China declares war on ISIS - Polidicks

Well he did say a tiny fraction... It's silly anyway since most of the violence is Muslim vs Muslim. So even if his hypothetical tiny minority did become radicalized the first victims would be other Muslims. [editline]22nd November 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=soulharvester;49163485]If 0.065% of their population is or becomes radical, that's over a million. All I'm saying is that we need to tread carefully.[/QUOTE] Care to provide source for percentage?

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49163488]Well he did say a tiny fraction... It's silly anyway since most of the violence is Muslim vs Muslim. So even if his hypothetical tiny minority did become radicalized the first victims would be other Muslims.[/QUOTE] The problem with that is that they radicalize each other when they do this. edit: I calculated it myself. If it is to be believed that 1.6 Billion people follow the Islamic faith, as is the statistic I see everywhere when I look it up, then multiplying 1,600,000,000 x 0.00065 = 1,040,000 multiplying by 0.00065 translates to 0.065%.

[QUOTE=soulharvester;49163493]The problem with that is that they radicalize each other when they do this.[/QUOTE] You're creating a scenario through extrapolation based on statistics derived from personal opinion. Base your ideas upon actual research. Muslims don't have some inherent psychological trigger that makes them want to bomb shit. The areas you see the majority of these extremists coming from are poor undeveloped nations. Where brainwashing through force,terror, and glamorization of violence is easily applied to great effect. [editline]22nd November 2015[/editline] Hey guys, did you know that if the Christians wanted a new-age crusade. Even a measly [B]1%[/B] would equal 22 [B]MILLION[/B] Christian extremists. Tread carefully, don't want to piss em off.

The percentage of Christians who favor extremism is relatively non-existent compared to their Islamic counterparts. [url]http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/[/url] If even 1% or more of christians thought suicide bombings could often/somtimes be justified, you'd have a point, but they don't. The same is not true of the Islamic population.

[QUOTE=soulharvester;49163548]The percentage of Christians who favor extremism is relatively non-existent compared to their Islamic counterparts. [url]http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/[/url] If even 1% or more of christians thought suicide bombings could often/somtimes be justified, you'd have a point, but they don't. The same is not true of the Islamic population.[/QUOTE] Doesn't 70% of Christian belief think the world is ending soon(tm)? Pretty sure that's extremist for Christians.

[QUOTE=X_Sam;49163557]Doesn't 70% of Christian belief think the world is ending soon(tm)? Pretty sure that's extremist for Christians.[/QUOTE] A. Do you have a source for that? B. If your basis for christian extremists being a threat is that 70% of them think "The world's looking pretty shitty right now, RiP" then I find it hilarious that you're comparing them to Islamic extremists. You're comparing apple juice to anthrax there man.

[QUOTE=soulharvester;49163569]A. Do you have a source for that? B. If your basis for christian extremists being a threat is that 70% of them think "The world's looking pretty shitty right now, RiP" then I find it hilarious that you're comparing them to Islamic extremists. You're comparing apple juice to anthrax there man.[/QUOTE] I'm comparing on extreme view of religion to another. I'm not calling them a threat, I'm saying that their view on their religion is 'extremist'. Taking all the Allah Akhbar out of the Islamists, both sides have a different kind of how you would value extremists. Christians nowadays 'most likely' wouldn't re-do the Crusades.

When I said "extremism" I was referring to extreme relative to western ideals/cultures, not the faith itself. "Moderate" Muslims are extreme relative to "Extremist Christians". [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYAcLudBbhg[/url] You would never see a christian forum get away with this kind of shit at a "peace conference".

you say moderate Muslims compare to extremist Christians? In the US maybe. 'Moderate' Christians in Africa support things we wouldn't dream of supporting. It's not about religion its about individuals and the culture they hail from. That's why we need integration. I was taking to a friend of mine last night, for a few months now I've been fostering this theory that wahhabbi Islam was the cause of the trouble were seeing. I asked him his opinion on it and turns out he is wahhabbi (also moderate as fuck supports women in politics, opposed to any violence, does charity work). He says the issue is from individual preachers interpretations of the Quran and hadiths. edit: This cunt seems to be root of the ideology [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_Qutb[/url]

[QUOTE=proboardslol;49162690]We're not banding together. China has its interests in a stable Africa (no boko haram), and Russia has its interest in propping up assad (bombing the non-ISIS guys we're supporting). Hopefully we can pull it together but don't think that Russia and China aren't going to try to play all these situations to their benefit. If russia agrees to a new secular leader of Syria after assad, we may be able to play ball there, but this is by no means a cooperative mission. It's a free for all to see who can exploit the destabilization to get what they want. [editline]22nd November 2015[/editline] The world is just as fucked up as it was 3 years ago. There are no good guys[/QUOTE] As long as isis and boko are pulverized...

Who knew the plot of C&C Generals would become a reality

[QUOTE=gman003-main;49162444]What if we trick ISIS into claiming the Falklands are theirs? Would that get Argentina into the war?[/QUOTE] Al-Falklandistan?

I think the ironic thing is everyone going to war with ISIS is actually teaching us to unite with each other and maybe that could create a basis for peace?

[QUOTE=Wii60;49162198]who knew it took a terrorist force to unite a bunch of world superpowers[/QUOTE] The will of the Boss is one step closer to become reality.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;49162706]No, there won't be nukes flying left and right, but America, China and Russia have histories of shooting each other when we disagree over who's going to rule what country. Proxy wars. It's just sad. Really sad that history continues to repeat itself.[/QUOTE] Dude, the entire world is uniting against a malicious power that's threatening world peace and stability. WWI didn't have nukes, it was called WWI because much of the [I]world[/I] was involved in a [I]war[/I]. This is pretty much World War-fucking-III, man.

China's interests in the middle east are purely economic, I would suspect. Russia would want to keep powerful allies that can put a chomper down on western-flowing oil lines. The United States is...well whatever our "plan" is. It wouldn't come to blows between us over the middle east, too many of our interests overlap.

The race to see which superpower can smash the most ISIS goatfuckers into the dust is almost on.

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;49164519]Dude, the entire world is uniting against a malicious power that's threatening world peace and stability. WWI didn't have nukes, it was called WWI because much of the [I]world[/I] was involved in a [I]war[/I]. This is pretty much World War-fucking-III, man.[/QUOTE] The entire world uniting against a single opponent isn't a world war. Seven Year's War (sometimes called "World War Zero"): France, the Holy Roman Empire, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Saxony, Abenaki Nation, Mughal Empire vs Great Britain, Prussia, Hanover, Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, Iroquois Confederacy, Portugal, Hesse-Kassel, Schaumburg-Lippe, and numerous colonies WW1: Austria-Hungary, Germany, Ottoman Empire, Bulgaria, and several African rebel groups vs UK, US, Russia, France, Italy, Japan, Belgium, Brazil, Serbia, Montenegro, and a few European rebel groups WW2: Germany, Japan, Italy, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Croatia, Thailand, Finland, Iraq, and several collaborationist governments vs US, USSR, UK, China, France, Poland, Canada, Australia, India, Yugoslavia, Greece, Netherlands, Belgium, New Zealand, South Africa, Norway, Denmark, Luxembourg, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, Cuba, Philippines, Mongolia, and numerous resistance groups Even if you count affiliate groups, though, this "war" is: ISIS, Boko Haram, BIFF, JI, Ansar al-Sharia, Abu Sayyaf, Jund al-Khilafah, the Caucasus Emirates vs Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Nigeria, Niger, Chad, Cameroon, Benin, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, UAE, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, United States, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, UK, Jordan, Morocco, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Lebanon, Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Bosnia, Iran, Russia, Azerbaijan, Kurdistan, the Taliban, al-Quaeda and Hamas plus several more NATO members doing non-military support plus several dozen rebel groups plus China The only two of those two actually hold significant territory are ISIS and Boko Haram. This isn't a world war, this is the world saying "fuck those guys" and then actually doing it.

[QUOTE=gman003-main;49164696]The entire world uniting against a single opponent isn't a world war. Seven Year's War (sometimes called "World War Zero"): France, the Holy Roman Empire, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Saxony, Abenaki Nation, Mughal Empire vs Great Britain, Prussia, Hanover, Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, Iroquois Confederacy, Portugal, Hesse-Kassel, Schaumburg-Lippe, and numerous colonies WW1: Austria-Hungary, Germany, Ottoman Empire, Bulgaria, and several African rebel groups vs UK, US, Russia, France, Italy, Japan, Belgium, Brazil, Serbia, Montenegro, and a few European rebel groups WW2: Germany, Japan, Italy, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Croatia, Thailand, Finland, Iraq, and several collaborationist governments vs US, USSR, UK, China, France, Poland, Canada, Australia, India, Yugoslavia, Greece, Netherlands, Belgium, New Zealand, South Africa, Norway, Denmark, Luxembourg, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, Cuba, Philippines, Mongolia, and numerous resistance groups Even if you count affiliate groups, though, this "war" is: ISIS, Boko Haram, BIFF, JI, Ansar al-Sharia, Abu Sayyaf, Jund al-Khilafah, the Caucasus Emirates vs Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Nigeria, Niger, Chad, Cameroon, Benin, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, UAE, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, United States, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, UK, Jordan, Morocco, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Lebanon, Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Bosnia, Iran, Russia, Azerbaijan, Kurdistan, the Taliban, al-Quaeda and Hamas plus several more NATO members doing non-military support plus several dozen rebel groups plus China The only two of those two actually hold significant territory are ISIS and Boko Haram. This isn't a world war, this is the world saying "fuck those guys" and then actually doing it.[/QUOTE] What set the World Wars apart was the industrialization of war. Hell, Nazi Germany was a faction based in fanaticism, and they built what were essentially murder factories in their reign.

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;49164764]What set the World Wars apart was the industrialization of war. Hell, Nazi Germany was a faction based in fanaticism, and they built what were essentially murder factories in their reign.[/QUOTE] ... so how does that support your position that this is WW3, then? Or does ISIS have giant armaments factories I haven't heard of?

[QUOTE=gman003-main;49164835]... so how does that support your position that this is WW3, then? Or does ISIS have giant armaments factories I haven't heard of?[/QUOTE] Most of the larger forces acting against ISIS right now are highly industrialized, aren't they? Or does my WWII analogy not work because Poland still relied heavily on traditional cavalry, and therefor WWII was not an industrialized war?

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;49164857]Most of the larger forces acting against ISIS right now are highly industrialized, aren't they? Or does my WWII analogy not work because Poland still relied heavily on traditional cavalry, and therefor WWII was not an industrialized war?[/QUOTE] Germany at the start of WW2 didn't have a completely industrialized army. In fact, in 1941 when they invaded Russia, they faced a big fuck up from their part, as they lacked enough trucks and APCs to carry people and stuff behind tanks. Most of their transport force was composed by...tanks. EDIT: Did I say tanks? Oh my, I meant horses. I don't think can't constitute a world war. Even though I agree with your view that basically everyone is at war against ISIS....but ISIS doesn't have the -unlike germany- ability to carry out conventional warfare. And here we come to a question: Should we define what we see as a "world war"? Because evidently by the dialogue here, we still think in terms of "tanks vs airplanes vs APCs vs factories" while ignoring completely the development of terrorism in the last few decades. I would call it a WW3, if ISIS somehow really starts pulling off attacks here and there all the time. Otherwise...it's just another war.

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;49164857]Most of the larger forces acting against ISIS right now are highly industrialized, aren't they? Or does my WWII analogy not work because Poland still relied heavily on traditional cavalry, and therefor WWII was not an industrialized war?[/QUOTE] Both sides in WW2 (and WW1) were heavily industrialized. Some of them weren't but you had the German and Japanese industrial might versus American and Soviet and British factories. If you want to invent some category of "industrialized war", that's probably the logical way to do it. In any case, you're moving the goalposts so blatantly that it's actually a bit funny. First you said "it's a world war because most of the world is involved", and now you're saying it's about the level of industry? By that measure, wouldn't every single post-WW2 conflict involving NATO or the USSR count as what you're calling a "world war"? It seems a bit weird to call the invasion of Panama a "world war", when it was literally US vs Panama, but unless America completely deindustrialized sometime between 1945 and 1989, that fits your criteria.

[QUOTE=gman003-main;49164889]Both sides in WW2 (and WW1) were heavily industrialized. Some of them weren't but you had the German and Japanese industrial might versus American and Soviet and British factories. If you want to invent some category of "industrialized war", that's probably the logical way to do it. In any case, you're moving the goalposts so blatantly that it's actually a bit funny. First you said "it's a world war because most of the world is involved", and now you're saying it's about the level of industry? By that measure, wouldn't every single post-WW2 conflict involving NATO or the USSR count as what you're calling a "world war"? It seems a bit weird to call the invasion of Panama a "world war", when it was literally US vs Panama, but unless America completely deindustrialized sometime between 1945 and 1989, that fits your criteria.[/QUOTE] Then by what standard does a war become a World War? I said that the World Wars were set apart by the amount of industrialization involved, as in mass manufacturing, or a "total war" if you will. The reason I brought up horses is because just because one faction isn't massively industrialized doesn't mean it's not an industrialized war, so long as there's any level of such industry (which the US, Russia, and China have in abundance).

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;49164938]Then by what standard does a war become a World War?[/QUOTE] Personally I'd define it by massive numbers of casualties on a large amount of players across the globe. The western powers simply aren't being threatened or suffering enough casualties to justify calling it a world war, world war implies Total War, which this is not.

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;49164938]Then by what standard does a war become a World War?[/QUOTE] At least three nations on each side of a full-scale cohesive conflict that takes place on at least two continents, where at least one nation on each side is a major world power. US vs UK would not be a world war, because you need more countries US + UK + UAE vs Thailand + Tajikistan + Tanzania would not be a world war, because none of the T* countries are world powers US + UK + UAE vs China + Chad + Chile would be a world war as long as the fighting took place in more than one of those countries. If it was just U* troops fighting Ch* troops in the Andes, it wouldn't count. WW1 and WW2 qualify as world wars under this definition, as would the Seven Year's War, the Napoleonic Wars, and a couple others. The Cold War would not count, because it was not a cohesive conflict. The Korean War (and other wars of that caliber) would not count because it took place just in Asia. I think that definition passes muster with the history books. The wars that are frequently described as "world wars" meet it, but the ones that are clearly not world wars do not.

There's also the matter of the proportionate cost of combat for those involved. The only countries making a proportionally similar contribution to what ISIS is making in the relevant conflicts are Syria, Iraq, and Libya. For everyone else, the cost of actual combat is dwarfed by the cost of things intended to [I]prevent[/I] combat.

[QUOTE=X_Sam;49163557]Doesn't 70% of Christian belief think the world is ending soon(tm)? Pretty sure that's extremist for Christians.[/QUOTE] there have been a few notable doomsday christian sects throughout history, the only one thats still surviving and thriving is mormons and thats because its only a small part of their church

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49163627]That's why we need integration[/QUOTE] Yes, it is extremely important that we successfully integrate them into our cultures when they enter the western world, but that's not happening sufficiently. You can't just dump money and reading material on them and go "integration complete!". Integration takes time and works best when they're distributed widely and forced to interact primarily with people of the culture they're integrating into. " don't be a radical Muslim!" classes would be just as useless as "don't rape your classmate!" Classes. When the EU dumps hundreds or thousands of immigrants/refugees in the same neighborhoods, or towns, like that poor German town which got like 7-8 times their own number of refugees, that's not integration. You're not forcing them to assimilate and accept your culture. Your creating ghettos that don't challenge their previous culture, but breed the kind of radicalism that leads to the attacks happening in Europe. Belgium serves as a prime example of how NOT to deal with refugees, and how to fail at integrating hostile cultures. Also if we were importing tons of African Christians I'd be just as weary of them for similar reasons, because their beliefs and culture would be so conflicting with our own.

[QUOTE=xamllew;49164638]The race to see which superpower can smash the most ISIS goatfuckers into the dust is almost on.[/QUOTE] They should turn it into a televised competition with points and awards.