Yet another Alternative TW2K Timeline

[natehale1971]

one of the biggest reasons i felt that keeping the DDR and BRD seperate is that they had developed two distinct national IDs. and even today, there are those in Germany who felt that the way unification happned in the 90s was just to lopsided and the West is still sending alot of money into the East to bring it up to western standards. And since the 2300ad future of the T2k universe stated that post war Germany was divided into five states just didn't make that much sense (especially since all that heavy weapons and equipment of USEUROCOM was left to the Germans giving them the paridy to have stood up to the French occupying the Rhineland). But hell, alot of what they didn't really didn't make since unless you where a wargamer. it's why we used the fact we RPed T2k until the 2050s with our PCs having become major shapers of the post-Twilight world, and incorporated that into the 2300ad universe. but that's a totally seperate story.

The Sino-Soviet Border War that started all the fighting in the Far East would have been the prelude to the fighting in Central Asia... basicly the Jihadist start a war between the USSR and PRC, to give them the 'cover' they would need to preform a coup that would allow them to create a massive Central Asian Islamic republic. Hell, it could have been bankrolled by Osama with the help of Iran and other really wealthy Jihadists. And it could have even gotten the support of Indonesia if done right.

[sglancy12]

The Sino-Soviet Border War that started all the fighting in the Far East would have been the prelude to the fighting in Central Asia... basicly the Jihadist start a war between the USSR and PRC, to give them the 'cover' they would need to preform a coup that would allow them to create a massive Central Asian Islamic republic. Hell, it could have been bankrolled by Osama with the help of Iran and other really wealthy Jihadists. And it could have even gotten the support of Indonesia if done right.

You mentioned Coyle's Trial by Fire, where drug lords provoke an American intervention in a Mexican military coup in order to destabilize the new regime. That's based on Pacho Villa provoking the American Expeditionary Force's deployment into Mexico to destabilize the Carranza government back in 1916.

It's not a bad idea, but, the point I'm trying to drive home with this alternative Twilight War is that the USSR and the PRC do not engage in a full-contact war. I just don't see the USSR being able to hold out during a 5 year slide into anarchy if they are fighting the remnants of NATO, the USA, the PRC, Japan, and an Islamic uprising all at the same time. For a long ugly (mostly conventional) war of attrition that grinds every combatant back to the 19th century, then I think you need the PRC and the USSR both fighting against the West.

Maybe the Jihadists can provoke a war, or at least a border incident or two, but when the USSR and the PRC figure out they've been played for fools they bring it to a close. I just can't imagine that a Sino-Soviet war could drag on for as long as the canon imagines, especially with a war in Europe and the Middle East at the same time. The USSR would have had to sue for peace or use their nuclear weapons sooner and in greater numbers. So, in my timeline the Jihadists replace the PRC as the grinding war in the USSR's backfield that prevents them from having overwhelming force to bear on Western Europe.


A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing

[ChalkLine]

. . . In my alternative timeline, radical Islam (or Jihadism as I like to call it) . . .

Just a technical note; the term 'Jihad' means 'struggle' or 'striving' and is a holy state. For acts of terrorism or religious fanatacism, acts that are patently un-Islamic in the view of most Muslims, the proper term would probably be 'Hirabah'. Another term would be 'Fasad', or 'war crime', and terrorists should probably be referred to as 'Fasadis'.

As you are a publisher, I thought I'd take the liberty of pointing it to you, because I can understand that points like that would probably appeal to a wider audience. In my inarticulate way I'm trying to be helpful

[pmulcahy11b]

Just a technical note; the term 'Jihad' means 'struggle' or 'striving' and is a holy state. For acts of terrorism or religious fanatacism, acts that are patently un-Islamic in the view of most Muslims, the proper term would probably be 'Hirabah'. Another term would be 'Fasad', or 'war crime', and terrorists should probably be referred to as 'Fasadis'.

As you are a publisher, I thought I'd take the liberty of pointing it to you, because I can understand that points like that would probably appeal to a wider audience. In my inarticulate way I'm trying to be helpful

A friend of mine is part of a Jordanian family who owns three Shell stations in the area where I live. He goes by the name "Mike;" quite frankly, my American mouth can't properly pronounce his real name. I asked him several years ago if anyone was giving him or his family trouble because they were from the Middle East.

We were talking about Al-Qaida, and he told me, "Those people are not Muslims. They are simply evil, because they use Islam to trick people." You'll find that's the outlook of 99.9% of Muslims in this world -- they abhor what terrorists are doing in the name of Allah.

[ChalkLine]

A friend of mine is part of a Jordanian family who owns three Shell stations in the area where I live. He goes by the name "Mike;" quite frankly, my American mouth can't properly pronounce his real name. I asked him several years ago if anyone was giving him or his family trouble because they were from the Middle East.

We were talking about Al-Qaida, and he told me, "Those people are not Muslims. They are simply evil, because they use Islam to trick people." You'll find that's the outlook of 99.9% of Muslims in this world -- they abhor what terrorists are doing in the name of Allah.

The big problem with the term 'Jihadi' is that it means something like 'spiritual' or 'holy exemplar'. Naming a terrorist that, like calling a PIRA bomber a 'saint', is offensive to 99.9% of their co religionists and appealing to the other 0.1% and we don't want to appeal to those bastards.

[Mohoender]

I'll add one thing.

From my understanding and from the explanation of several Arabic friends "Jihad" cannot be launched on christians and jews. These two religions are to be considered sister religions (although wrong in their final outcom and broad understanding) and should be respected. Jihad is used against Barbarians (Bhudists, Hinduists, Annimists of all sorts...)

[Legbreaker]

I spent two loooooong weeks in a small car with a rabid islamic fanatic.
As I'm an atheist to begin with, it wasn't what I would call a "pleasant" experience.

While I'm not about to go into details and potentially insult all and sundry, I will say that I was left with no doubt that his brand of islam was all about taking over the world by either force or trickery.

Guess which one they prefered....

[Targan]

I spent two loooooong weeks in a small car with a rabid islamic fanatic.

I'd love to hear the story one day about how that came about. I'm an athiest too. How did you avoid coming to blows with this person

[pmulcahy11b]

I'd love to hear the story one day about how that came about. I'm an athiest too. How did you avoid coming to blows with this person

Gee, I am too. (Lots of atheists on this board) As far as the religious lunatics one finds in this country, there's a quote from Captain Jean-Luc Piccard that applies. When things were going nuts on his ship in one episode, he started laughing like hell and said, "Sometimes, you just have to bow to the absurd."

It's kind of like dealing with officers who are too full of themselves -- just let them make fools of themselves. (And perhaps help them make fools of themselves if possible...)

I remember one time, though, an evangelist came to my door, and I managed to trick him into admitting that God was a flim-flam artist...

[sglancy12]

Just a technical note; the term 'Jihad' means 'struggle' or 'striving' and is a holy state. For acts of terrorism or religious fanatacism, acts that are patently un-Islamic in the view of most Muslims, the proper term would probably be 'Hirabah'. Another term would be 'Fasad', or 'war crime', and terrorists should probably be referred to as 'Fasadis'.

As you are a publisher, I thought I'd take the liberty of pointing it to you, because I can understand that points like that would probably appeal to a wider audience. In my inarticulate way I'm trying to be helpful

Calling them "Jihadists" is not my attempt to assign an Arabic term to accurately describe how reprehensible I think they are. If that were the case I'd try and find the Arabic term for "death-worshiping fuck-tard."

I call them Jihadists because, as a group, those who advocate terrorism to achieve the goal of a reborn Caliphate, have hijacked the term Jihad. In their own propaganda, Jihad is conflated to mean violence against any and all infidels, as well as against any Muslims who disagree with the terrorists' (usually Wahabbist) vision of Islam. Nearly all these terrorist groups have elevated Jihad as the single most important activity a Muslim can perform, more important the other six pillars of Islam because to engage in Jihad means getting a pass on violating all the other rules of Islam and forgiveness for all your sins.

In this country, there have been a number of attempts by the media to label this enemy. They've been called "Islamo-fascists" and "Islamists," but I am not satisfied with those labels. Their philosophy has less to do with Islam that it does with violence. And Jihad, I'm sorry to say, is the single most violent aspect of Islam.

Sure, there is some debate over whether Jihad is supposed to mean some sort of "spiritual" struggle against un-Islamic thoughts and deeds, rather than a martial struggle against non-Muslims, but I believe this is historical revisionism. For centuries the Uma was perfectly comfortable with the term Jihad having the meaning of "holy war." As for what defines a "holy war," I'll leave that for another argument.

So, I remain comfortable calling these fanatics and murderers Jihadists because they push the idea that Muslims who engage in Jihad are better than Muslims who do not, and therefore should have a greater place in Islamic society. I agree, however, that their philosophy is a perversion of Islam.

However, I do not want this thread to disintegrate into a back and forth about the pros and cons of Islam. Can we just stick to ripping the shit out of the historical and political improbabilities of my timeline and gazetteer


A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing

[sglancy12]

The big problem with the term 'Jihadi' is that it means something like 'spiritual' or 'holy exemplar'. Naming a terrorist that, like calling a PIRA bomber a 'saint', is offensive to 99.9% of their co religionists and appealing to the other 0.1% and we don't want to appeal to those bastards.

That's a better argument against using the term than your first suggestion. Nevertheless, I'll stick with my terminology.

[natehale1971]

You mentioned Coyle's Trial by Fire, where drug lords provoke an American intervention in a Mexican military coup in order to destabilize the new regime. That's based on Pacho Villa provoking the American Expeditionary Force's deployment into Mexico to destabilize the Carranza government back in 1916.

It's not a bad idea, but, the point I'm trying to drive home with this alternative Twilight War is that the USSR and the PRC do not engage in a full-contact war. I just don't see the USSR being able to hold out during a 5 year slide into anarchy if they are fighting the remnants of NATO, the USA, the PRC, Japan, and an Islamic uprising all at the same time. For a long ugly (mostly conventional) war of attrition that grinds every combatant back to the 19th century, then I think you need the PRC and the USSR both fighting against the West.

Maybe the Jihadists can provoke a war, or at least a border incident or two, but when the USSR and the PRC figure out they've been played for fools they bring it to a close. I just can't imagine that a Sino-Soviet war could drag on for as long as the canon imagines, especially with a war in Europe and the Middle East at the same time. The USSR would have had to sue for peace or use their nuclear weapons sooner and in greater numbers. So, in my timeline the Jihadists replace the PRC as the grinding war in the USSR's backfield that prevents them from having overwhelming force to bear on Western Europe.

A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing

Very true... but a short war (less than a year) between the USSR/PRC could acutally strengthen the bond between the two states fighting against the attempt to create an Islamic CAR. especially if you have the Western support for the PRC providing modern military hardware that could easily be 'shared' with the USSR after they both join forces to deal with the formation of the Islamic CAR.

[natehale1971]

I'll add one thing.

From my understanding and from the explanation of several Arabic friends "Jihad" cannot be launched on christians and jews. These two religions are to be considered sister religions (although wrong in their final outcom and broad understanding) and should be respected. Jihad is used against Barbarians (Bhudists, Hinduists, Annimists of all sorts...)

Christians and Jews are called the "Children of the book" and are suppose to be brought over to Islam through example. Those religions that are not 'infidels' or barbarians are those with a single God and a written 'word'... i can't remember the list of religions and their status off-hand. i use to have it written down somewhere, but can't find it now.

[Legbreaker]

How did you avoid coming to blows with this person

They were armed.

I was not.

[Targan]

They were armed.

I was not.

Oh yeah, this just gets more and more interesting. You must relate this story to me some time.