. You say that I cannot foresee this happening because I do not understand basic human psychology. Here's the news- neither can you. We are both making inferences on the information given us.

3. There is a difference between Nazi Germany and a unilateral, fundamentally led pan-Islamic state. Namely, doctrine and ideaology, and the rift thereof. There are conditions under which this invasion can occur, granted.

3a. The Shi'ites and Sunnis can settle their difference throughout the Middle East.

3b. European Muslims continue, until 3a. happens, to express general feelings of malcontent at the EU and the various countries of Europe, thus stoking the fire for an invasion.

3c. This new Muslim coalition can act without bitter sectarian rivalry to create a standing army large enough for invasion.

This is posted in order of importance. Their beliefs may be rooted in the Koran and Mahdi, but the fact remains that the entire divide of their religion is rooted within the author of the Koran and the supposed descendants thereof.

4. Oh, and please try to refrain from double posting :drunkb:

 

[gladius]

I really don't think we should get into personal insults here, Gladius. Try to stick to straight, no BS analysis and you may prove to be a more charismatic leader than you currently are It is neither kind nor wise to make assumptions on the mental capacities of other human beings.

The way you were answering back at my questions you took the insulting haughty tone, by not wanting to burst my bubble, ect. I don't start unless someone does it first. Okay, but enough of that nonsense, back to discussion.

Because I can see little on the strategic side of the actual argument and topic, I will dissect what you have said in your last post.

1. "Know all about the Muslim religion?" A false assumption- I know only what I have read and can infer from the information I dissect.

You were assuming and saying this unified Muslim empire will never happen.

The average Muslims totally believes that it will. This was what I was saying.

I am not Muslim, I don't want this to happen, but I believe it will.

2. You say that I cannot foresee this happening because I do not understand basic human psychology. Here's the news- neither can you. We are both making inferences on the information given us.

I know enough that when people belive in something strongly they will try to making happen.

This is basic human principle. People are motivated by what they believe in. Belief is power. People have are willing to die for beliefs.

Because of belief the chances of this happening are great.

3. There is a difference between Nazi Germany and a unilateral, fundamentally led pan-Islamic state. Namely, doctrine and ideaology, and the rift thereof. There are conditions under which this invasion can occur, granted.

3a. The Shi'ites and Sunnis can settle their difference throughout the Middle East.

But they both believe in the coming of the Mahdi, and they also believe it is he who will settle their differences and unite them. They are waiting for the Mahdi to appear before they can even unite, this is part of their lore.

Not only that but if you can give a divided people a common enemy they will forget about their divisions and be united, just as Hitler did. The Mahdi will do the same.

3b. European Muslims continue, until 3a. happens, to express general feelings of malcontent at the EU and the various countries of Europe, thus stoking the fire for an invasion.

3c. This new Muslim coalition can act without bitter sectarian rivalry to create a standing army large enough for invasion.

This is posted in order of importance. Their beliefs may be rooted in the Koran and Mahdi, but the fact remains that the entire divide of their religion is rooted within the author of the Koran and the supposed descendants thereof.

you could say the same goes for the divide between Catholics and Protestants.

Lets put it this way...

Catholics and Protestants have fought and killed each other in the past, in some parts of the world like Northern Ireland that still goes on. And in alot of places Catholics and Protestants are still divided.

Let's just say, Jesus suddenly came down from heaven and to tells them to unite and tells them stop their fighting. Don't you think they would do it?

The coming of the Mahdi is the Muslim equivalent of what I had described. Now do you get it?

That is why I am saying the possibility of this happening isn't that far off.

And if and when this does happen some 15 to 20 years from now, since you seem like a bright fellow and you if decide to pursue a military career you may be a General by then.

4. Oh, and please try to refrain from double posting :drunkb:

The reason I did that was becuase I wanted you to have your very own space where I could adress you personally, my friend.
:cheers:

 

[deerslayer]

This is just a side note, but what if we took LD- debate conventions into this debate? I'll leave that open to discussion.

I took the offensive in my prior posts simply because of the fact that unilateral actions are never unilateral So sorry to offend.

The near paranoia about the coming of the Mahdi is one of the reasons I see it as a double edged sword. People see Jesus at get on CNN every now and then; there are always skeptics in the world, my friend. Such an announcement would be greeted both ways. You cannot realistically, despite the herd nature of the average human, say that every Muslim will
come acrashing and alooting onto the gates of Europe. Hell, the Nazi party was a unifying structure in Germany (funny how we keep coming back to that) but no clear majority of them were members.

 

[bulldogg]

Deerslayer, I am quite certain you know what you meant to say but your use of so many pronouns leaves me in serious doubt as to your exact meaning.

Would you do this poor sod a favour and clearly delineate your meaning of the above sentences, especially, but not limited to the last one.

 

[Ollie Garchy]

This is just a side note, but what if we took LD- debate conventions into this debate? I'll leave that open to discussion.

I took the offensive in my prior posts simply because of the fact that unilateral actions are never unilateral So sorry to offend.

The near paranoia about the coming of the Mahdi is one of the reasons I see it as a double edged sword. People see Jesus at get on CNN every now and then; there are always skeptics in the world, my friend. Such an announcement would be greeted both ways. You cannot realistically, despite the herd nature of the average human, say that every Muslim will
come acrashing and alooting onto the gates of Europe. Hell, the Nazi party was a unifying structure in Germany (funny how we keep coming back to that) but no clear majority of them were members.

The problem with the Mahdi argument (much like the magical EMP) is that fantasies sometimes seem logical. Deerslayer, how can we argue against this perspective? No evidence seems to suffice. The mere theoretical possiblility of an EMP (every nuke is one as well...and the US have things called nuclear subs and ICBMs) is enough for these guys to weave a magical tale of European decline. Take Germany for example. There are only 3-4 million Turks living here at the moment. I know several personally. Anyone who thinks that they will join a radical Islamic movement en masse, has no knowledge of Turkey or the Turks themselves. In fact, it being Friday, I am going to head down to the local pub and have a pint with a Turk. He will have a laugh about the Madhi...that's for sure.

 

[deerslayer]

Deerslayer, I am quite certain you know what you meant to say but your use of so many pronouns leaves me in serious doubt as to your exact meaning.

Would you do this poor sod a favour and clearly delineate your meaning of the above sentences, especially, but not limited to the last one.

Sorry, I was pressed for time and wasn't paying quite full attention to my meaning.

First, I made the suggestion that we take Lincoln Douglas-style debate into consideration for this kind of thing (if you do not attack it, you must agree, etc). It might prove fun and worthwhile.

Essentially, the theoretical coming of the Mahdi may be a double-edged sword. Have you ever seen anything on CNN about people who proselytize about seeing Christ and how they healed their broken down pickup or something? (that particular one I remember). Generally I take that with a grain of salt. From an outsider's view, it would seem that the paranoia caused by the theoretical appearance of the Mahdi would cause either a total upheaval (as gladius suggests) or minor action with a fair share of skeptics.

Ollie Garchy... that's what I've been trying to say. Not every Muslim is going to get up and throw themselves at Europe. There will always be pacificts, skeptics to the Mahdi, etc.

True, we cannot argue against theory- it is neither prover or disproven. It's even more foolish to argue religious theory, because it will only inflame people in the long run. This is why I've chosen not to directly argue the Mahdi theory, but rather the minor skeptic human reaction and the violent upheaval proposed during the first post of this thread. My argument stands, therefore, (and Ollie Garchy agrees with this point in his last post) that we will not witness every Muslim in the world population attempt to take on Europe as a united Islamic state.

 

[bulldogg]

Thanks.

 

[Mohmar Deathstrike]

I saw no world crusade against the US was going to happen during the Iraq invasion. This was only wishful thinking from people like you. If there was any good possibility of this happening then I would have said it. But did I? NO, no way, not even close. And if you did predict somekind of world crusade against the US (you probably did didn't you) that shows you how flawed your assesment of world dynamics and situations are.

You completely failed to understand my point: What I meant was "Just because a lot of people get angry about something and show it in public, it doesn't mean that they organize militarily and attack a country" and I used the US invasion of Iraq as an example. Furthermore, I think 2 months have passed since those cartoon wars reached their maximum intensity, yet Europe still hasn't been. Sure shows how flawless your assesment of world dynamics and situations are. Psych!

Your comparisons are not even close, its like comparing apples and oranges two different things with different qualities. The reason for this is that you keep assesing this without true knoledge of Muslim psychology. You think, what you think, is what they think. Not even close, not by a long shot.

I never said that.

You are precieving Mulsim political stances and Muslim core values and one and the same, they are not. So voicing one's outrage in protest along with others showed the core value of what most all Muslim adhere to. As long as they have these core value they are never far from unification. All they lack is a leader. How many separate political factions and groups did Germany have during the 1930's before one charismatic leader was able to harness the situation for his total domination.

Apples and oranges come to mind...

Israel will never join the Muslim world. This would be agaist everything the Muslims stand for.

It is in Muslim prophecy that they will destroy Israel and kill all the Jews. I how this helps you to see why there is so much irational trouble in the Middle East. And also why there can never be any lasting peace over there.



China and Russia will help the Islamic Empire and arm it, by selling it massive amounts of weapons in order to tip the balance against the West. However they will later realize that the Islamic empire will also be a threat to them.

It's fun to hypothesize about all kinds of possible futures but one should also take a step back and realize that one is not omniscient.

 

[Mohmar Deathstrike]

I think what he meant is that China can win a war with us on their own soil, but can not win on our terms. You have to remeber, China is a large country, and although such a war would be devastating, if they can keep it away from population centers, the damage could be minimized. Its like the US fighting a war with someone in their own country opposed to say Death Valley (if you are confused by this post me back ).

I think I understand. If war is inevitable for China, they would draw an enemy deep into rural areaas.

Actually Japan has no aircraft carriers currently, atleast none that I am aware of, they used land bases to launch their aircraft.

Yes, I mentioned Aircraft carriers and long range bombers as weapons Japan doesn't have.

But, As Sandy said, the Japanese have modern weapons, just not very many of them by modern standards. When I said reweaponize, I meant start building the amounts to modern standards, which our treaty at the end of WWII stops them from doing.

I see. Until now I thought that Japan's army was as big as a large European one, like France or Britain.

 

[Mohmar Deathstrike]

I made this scenario for 1 reason: Its the only way to procede without US interference. Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Mongolia, and vietnam are not great allies of ours. And even siberia is so underdeveloped so it probably wont anger us. It takes a lot to drag us into a war, and if it does not directly threaten us, then we will not get involved.

Tell me what you think of this.

China conquering Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Mongolia and Vietnam I can swallow. Siberia? Never. It still belongs to the country with the most nuclear warheads in the world.

 

[deerslayer]

You completely failed to understand my point: What I meant was "Just because a lot of people get angry about something and show it in public, it doesn't mean that they organize militarily and attack a country" and I used the US invasion of Iraq as an example. Furthermore, I think 2 months have passed since those cartoon wars reached their maximum intensity, yet Europe still hasn't been. Sure shows how flawless your assesment of world dynamics and situations are. Psych!
I never said that.

Apples and oranges come to mind...

It's fun to hypothesize about all kinds of possible futures but one should also take a step back and realize that one is not omniscient.

Gladius, you're starting to remind me of Ms. Cleo, I mean, this totally certain tone about what's going to happen. You've gone from making inferences on current info to making uncertain assumptions.

 

[zander_0633]

Hahqa!

 

[bulldogg]

Visionaries seldom speak in uncertain terms.

Rock on Gladius.

 

[deerslayer]

Doggone it, bulldogg, you got me there.

 

[bulldogg]

A nice read for Gladius and others who are interested in this topic.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/testimonies/2006/RAND_CT255.pdf

:hide:

 

[gladius]

That was an itneresting read bulldogg, thanks for posting that.

Here is one of the quotes from that study to show you all that this concept of a united Muslim power is not something new that I am making up, it is an idea that is ingrained in Mulsim belief and prophecy.

"...bin Laden’s intentions were three-fold. First, he sought to co-opt these movements’ mostly local agendas and channel their efforts towards the cause of global jihad. Second, he hoped to create a jihadi “critical mass” from these geographically scattered, disparate movements that would one day coalesce into a single, unstoppable force..."

Essentially, the theoretical coming of the Mahdi may be a double-edged sword. Have you ever seen anything on CNN about people who proselytize about seeing Christ and how they healed their broken down pickup or something? (that particular one I remember).

But did Christ show himself physically to all the people, he didn't. That's one guys experience of what he saw. Its not the same thing as someone everyone can see physically and laying down decrees or whatever.

Generally I take that with a grain of salt. From an outsider's view, it would seem that the paranoia caused by the theoretical appearance of the Mahdi would cause either a total upheaval (as gladius suggests) or minor action with a fair share of skeptics.

Yes there will be skeptics even from the Muslims themselves. But if the coming Mahdi where to get past this intial round of skepticism, then the movement will snowball, starting with an upheaval in the Muslim world itself ---either you are with the Mahdi or against him.

Ollie Garchy... that's what I've been trying to say. Not every Muslim is going to get up and throw themselves at Europe. There will always be pacificts, skeptics to the Mahdi, etc.

I pointed that out.

But when Hitler was taking over Germany there where pacificts and skeptics also. You don't need all of them to believe in the Mahdi for him to take over the Muslim world and form an empire, all you need is a radical core will to take extreme measure to make it so (similar to Hilter's rise to power). With the Mahdi prophecies you already have this in place

My argument stands, therefore, (and Ollie Garchy agrees with this point in his last post) that we will not witness every Muslim in the world population attempt to take on Europe as a united Islamic state.

You don't understand do you. Once the Mahdi shows up, the Muslims believe that if you do not follow the Mahdi you will go to hell. This is part of their beliefs.

Beside you don't need all the Muslims to form a united Islamic state willing to invade. How many Germans were Nazis prior or even during WW2?

As for the Muslims living in Europe themselves how many Muslims Turks did Ollie Garchy say were living in Germany? Around 5 million right. Even if 10% decided to cause havoc to help out the invasion (that's a very conservative number for this scenario). That still will equal to 500,000! Half a million Muslims in country within Germany trying their best to kill ordinary Germans and cause as much havoc as posible. So what if they don't all believe, it doesn't matter.

When in history did you have every single person from a population believe in movement for it to happen? Never. All you need is a core of the of the population to take power and the rest will follow.

Hell, the Nazi party was a unifying structure in Germany (funny how we keep coming back to that) but no clear majority of them were members.

Exactly my point. They were not a majority but they still cause a freakin' World War.

You don't need every single Muslim jumping into this, but I think a good majority of them will, those who take their religion seriously.

You completely failed to understand my point: What I meant was "Just because a lot of people get angry about something and show it in public, it doesn't mean that they organize militarily and attack a country" and I used the US invasion of Iraq as an example. Furthermore, I think 2 months have passed since those cartoon wars reached their maximum intensity, yet Europe still hasn't been. Sure shows how flawless your assesment of world dynamics and situations are. Psych!

I never said Europe was going to be invaded because of the cartoon, I was merely pointing out core values that can unify the Muslims depite their different factions.

The fact that you think that I even suggest they will invade because of the cartoon is pretty funny. Again show your lack of comprehension of world dynamics. Psych back to you.

Apples and oranges come to mind...

Thats because you don't understand human pschology. This has been and always will be the same throughout history. Have you ever heard the quote, "History repeats itself"? It repeats itself, because human psychology has always been the same and will react in a mass scale to similar situations in the same way.

It's fun to hypothesize about all kinds of possible futures but one should also take a step back and realize that one is not omniscient.

No one is not, but it helps to know what people believe. Knowing what they believe will help you predict how they will react as situations present themsleves.