what would be the result of an all out war against islam?

---

Request for Question Clarification by nenna-ga on 24 Aug 2005 10:39 PDT

This is something no one can predict. What are you looking for?

Nenna-GA

---

Clarification of Question by flower1967-ga on 24 Aug 2005 23:58 PDT

An answer. Islamic extremist terrorists seem to be hoping for this
result. I'd like to know what the likely outcome might be.

How many Muslim states are there? How many Muslims are there?

---

Request for Question Clarification by politicalguru-ga on 25 Aug 2005 02:03 PDT

How many Muslim states are there? How many Muslims are there?

According to this site: 
<http://members.tripod.com/arabicpaper/country.html> 
There are 46 Muslim countries. 

There are something between 1 and 1,5 Billion Muslims in the world. 

But, who said that "The War against Terrorism" is an "all out war
against Islam" or that the majority of Muslims in Turkey or in Bosnia
have much to do with Islamic terrorism? You already conclude that such
a war in immanent, and that Muslims would alley together, but the past
has demonstrated, on the one hand, that Muslims fought other Muslims,
and that not all Muslims are unanimous in their attitude towards the
"West", just as not all Westerners support the war.

---

Clarification of Question by flower1967-ga on 25 Aug 2005 02:27 PDT

This is clearly a sensitive subject.  I do not conclude that such a
war is imminent.  However, I believe it is the goal of Islamic
extremists and Islamic terrorists to create such a war.

Why would there be a war against Islam?  This is not the middle ages. 
Perhaps you are confusing terrorists with Muslims.  They are not the
same.  I am sad for you.

Sad for me for asking a question? A question that is on the minds of
most Western heads of state and politicians? Terrorism is not the
threat, my friend. What it represents is the threat.

It is just malcontents that have picked up a few tricks.

The 9/11 'fanatics' were not exactly the flower of Islam
- closer inspection of the UK bunch suggests that they were just ... confused

You have got something of a point with:

>Terrorism is not the
>threat, my friend. What it represents is the threat.

The threat is not Islam, it is something else using Islam as a cover.
- a curious form of alienation

Thanks for your comments. I think the original question I posted is
perfectly legitimate. After all, it is quite clearly what the Islamic
extremist groups hope to achieve - and probably some Western extremist
groups too.

I agree on the 9/11 fanatics. I think it's early days to judge the UK bunch though.

When I said 'terrorism is not the threat', I meant that terrorist
activities can by their very nature achieve nothing more than a gnat's
bite on an elephant's buttock: not very deadly in the scheme of
things, although highly irritating.

By 'what it represents is the threat', I did not mean that Islam is
the threat. Islam after all is a religion of peace, like most others.
However, human history is peppered with religious wars, and they
continue to this day, with horrible consequences.

The threat is that on both sides, Christian/Western and
Islamic/Eastern, ignorance has, for many, already turned into fear;
fear may turn into hatred; and hatred may turn into violence, or
worse, war fever.

As long as our leaders, including Blair and (as much as I have the
man) Bush, keep their heads about them and don't start spewing hate
against Muslims, there is little chance of all out war against Islam. 
If even a putz such as Bush can keep from blaming the entire religion
of Islam, there is hope for everybody.

WWIII

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Witness : Nelson Mandela

I think you'll find that Nelson Mandela was never found guilty of
murder, attempted or otherwise.

@flower1967-ga 

Nelson Mandela was no angel

Twenty-seven years in jail for no reason, without a word of complaint?

I beg to differ.

Mandela was not a Gandhi when he went to jail

- I'll agree that when he came out he was impressive

Why don't we talk tacheless? The only government which would be
capable to start a war in a dimension of WW2 or worse -so let's call
it "WW3"- is the one of the United States. And they started it
already. You just don't know it or feel it... not yet. WW3 looks
different than WW2 and we are in the beginning stage... it starts
first with a police state and then gets worse, slowly slowly, so
people can't really grab it. Everything will be very subliminary. All
for the safety & well being of their citizens, of course. Only
intellectuals know what I am talking about. And at the end you maybe
find out, that the terrorists are no terrorists but highly
intellectual freedom fighters, as phinky questioned (see below)?
Therefore it's pure survival tactics when you just go with the
establishment, otherwise you'll be wiped out and find yourself asap in
guantanamo bay. Just go with the flow and don't put things into
question, because you can't change it anyway. Either stick to the
establishment, let them earn their bucks with Haliburton, with the
Fatherland Security cover-up (Homeland Security) etc., and keep your
mouth shut, or you don't stick to them, but then you are automatically
against them. You guys know who is "them"? Do you?

the answser to this question is in the Quran itself.  The holy book of
Islam.  The Quran states many wars of the past and wars which will
take place int he future.  The Quran is the word of ALLAH.  In the end
it tells us that Islam and the pious people will gain victory over the
evil kuffars.

What if the Christian God is the same God as Allah?

How can two omnipotent Gods exist at the same time?

Acts of violence in the name of God or religion are almost always
unjustifiable in my view.

Extremism is also unacceptable in my view.