The rising of an Empire and the future invasion of Europe! - Page 62




 
--
 
May 6th, 2006  
gladius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ollie Garchy
Yes sir.
B**lS**t!

Stop making stuff up thats not true.

If the US is lacking then Europe has even less.

The only EMP protection is largely military and its not complete at that. The civillian infrastucture will be completely affected.

Perhaps you should read the stuff you post, here is an excerpt from that source you posted:

...On a final note, high-altitude EMP does not distinguish between military and civilian systems. Unhardened infrastructure systems, such as commercial power grids, telecommunication networks, as we have discussed before, remain vulnerable to widespread outages and upsets due to high-altitude EMP. While DOD hardens their assets it deems vital, no comparable civilian programs exist. Thus the detonation of one or a few high-altitude nuclear weapons could result in serious problems for the entire U.S. civil and commercial infrastructure...

...As I said earlier, a large laydown over the lower 48 States has a damage expectancy which can be reckoned in trillions of dollars...


...But you are right. As we tested our advanced airborne command posts, the 747's, to make them EMP hard, we found that we had to make very significant investments in order to do that. So that says to take a commercial airplane and make it EMP hard is a major undertaking. They are soft in that sense...

If the US is vunerable, then how much more is Europe. There are military countermeasure, but they are not all encompassing. Don't make up a bunch of baloney that it is.

Mr. BONO. In the situation of a war, if somebody wanted to employ it under those circumstances, like the war in the Middle East, could they pull out EMP and use that as an aggressive weapon or as a defensive weapon to knock out some of the smart stuff that we have?

Dr. SMITH. Ground air bursts also produce electromagnetic pulses, but they are of more limited geographic extent.

Mr. BONO. But that could happen?

Dr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. BONO. That is a possibility?

Dr. SMITH. Yes, sir.


Even top scientist admit it can knock out some of our sophisticated weaponery.

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/cong...as197010_1.htm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ollie Garchy
Bulldogg, you are just feeding the racists the material that they want to consume. The only problem is that this simplistic model of the world does not correspond with what we know of institutional conformism, basic assimilation and very real organizational pressures concerning human thinking or values. Even smaller companies bend the minds of their workers and executives. And immigrants adapt and change. In fact, we all do...on a continual basis. The desire for power, that hard to define word, does not change. Read Galbraith's (God rest his soul) "Anatomy of Power".
Look at what you just stated. "The desire for power, that hard to define word, does not change." If this is correct and it is, since human psychology stays the same, "does not change", then what Bulldogg said is absolutely true. Then history will repeat itself. The Third Reich example is one that closely ties to this.

The Muslims are using what they have now at their disposal to gain as much power in Europe as possible. Since their belief in Islam overides any institutional conformism and basic assimilation. As far as their thinking or values, it is Islam! You try to talk all fancy about this when you don't even understand the basic beliefs behind this.

Are you going to tell me that the cultural and coporate beliefs of Germany supercedes a devouts Muslim's beliefs in Islam itself? Don't try to make me laugh by saying yes.



May 7th, 2006  
Ollie Garchy
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladius

(1) "Stop making stuff up thats not true. If the US is lacking then Europe has even less."

(2) "The only EMP protection is largely military and its not complete at that. The civillian infrastucture will be completely affected."

(3) "Look at what you just stated. "The desire for power, that hard to define word, does not change." If this is correct and it is, since human psychology stays the same, "does not change", then what Bulldogg said is absolutely true."

(4) "The Muslims are using what they have now at their disposal to gain as much power in Europe as possible. Since their belief in Islam overides any institutional conformism and basic assimilation. As far as their thinking or values, it is Islam! You try to talk all fancy about this when you don't even understand the basic beliefs behind this."
Greetings,

(1) What are you talking about? The Muslim world has no countermeasures at all. They are just as open to massive retaliation. In fact, they do not even have a proper military. Think of the Iraq wars. The US troops, and a European coalition is just as potent, kicked them in the butt like they were just a bunch of kids. How do you think an EMP can change MILITARY REALITIES? I would speculate that Germany alone could thwart any Islamic invasion...for the same reasons that the Bundeswehr was considered able to blunt a major Soviet drive in the 1980s. And, the Soviets probably would have used an EMP burst at a certain point. This is old stuff. Why would EMP suddenly work for the Islamic world. If EMP is such a great idea, why did the Soviets fail to attack? Why?

(2) EMP countermeasures are military. Yes they are. That is why the Islamic world would have to manufacture a lot of body bags for their soon-to-be-very-dead martyrs.

(3) The desire for power impacts immigrants. That is, they conform and accept dominant cultural values in order to make a living. Otherwise, they remain poor and powerless. Or are you afraid of unemployed or lower working class immigrants? I am more afraid of the police.

(4) The Muslims are using what they have...yup...nothing plus nothing is still nothing. These countries have the geopolitical power of goat-herders. If the US wants oil, it invades and takes physical control. That sums up Muslim power for me. Oh yes, and then the Muslims throw themselves at the Americans in acts of pure desperation. That is not war. That is just the defininition of futility...or stupidity. That depends on your perspective.

The whole issue is made impossible by European & American retaliation. Both are allies in NATO. This will not change or is there a Mahdi prophecy covering this "slight" problem? The issue of retaliation means that any offensive (and it is impossible to hide these types of prepations...which brings up the issue of Israeli preventive war or nuclear strike) will face the full fury of European/American nuclear power.

With the push of one little red button, Islam would vanish in the fog of history. That is precisely why the Soviets thought twice about the possibilities of an invasion.
May 7th, 2006  
bulldogg
 
 
Yes because there are no Muslims in the US, Canada, the UK... that new Anti-Islamic Superweapon really kicks butt.



--
May 7th, 2006  
WNxRogue
 
 
In Europe (including russia, eastern europe, western europe, northern europe and southern europe) there are a total of 50.9 million muslims (source:http://www.islamicpopulation.com/europe_islam.html), out of 729.7 million people total. That does not seem like a large number when you consider that if people found out that muslims were trying to promote a middle-eastern takeover of their countries they would all go out there and fight it. The muslims, who may or may not be armed (buying 50.9 million AK-47s may be outside of the middle-eastern pay range) would be facing more then 14 to 1 odds, abd thats not even counting their countries militaries.

In America we have an estimated total of 7 million muslims (sry I couldnt find anything more exact; source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/islam.htm), out of 298,444,215 total. There they are facing even greater odds, and even more anti-muslim feelings. They will probably be defeated even faster then the muslims in europe.

Even though muslims in their respective countries might be able to create problems, such as sabotage and bombings, they could not do enough to halt the military capabilites of any one country. They would fail, probably be expelled, and then we would strike at the middle east. In the foreseeable future, the muslim world does not have a ghost of a chance in a world-wide jihad against the western world.
May 7th, 2006  
gladius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by WNxRogue
Even though muslims in their respective countries might be able to create problems, such as sabotage and bombings, they could not do enough to halt the military capabilites of any one country. They would fail, probably be expelled, and then we would strike at the middle east. In the foreseeable future, the muslim world does not have a ghost of a chance in a world-wide jihad against the western world.
Wrong. They will strike in-country AT THE SAME TIME THE INVASION IS OCCURING diverterting nessecary resources from within that country, giving the invaders extra help in fullfing their goals.

And no, they will not be able to halt the military capabilites of any one country. That was never suggested.

And Yes, they do have a chance at world Jihad, or at least in striking Europe. That already has been outlined.

Please read the first post on this thread. You are saying stuff that is not even close to what has been suggested. You need to understand the projected invasion before you comment.
May 7th, 2006  
WNxRogue
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladius
Wrong. They will strike in-country AT THE SAME TIME THE INVASION IS OCCURING diverterting nessecary resources from within that country, giving the invaders extra help in fullfing their goals.

And no, they will not be able to halt the military capabilites of any one country. That was never suggested.

And Yes, they do have a chance at world Jihad, or at least in striking Europe. That already has been outlined.

Please read the first post on this thread. You are saying stuff that is not even close to what has been suggested. You need to understand the projected invasion before you comment.
1. I agree they could divert some resources away from an out-of-country struggle.

2. If they could not halt or significantly retard the military capabilities of a country, then what is the point of meantioning them in the scenario of a middle-eastern attack on the west?

3. Just because you outline how you think they have a chance does not mean that it is correct. You were unable to combat any of my points, and it seems that one of the arguments you did make (2nd point) seems to either weaken or completely contradict another one (1st point).

If you have a reason why I am wrong please say it, dont refer me back to the first post or say that you have outlined why they would win. This is a debate, thus we must automatically assume that you are wrong, unless you succeed to convince us, through arguments, otherwise.

Respectfully,

WNxRogue

Edit: I appologize, I forgot to add this :"3. In-country populous. This is their ace in the hole. With millions of Muslims now living in European countries, the Mahdi will have himself an army of disruptors and saboteurs already in country, the equivalent of possibly several airborne division, enough to take away large amounts of resources necessary for the front lines. What the Ottoman Turks did not have during their bid to conquer Europe back a few centuries ago the Mahdi will have in place.
Think about this for a second, take a European country with a say a population of 5 million Muslims, If the Mahdi were to issue a call for all out Jihad to all Muslims, lets be conservative and say only 10% of this 5 million actively answered the call, that still would equal to 500,000 people in country willing to die in order to kill Westerners! How is any country going to stop 500,000 all at once without have to divert massive resourcess to do so?"

This was from gladius first post, clearly stating that a country would have to divert "massive resources" to combat an internal threat. Since this could not halt or seriously retard an invasion, as you now stated, this point is also moot.
May 7th, 2006  
gladius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ollie Garchy
Greetings,

(1) What are you talking about? The Muslim world has no countermeasures at all. They are just as open to massive retaliation. In fact, they do not even have a proper military. Think of the Iraq wars. The US troops, and a European coalition is just as potent, kicked them in the butt like they were just a bunch of kids. How do you think an EMP can change MILITARY REALITIES? I would speculate that Germany alone could thwart any Islamic invasion...for the same reasons that the Bundeswehr was considered able to blunt a major Soviet drive in the 1980s. And, the Soviets probably would have used an EMP burst at a certain point. This is old stuff. Why would EMP suddenly work for the Islamic world. If EMP is such a great idea, why did the Soviets fail to attack? Why?
The question asked if Europe had all these countermeasures you said; "yes sir". Thats complete BS that you made up.


As far as the Iraq wars. The Iraqi troops were not motivated, this was no Jihad, they were not inavding, the were static in place, they only outnumbered us two to one. Lastly, they were no sabotures sabotaging civilian structures, and or troop supply transport here in the West, if there was the wars would have been totaly different as we know it, just this one factor alone would have made this war totaly different.

As far as the Soviets, go maybe they were smart enough to avoid world war. Because if they used EMP, we would too and collapse their infrastucture which at that time was similar to ours. The fact they didn't attack doesn't matter, who knows what their real reason are. What matrters EMP is in place. Please read the danger of what top officials say it can do. Shall I quote them again. The danger is here, thats what counts.

Beside this whole invasion isn't all about EMP, even without EMP an organized Islamic Empire still has a chance at inading Europe. EMP is just one of many potent resources they can call to on.


Quote:
(2) EMP countermeasures are military. Yes they are. That is why the Islamic world would have to manufacture a lot of body bags for their soon-to-be-very-dead martyrs.
Yes but it will halt the civilian sector long enough for them to bring their numerical superiority to bear. Along with their in-country jihadist.


Quote:
(3) The desire for power impacts immigrants. That is, they conform and accept dominant cultural values in order to make a living. Otherwise, they remain poor and powerless. Or are you afraid of unemployed or lower working class immigrants? I am more afraid of the police.
Haha. The poblem with Europe ia they aren't waiting for these immigrant to assimilate. They are helping and catering to them as is. So why should they conform. They have more power staying in their on enclaves and building mini-societies of a country-within-a-country.

Even so to any devout Muslim making a living will not superceed his religion. He will work and still keep his religion. Which Europe is catering too btw. You have no undestanding of how human beliefs plays apart in peoples lives.

I already showed you through your own quote, in a previous post, how flawed you line of thinking regarding this is.

Quote:
(4) The Muslims are using what they have...yup...nothing plus nothing is still nothing. These countries have the geopolitical power of goat-herders. If the US wants oil, it invades and takes physical control. That sums up Muslim power for me. Oh yes, and then the Muslims throw themselves at the Americans in acts of pure desperation. That is not war. That is just the defininition of futility...or stupidity. That depends on your perspective.
When they start their invasion in some 15 to 20 years you tell they have nothing, and maybe they will believe you and go back.

Right now they have nothing, in 15 years thing can change. Why do you think Iran is trying to develop weapons of all kinds. Is it maybe becuase their president himself believes in this prophecy



Quote:
The whole issue is made impossible by European & American retaliation. Both are allies in NATO. This will not change or is there a Mahdi prophecy covering this "slight" problem? The issue of retaliation means that any offensive (and it is impossible to hide these types of prepations...which brings up the issue of Israeli preventive war or nuclear strike) will face the full fury of European/American nuclear power.

With the push of one little red button, Islam would vanish in the fog of history. That is precisely why the Soviets thought twice about the possibilities of an invasion.
This "slight" problem has already been covered in the first post. Please read it. As with alot of these same questions have been discussed before in this thread, I'm starting to get tired of answering the same questions over and over.

Anyways, in about 15 to 20 years an Islamic empire will have the bomb in decent quantities, they have it now (Pakistan). Even if we could destroy the whole Islamic world, they may still have a slim chance at nuking a handful of our major cities. A choice the West will not allow if they have a chance at beating them conventionaly.

So would you trade nuking the whole Muslim world for say, two of your cities, say Berlin and Hambur, when you still have a chance at beating them conventionaly? Maybe you would if you have the mentality of Saddam Hussien, or even Hilter.
May 7th, 2006  
gladius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by WNxRogue

This was from gladius first post, clearly stating that a country would have to divert "massive resources" to combat an internal threat. Since this could not halt or seriously retard an invasion, as you now stated, this point is also moot.
You said halt and invasion. This is what you said.

Quote:
they could not do enough to halt the military capabilites of any one country
I never said it would "halt" any military, it is as I stated that it would divert massive resources from those units going to the front.

So NO moot point. You need to read a little better. The point stands.

Any diversion of military resources to the front will hinder Western forces.

What if a hundred thousand Muslims started sabotaging stuff here in the US how do you think that will affect our priorities of sending the military to Iraq. It may not stop us but it will make a big difference.

Instead of sending National guard or Reserve troops to Iraq they will have them protect sensitive areas here. Yes it will not halt us, but it will make a big difference in allocating our resources.


[quote=WNxRogue]
2. If they could not halt or significantly retard the military capabilities of a country, then what is the point of meantioning them in the scenario of a middle-eastern attack on the west?[quote]

Read the first post of the thread again, it explains why.

Quote:
3. Just because you outline how you think they have a chance does not mean that it is correct. You were unable to combat any of my points, and it seems that one of the arguments you did make (2nd point) seems to either weaken or completely contradict another one (1st point).
Points combated. they do have a chance.

Quote:
If you have a reason why I am wrong please say it, dont refer me back to the first post or say that you have outlined why they would win. This is a debate, thus we must automatically assume that you are wrong, unless you succeed to convince us, through arguments, otherwise.
They stuff you are saying is nothing new it has been argued here before.

I thinks its silly when people think they are smart and say how this isn't going to work. When they haven't read the very first post on this thread, that outlines what this is about, and how its going to work. And they say stuff that has been clearly outlined there.
May 7th, 2006  
WNxRogue
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladius
As far as the Iraq wars. The Iraqi troops were not motivated, this was no Jihad, they were not inavding, the were static in place, they only outnumbered us two to one. Lastly, they were no sabotures sabotaging civilian structures, and or troop supply transport here in the West, if there was the wars would have been totaly different as we know it, just this one factor alone would have made this war totaly different.
Here is the issue with this:

1. A defending and static army will have the advantage over an invading one, this has been a military truth for hundreds of years, and is still true. So their "static" army should be more effective in defense then attack.

2. In this scenario, the in-country jihadists will be facing 14 to 1 odds, and their military will be facing odds around 2 to 1.

I appologize, I did miss read you post. I though that you mean the jihadists would seriously hinder every countries army, enough to make the war shift in the muslims favor. I still believe they could not make enough of a diffrence to shift the balance tword the muslims, but Im sorry for misreading your post.

I dont think that much of a troop diversion would be necissary. I think that every paramilitary group as well as average citizens would step up to defend the country. There are so many freelancer groups gaurding the mexican border, and im sure that a serious threat to our country like this would bring many more people to their feet with weapons. Maybe we woild have to divert some troops.......say 50,000 men (this might be a few too many).This would probably do nothing to affect the over all war, even if this happened in other countries too (in a much smaller scale, we have the largest muslim population of any country in the western world)
May 7th, 2006  
gladius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by WNxRogue
Here is the issue with this:

1. A defending and static army will have the advantage over an invading one, this has been a military truth for hundreds of years, and is still true. So their "static" army should be more effective in defense then attack.
You might have missed a little thing called Bliztkreig when the offensive forces has most of the advantages.

Quote:
2. In this scenario, the in-country jihadists will be facing 14 to 1 odds,
It doesn't matter, how much damage to the US can 100,000 jihadist (in a population of 7 million Muslims thats less then 2%), alot . How may in the WTC, 19? Only 19? They may or may not do as much damage in proportion to those 19 guys, but it will significantly divert resources. You can not say this will not have a significant impact.


Quote:
and their military will be facing odds around 2 to 1.
Read the first post again. Since when will the West have a an army to equal 200,000,000.

Quote:
I appologize, I did miss read you post. I though that you mean the jihadists would seriously hinder every countries army, enough to make the war shift in the muslims favor. I still believe they could not make enough of a diffrence to shift the balance tword the muslims, so Im sorry for misreading your post.
The the in-country jihadist are just a part in the puzzle that are not the main part, they will merely help out.


Quote:
I dont think that much of a troop diversion would be necissary. I think that every paramilitary group as well as average citizens would step up to defend the country. There are so many freelancer groups gaurding the mexican border, and im sure that a serious threat to our country like this would bring many more people to their feet with weapons. Maybe we woild have to divert some troops.......say 50,000 men (this might be a few too many).This would probably do nothing to affect the over all war, even if this happened in other countries too (in a much smaller scale, we have the largest muslim population of any country in the western world)
We maybe better off here. Europe doesn't have armed groups of citizens (except Switzerland). The invasion will occur in Europe. But if it uccured here in the US it will still affect us significantly, you can't say that it won't.

And are you going to have it organized the first day, no way. It will take at least a few weeks to have it going, in the meantime Army troops will have to do. Think about this situation in Europe at the same time an invasion is occuring.

You still don't understand this do you. The oustide invasion, the in-country jihadist revolt will occur all at the same time.

This will create confusion, chaos, and mayhem, that will help the invaders. This will last a few weeks or maybe acuople of months giving the invaders a foothold into Europe. The in-country jihadist don't have to win merely buy time for the invaders.